timmyv
State League player
Posts: 235
|
Post by timmyv on Sept 27, 2007 18:54:38 GMT 10
all in all, everything we say is just speculation because we don't know the full story or will not be privy to the hearing tonight I didnt hear it but i could only assume it went something like this. Stuey: "That was a right awful tackle. Please be more careful next time." Vargas: "#$$% #$%@#% $%^#$ #$%#$%#% white #$% $%#&" Stuey: "Why are you being so rude to me? please stop" Vargas "Are you ordering me to do something are you. Its cause im black init" ;D YEa have to wait and see what he actually said. So many different versions now. |
|
timmyv
State League player
Posts: 235
|
Post by timmyv on Sept 27, 2007 20:50:53 GMT 10
Stu out for this weekend!
But back for the Derby OLE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fish on Sept 27, 2007 20:54:03 GMT 10
Bit of growing up needed by him Id say,what a tosser you cant drop comments like that even if they are funny lol
|
|
|
|
Post by curious on Sept 27, 2007 21:25:23 GMT 10
To be offensive, they would have to find the word had racial intent, surely ......errrrrr.......well.....  .......  If they claim no racial intent then how is it offensive & why the suspension?  Bloody hell. The FFA have outdone themself. ..............Welcome back NSL.....No guts or ability to make a decision one way or the other so they split the difference, have a bet each way & make a nonce of football. Incomp That will do me......is someone going to force an explanation from them or just accept another no comment.?.....don't answer that. |
|
marinermick
Moderator 
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 8:22:08 GMT 10
To be offensive, they would have to find the word had racial intent, surely ......errrrrr.......well..... ....... If they claim no racial intent then how is it offensive & why the suspension? Bloody hell. The FFA have outdone themself. ..............Welcome back NSL.....No guts or ability to make a decision one way or the other so they split the difference, have a bet each way & make a nonce of football. Incomp That will do me......is someone going to force an explanation from them or just accept another no comment.?.....don't answer that. many things said can be offensive without having racial overtones |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Sept 28, 2007 9:25:37 GMT 10
To be offensive, they would have to find the word had racial intent, surely ......errrrrr.......well..... ....... If they claim no racial intent then how is it offensive & why the suspension? Bloody hell. The FFA have outdone themself. ..............Welcome back NSL.....No guts or ability to make a decision one way or the other so they split the difference, have a bet each way & make a nonce of football. Incomp That will do me......is someone going to force an explanation from them or just accept another no comment.?.....don't answer that. many things said can be offensive without having racial overtones nah, i'm with curious on this one - i reckon if there's no racism in it then it's probably less offensive than half the things you hear on the pitch. this is a total bet each way. on looking at the write-ups, it seems that musialik pleaded guilty to offensive language but said it wasn't racist in intent - it doesn't take a cynic (ally's much less cynical than me and saw it this way) to think this is a plea bargain of sorts where he takes the week to avoid going for six. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 9:29:30 GMT 10
many things said can be offensive without having racial overtones nah, i'm with curious on this one - i reckon if there's no racism in it then it's probably less offensive than half the things you hear on the pitch. this is a total bet each way. on looking at the write-ups, it seems that musialik pleaded guilty to offensive language but said it wasn't racist in intent - it doesn't take a cynic (ally's much less cynical than me and saw it this way) to think this is a plea bargain of sorts where he takes the week to avoid going for six. without knowing the proceedings it is hard to say all i am saying is that you can still be offensive without being racial |
|
|
|
Post by newieutd on Sept 28, 2007 9:37:59 GMT 10
without knowing the proceedings it is hard to say all i am saying is that you can still be offensive without being racial Think of all the things players would say on the park. As i said before Black Monkey = min. 5 weeks for stuey anything else = 1 week for Vargas for being soft. I agree with Curious/Dibo. Seems FFA took the easy option and took the middle road and tried to keep all parties happy. It had to be either Min. 5 weeks or nothing. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 10:06:35 GMT 10
without knowing the proceedings it is hard to say all i am saying is that you can still be offensive without being racial Think of all the things players would say on the park. As i said before Black Monkey = min. 5 weeks for stuey anything else = 1 week for Vargas for being soft. I agree with Curious/Dibo. Seems FFA took the easy option and took the middle road and tried to keep all parties happy. It had to be either Min. 5 weeks or nothing. i am interested in knowing all the evidence and discussion from the jury panel given that it appears you were there and privy to all the information |
|
|
|
Post by newieutd on Sept 28, 2007 10:38:33 GMT 10
i am interested in knowing all the evidence and discussion from the jury panel given that it appears you were there and privy to all the information[/quote] I'm not interested at all. I would prefer to make wild assumptions and then wake wild accusations based on assumed evidence.  Seriously. I guess what i am saying is 2 weeks is too lean. Either make it 5 or 0. |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Sept 28, 2007 11:22:01 GMT 10
all i am saying is that you can still be offensive without being racial i don't dispute that, but if all abusive comments resulted in suspensions you'd have tumbleweeds, not players. if the FFA is going to crack down on abusive comments between players, fine and dandy, but i don't think they are going to regularly suspend people for garden variety sledging. it won't even make it to the FFA unless (as in this case) there is the suggestion of some form of racist or similar abuse. musialik reportedly admitted he called him a monkey. if there's no racism attached, then surely that's no different to me calling someone a goose, or a chicken. i don't for a second believe someone's going to get a 2 week (one week suspended) ban for calling someone a goose. even a f***ing goose. it's simply not going to happen. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 12:03:27 GMT 10
all i am saying is that you can still be offensive without being racial i don't dispute that, but if all abusive comments resulted in suspensions you'd have tumbleweeds, not players. if the FFA is going to crack down on abusive comments between players, fine and dandy, but i don't think they are going to regularly suspend people for garden variety sledging. it won't even make it to the FFA unless (as in this case) there is the suggestion of some form of racist or similar abuse. musialik reportedly admitted he called him a monkey. if there's no racism attached, then surely that's no different to me calling someone a goose, or a chicken. i don't for a second believe someone's going to get a 2 week (one week suspended) ban for calling someone a goose. even a f***ing goose. it's simply not going to happen. don't think there is any precedence here - musailik makes comment and vargas gets offended thinking he is racially abused - complains to matthew breeze during and after game and matthew breeze puts musailik on report - musailik gets cited and appears before judicarcy - musailik pleads guilty to offensive comments but not racial abuse - on the basis of that guilty plea musailik gets a slap on the wrists don't see the problem here and for this sort of thing to occur again would be unlikely as: - players make an offensive comment (happens all the time) - a player receiving those comments have to be offended enough to make a complaint to the referee - referee has to make a report if he deems it is a reportable offence - FFA has to cite the player if they deem it to be a citeable offence - player has to put his plea in as this is considered in delivering the verdict |
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Sept 28, 2007 12:42:08 GMT 10
i don't dispute that, but if all abusive comments resulted in suspensions you'd have tumbleweeds, not players. if the FFA is going to crack down on abusive comments between players, fine and dandy, but i don't think they are going to regularly suspend people for garden variety sledging. it won't even make it to the FFA unless (as in this case) there is the suggestion of some form of racist or similar abuse. musialik reportedly admitted he called him a monkey. if there's no racism attached, then surely that's no different to me calling someone a goose, or a chicken. i don't for a second believe someone's going to get a 2 week (one week suspended) ban for calling someone a goose. even a f***ing goose. it's simply not going to happen. don't think there is any precedence here - musailik makes comment and vargas gets offended thinking he is racially abused - complains to matthew breeze during and after game and matthew breeze puts musailik on report - musailik gets cited and appears before judicarcy - musailik pleads guilty to offensive comments but not racial abuse - on the basis of that guilty plea musailik gets a slap on the wrists don't see the problem here and for this sort of thing to occur again would be unlikely as: - players make an offensive comment (happens all the time) - a player receiving those comments have to be offended enough to make a complaint to the referee - referee has to make a report if he deems it is a reportable offence - FFA has to cite the player if they deem it to be a citeable offence - player has to put his plea in as this is considered in delivering the verdict by acting in this one case where racism was the apparent reason for the initial report (unless vargas reports every time he's sledged) they *have* created a precedent. they now have to act any time someone calls someone a name. *or alternatively* you can be disproportionately punished for any offence so long as the FFA thought it was worse to begin with. if it was no big deal, then there would have been no suspension. we know what musialik said. he said 'monkey'. it matters not whether it was preceded by 'f***ing' - players ain't gonna be suspended for swearing. look at andyj's avatar after all. if it was preceded by 'black' (and i don't think it was, i think that was a figment of the daily tele's imagination) then the FFA f***ed up royally. 'monkey' is therefore the problem. if monkey is not racist, then it has to be treated the same as dog, goose, chicken etc. players simply will not be suspended for these words, unless the FFA are completely bonkers. players similarly will not be suspended for sledging. what's got musialik a trip to the judiciary is that people thought he made a racist comment, pure and simple. and newieutd is right - if he did, he should be punted for longer than that. if he didn't, the FFA should have had the guts to completely exonerate him and not suspend him. the FFA could have said 'we don't think you calling him a name is the problem, we think calling him a monkey can only have been a racist comment, and we're punting you. if you can prove it wasn't racist, then you face no suspension.' to an extent it's a lose-lose. the FFA were going to be bagged by pretty much all and sundry no matter what they decided, so they've tried to annoy as many people as little as possible. in fashioning themselves a little fig leaf in this manner i believe they've created a nasty little precedent. |
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 12:50:11 GMT 10
musailik was charged with Musialik is charged with using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures during the match.
no mention of racial intent
have to disagree with your comments and IMO the precedence is very weak if tested again
as it was an unique case and musailik pleaded guilty i guess the FFA gave the lightest possible sentence and probably one in which both parties at the hearing would be happy with
|
|
|
|
Post by dibo (pron. "DIB-OH") on Sept 28, 2007 13:28:27 GMT 10
musailik was charged with Musialik is charged with using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures during the match. no mention of racial intent have to disagree with your comments and IMO the precedence is very weak if tested again as it was an unique case and musailik pleaded guilty i guess the FFA gave the lightest possible sentence and probably one in which both parties at the hearing would be happy with consider this hypothetical. next week, mrdja calls durante a f***ing dog after a late challenge (still grumpy 'bout the leg). durante calls the ref over. what does the ref do? under this precedent (by which you can't abuse someone verbally) the referee must take his name, and subsequently the FFA must apply a suspension. there is no other way through it, and yet being called a 'f***ing dog' is positively run of the mill for the sort of shit that gets said on a football field. *unless* there's something in the word 'monkey' that makes it special, which quite frankly i think there is - i think it's highly unlikely he would have used the same word to abuse someone who looks like me (for anyone that hasn't met me, paler than office copy paper and blond to boot). but if so, they should have punished him for racial abuse and gone the whole nine yards. |
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Sept 28, 2007 13:39:32 GMT 10
So all we have to do to get the whole Newcastle team suspended for the second leg of the semi's this year is say that every player on their team called one of our players a monkey.
A bit bloody pathetic, but the FFA are the ones who have opened the door.
|
|
marinermick
Moderator
Coming to Bay 16 Soon
Posts: 8,657
|
Post by marinermick on Sept 28, 2007 14:01:27 GMT 10
musailik was charged with Musialik is charged with using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures during the match. no mention of racial intent have to disagree with your comments and IMO the precedence is very weak if tested again as it was an unique case and musailik pleaded guilty i guess the FFA gave the lightest possible sentence and probably one in which both parties at the hearing would be happy with consider this hypothetical. next week, mrdja calls durante a f***ing dog after a late challenge (still grumpy 'bout the leg). durante calls the ref over. what does the ref do? under this precedent (by which you can't abuse someone verbally) the referee must take his name, and subsequently the FFA must apply a suspension. there is no other way through it, and yet being called a 'f***ing dog' is positively run of the mill for the sort of shit that gets said on a football field. *unless* there's something in the word 'monkey' that makes it special, which quite frankly i think there is - i think it's highly unlikely he would have used the same word to abuse someone who looks like me (for anyone that hasn't met me, paler than office copy paper and blond to boot). but if so, they should have punished him for racial abuse and gone the whole nine yards. yes, this is possible but any hypothetical can be brought up but i am saying given all the steps that happened in the musailik case this is highly, highly unlikely yes the door is open but only very slightly |
|
|
|
Post by newieutd on Sept 28, 2007 14:11:15 GMT 10
So all we have to do to get the whole Newcastle team suspended for the second leg of the semi's this year is say that every player on their team called one of our players a monkey. A bit bloody pathetic, but the FFA are the ones who have opened the door. Sounds like a plan is being hatched. I think the other thing, that doesnt seem to have been brought up in discussion here is... Stuey admitted to saying something abusive (just not racially)... So Bearinator you'll might have to do some home editing to trying and get 'proof' that they said that. Stephen Hawking speech style. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Sept 28, 2007 14:18:50 GMT 10
Ofcourse the FFA can always adjust the rules at any time they deem it necessary to fit their agenda, making the whole argument academic but for one future case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Sept 28, 2007 14:25:23 GMT 10
This never would have happened if Poppa said the comment
|
|
