The rules are silly to be honest. If you racially abuse somebody, it is obvious you're abusing him/her , so is there really any need to use one rule for abuse and one for racial abuse? If somebody is convicted of racial abuse, then say E3(2) eight game ban minimum. No need to find them guilty of breaching E3(1) also. Having E3(1) in there has just opened a can of worms, whereby Evra has openly admitted to the FA that he was in breach of this rule but no action was taken. Whereas Suarez has been convicted on this rule, without evidence to suggest he even abused Evra, let alone racially abused him.
It seems to me that E3(1) is not being implemented and therefore has no point, other than to increase E3(2), which is pointless. I can understand E3(1) not being implemented as it would be ridiculous, as it would be a four game ban every game played. However if you're standing infront of a supposedly independent panel and professing your guilt, then surely, the FA really have no other choice, considering the rule and the banning of a rival playing falling foul of the same rule, with considerably less evidence.
It seems to me that E3(1) is not being implemented and therefore has no point, other than to increase E3(2), which is pointless.
--------------------
That seems the case to me, and like you, I also think that is pointless. I also think you have a point when you say about it being ridiculous to implement E3(1) - but then that means that it's a redundant rule, again rendering it pointless.
That is, it is only ever a rule that is implemented when a complaint is made. Thus the rules themselves in this respect are not blanket regulations, but circumstantial, reactionary, and perhaps worst of all, irregular. The intent of the rule should be to wipe out the offence from the game, but that is not how these particular rulings are operating. That much is obvious. And as such, it makes the rules themselves problematic and thus deserving of criticism.
Nowhere is this more observed that in the Suarez-Evra case. And for that reason I fully understand why Liverpool - the club, the player, and the fans - would feel aggrieved.
And perhaps above all else, the players themselves have a responsibility to adhere to the rules of the game. If they don't, then any breach should be reprimanded, irrespective of whether that results in players getting retrospective bans every weekend. Either that, or the rules themselves need changing or omitting altogether.
Which is the better option? And in regards to racism itself, the question has to be asked - especially given how serious this country regards racism to be - why is it not a stand-alone rule within the game? Why is it a rule that can only ever be implemented as a side-step to another rule that itself is rarely ever implemented?
Excellent article Ripley. The problem football fans have with your article is that it goes well beyond their "football world" imo the different levels of racism will never be overcome. All races living in this world will never agree to get along, paradise, utopia, w.e. will never happen. There will always be love and the opposite hate.
Which is the better option?
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option. However the FA likes to have these rules so that if they DO ever need to use them, they will, as evidenced by the Rooney ban for swearing.
Racial abuse should have it's own rule, it should be clear in what constitutes abuse. It should also be made available to each player. Of course players shouldn't put themselves in that position that the FA have to decide but if they do, the rules should be clear.
Throughout the football rule book there are rules which aren't implemented so as a whole, it needs looked at and amended. It needs to be decided to implement these rules or get rid of them. No more confusion, as this confusion can cause a player to be branded for his career.
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option
------------------------
I disagree. That, in my opinion, would be the worst option. I would rather see the FA have the balls (excuse the pun) to implement their own rules much more frequently. Or even better than that, have players adhere to the rules much more frequently so that the FA don't have to hand out the punishments that the current rules stipulate.
I also don't agree that racial abuse should have it's own rule. At the very least it shouldn't be separated from sexist or homophobic abuse. But a distinction between other forms of abuse clearly needs to be made - even though I personally am of the opinion that abuse is abuse is abuse. My point, which I suspect is also yours, however is that such abuse shouldn't have to rely on another rule being breached before it can be implemented. Which is clearly the way the rules work at this moment in time.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 days, 16 hours ago
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option
------------------------
I disagree. That, in my opinion, would be the worst option. I would rather see the FA have the balls (excuse the pun) to implement their own rules much more frequently. Or even better than that, have players adhere to the rules much more frequently so that the FA don't have to hand out the punishments that the current rules stipulate.
I also don't agree that racial abuse should have it's own rule. At the very least it shouldn't be separated from sexist or homophobic abuse. But a distinction between other forms of abuse clearly needs to be made - even though I personally am of the opinion that abuse is abuse is abuse. My point, which I suspect is also yours, however is that such abuse shouldn't have to rely on another rule being breached before it can be implemented. Which is clearly the way the rules work at this moment in time.
---------------------------------------------------
I believe it would be impossible to implement E3(1) as it will happen ten times a game and will give the FA work to do, which they don't like. Also to prove it, is close to impossible also. So for me it would be one big joke and one more reason to have contempt for the FA.
I agree that rules should be standalone and one shouldn't have to come in to play, so as the other is activated. However I don't like the idea that 'Player A' can abuse 'Player B's' hair colour, sister, mother and anything else, abuse him the whole game but as soon as 'Player B' turns around and abuses the colour of a 'Player A's' skin, ' Player B' is the one punished. So for me it might be an idea to put all abuse in the same bracket and implement it. I do however feel this would be close to impossible and that is why the FA have E(3) 1 sitting there, so they can use it, if and when they please, as in the Suarez case.
Do we put microphones on the players next? How far do we take this?
Sign in if you want to comment
Racism - rule E3 (1) and E3 (2)
Page 2 of 2
posted on 17/2/12
The rules are silly to be honest. If you racially abuse somebody, it is obvious you're abusing him/her , so is there really any need to use one rule for abuse and one for racial abuse? If somebody is convicted of racial abuse, then say E3(2) eight game ban minimum. No need to find them guilty of breaching E3(1) also. Having E3(1) in there has just opened a can of worms, whereby Evra has openly admitted to the FA that he was in breach of this rule but no action was taken. Whereas Suarez has been convicted on this rule, without evidence to suggest he even abused Evra, let alone racially abused him.
It seems to me that E3(1) is not being implemented and therefore has no point, other than to increase E3(2), which is pointless. I can understand E3(1) not being implemented as it would be ridiculous, as it would be a four game ban every game played. However if you're standing infront of a supposedly independent panel and professing your guilt, then surely, the FA really have no other choice, considering the rule and the banning of a rival playing falling foul of the same rule, with considerably less evidence.
posted on 17/2/12
It seems to me that E3(1) is not being implemented and therefore has no point, other than to increase E3(2), which is pointless.
--------------------
That seems the case to me, and like you, I also think that is pointless. I also think you have a point when you say about it being ridiculous to implement E3(1) - but then that means that it's a redundant rule, again rendering it pointless.
That is, it is only ever a rule that is implemented when a complaint is made. Thus the rules themselves in this respect are not blanket regulations, but circumstantial, reactionary, and perhaps worst of all, irregular. The intent of the rule should be to wipe out the offence from the game, but that is not how these particular rulings are operating. That much is obvious. And as such, it makes the rules themselves problematic and thus deserving of criticism.
Nowhere is this more observed that in the Suarez-Evra case. And for that reason I fully understand why Liverpool - the club, the player, and the fans - would feel aggrieved.
And perhaps above all else, the players themselves have a responsibility to adhere to the rules of the game. If they don't, then any breach should be reprimanded, irrespective of whether that results in players getting retrospective bans every weekend. Either that, or the rules themselves need changing or omitting altogether.
Which is the better option? And in regards to racism itself, the question has to be asked - especially given how serious this country regards racism to be - why is it not a stand-alone rule within the game? Why is it a rule that can only ever be implemented as a side-step to another rule that itself is rarely ever implemented?
posted on 17/2/12
Excellent article Ripley. The problem football fans have with your article is that it goes well beyond their "football world" imo the different levels of racism will never be overcome. All races living in this world will never agree to get along, paradise, utopia, w.e. will never happen. There will always be love and the opposite hate.
posted on 17/2/12
Which is the better option?
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option. However the FA likes to have these rules so that if they DO ever need to use them, they will, as evidenced by the Rooney ban for swearing.
Racial abuse should have it's own rule, it should be clear in what constitutes abuse. It should also be made available to each player. Of course players shouldn't put themselves in that position that the FA have to decide but if they do, the rules should be clear.
Throughout the football rule book there are rules which aren't implemented so as a whole, it needs looked at and amended. It needs to be decided to implement these rules or get rid of them. No more confusion, as this confusion can cause a player to be branded for his career.
posted on 17/2/12
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option
------------------------
I disagree. That, in my opinion, would be the worst option. I would rather see the FA have the balls (excuse the pun) to implement their own rules much more frequently. Or even better than that, have players adhere to the rules much more frequently so that the FA don't have to hand out the punishments that the current rules stipulate.
I also don't agree that racial abuse should have it's own rule. At the very least it shouldn't be separated from sexist or homophobic abuse. But a distinction between other forms of abuse clearly needs to be made - even though I personally am of the opinion that abuse is abuse is abuse. My point, which I suspect is also yours, however is that such abuse shouldn't have to rely on another rule being breached before it can be implemented. Which is clearly the way the rules work at this moment in time.
posted on 20/2/12
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 2 days, 16 hours ago
I believe scrapping the rule is the better option
------------------------
I disagree. That, in my opinion, would be the worst option. I would rather see the FA have the balls (excuse the pun) to implement their own rules much more frequently. Or even better than that, have players adhere to the rules much more frequently so that the FA don't have to hand out the punishments that the current rules stipulate.
I also don't agree that racial abuse should have it's own rule. At the very least it shouldn't be separated from sexist or homophobic abuse. But a distinction between other forms of abuse clearly needs to be made - even though I personally am of the opinion that abuse is abuse is abuse. My point, which I suspect is also yours, however is that such abuse shouldn't have to rely on another rule being breached before it can be implemented. Which is clearly the way the rules work at this moment in time.
---------------------------------------------------
I believe it would be impossible to implement E3(1) as it will happen ten times a game and will give the FA work to do, which they don't like. Also to prove it, is close to impossible also. So for me it would be one big joke and one more reason to have contempt for the FA.
I agree that rules should be standalone and one shouldn't have to come in to play, so as the other is activated. However I don't like the idea that 'Player A' can abuse 'Player B's' hair colour, sister, mother and anything else, abuse him the whole game but as soon as 'Player B' turns around and abuses the colour of a 'Player A's' skin, ' Player B' is the one punished. So for me it might be an idea to put all abuse in the same bracket and implement it. I do however feel this would be close to impossible and that is why the FA have E(3) 1 sitting there, so they can use it, if and when they please, as in the Suarez case.
Do we put microphones on the players next? How far do we take this?
Page 2 of 2