Jump to content
IGNORED

Kiko Casilla


phantom

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Just been found guilty of breaking rule E3(2)

In match against Charlton on 28th September he has been found guilty of allegedly making comments to a Charlton player in relation to race, colour or ethnic origin 

He has been suspended for EIGHT matches and fined £60,000

He must also attend face to face education lessons after breach of rule. 

The independent regulatory commission will publish their findings on Monday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ZERO proof, a decision to brand a player a racist has been made on the “balance of probability”

I’d be suing the FA for defamation.

Don’t get me wrong if there was proof we all would want him sacked, this sets a hugely dangerous precedent.

We knew this would happen as they have taken 6 MONTHS to get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

There is ZERO proof, a decision to brand a player a racist has been made on the “balance of probability”

I’d be suing the FA for defamation.

Don’t get me wrong if there was proof we all would want him sacked, this sets a hugely dangerous precedent.

We knew this would happen as they have taken 6 MONTHS to get here.

I didn’t read the article, only the OP’s info. You’re right, that changes things somewhat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

There is ZERO proof, a decision to brand a player a racist has been made on the “balance of probability”

I’d be suing the FA for defamation.

Don’t get me wrong if there was proof we all would want him sacked, this sets a hugely dangerous precedent.

We knew this would happen as they have taken 6 MONTHS to get here.

Yep. He was alleged to have said "mark the black one" wasn't he? I mean its a very strange thing to say but I don't know about racist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

Yep. He was alleged to have said "mark the black one" wasn't he? I mean its a very strange thing to say but I don't know about racist. 

Everyone must watch what they say in this twinkle toes society we live in. Where something may be deemed acceptable in ones head, it may be deemed offensive in anothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eighteen ninetyfour said:

Everyone must watch what they say in this twinkle toes society we live in. Where something may be deemed acceptable in ones head, it may be deemed offensive in anothers.

That’s why everyone covers there mouth when speaking around the pitch nowadays,naive me thought it was to hide tactics but it’s to avoid situations like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, phantom said:

Just been found guilty of breaking rule E3(2)

In match against Charlton on 28th September he has been found guilty of allegedly making comments to a Charlton player in relation to race, colour or ethnic origin 

He has been suspended for EIGHT matches and fined £60,000

He must also attend face to face education lessons after breach of rule. 

The independent regulatory commission will publish their findings on Monday 

Nothing alleged about it if he's found guilty, surely .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I understood that he was alleged to have used the word ‘*Racist Term Removed’.  That’s what was reported in the Daily Mail at the time (though euphemistically described as ‘the n-word’).  If that was what he said, then a lengthy ban was bound to follow.

Apparently we’re not allowed to use the word in print, even in a non-offensive context and with inverted comments round it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

Fammy got done for allegedly spitting didn't he?

No, he got done for spitting.  It stops being "alleged" when it's proved.  Obviously in both Fam's case and Casilla's case it was proved to the satisfaction of the panel.  IIRC Fam didn't even deny spitting, just that he didn't spit at someone intentionally, and it was on video wasn't it?

The FA haven't published their reasons for this one yet, but generally they only explain the punishment not the evidence.  I'd suggest there are usually lots of mics lying around a goal though.

All we're actually getting right now is Leeds spin.  You'd have to be quite naive to believe it on it's own - in particular that there was "zero proof". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nibor said:

No, he got done for spitting.  It stops being "alleged" when it's proved.  Obviously in both Fam's case and Casilla's case it was proved to the satisfaction of the panel.  IIRC Fam didn't even deny spitting, just that he didn't spit at someone intentionally, and it was on video wasn't it?

The FA haven't published their reasons for this one yet, but generally they only explain the punishment not the evidence.  I'd suggest there are usually lots of mics lying around a goal though.

All we're actually getting right now is Leeds spin.  You'd have to be quite naive to believe it on it's own - in particular that there was "zero proof". 

 

Spin, he either did say something and there is proof and he can **** off back to where he came from 

OR 

There is no proof.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

Spin, he either did say something and there is proof and he can **** off back to where he came from 

OR 

There is no proof.

If the panel found him guilty then there is evidence that they found convincing enough.  You can argue about the quality of that but stating that there is zero proof isn't believable and is spin.  Anybody who thinks he's been done for using the word "black" is naive as ****.  It sounds rather like the Suarez defence - pretending they said black in spanish rather than using the n word.  Seems very unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Juan Domingo Roldan said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly but, if that is what he has said then I believe the FA small print means he would have infringed their rules (assuming he referenced colour).

So if he’d said, ‘mark the tall one’ or ‘mark the guy with the tattoos’ or ‘mark the ginger haired one’ or ‘mark the podgy one’ etc etc etc that would have been fine? But ‘mark the black one’ is deemed racist? Not having at a dig at you, but if that is the FA rules they are clearly wrong ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

So if he’d said, ‘mark the tall one’ or ‘mark the guy with the tattoos’ or ‘mark the ginger haired one’ or ‘mark the podgy one’ etc etc etc that would have been fine? But ‘mark the black one’ is deemed racist? Not having at a dig at you, but if that is the FA rules they are clearly wrong ....

Maybe he said it in Spanish?, negro, which would obviously make it sound worse for most who'd of heard it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

So if he’d said, ‘mark the tall one’ or ‘mark the guy with the tattoos’ or ‘mark the ginger haired one’ or ‘mark the podgy one’ etc etc etc that would have been fine? But ‘mark the black one’ is deemed racist? Not having at a dig at you, but if that is the FA rules they are clearly wrong ....

Whilst I am not 100%, I believe that is about the nub of it.

I'm completely with you on this because if we turn the alleged situation upside down & let's say, someone said 'mark the white player' then I can't imagine we would be talking about this type of situation.

Obviously, there is absolutely no place for racism in society & we should not seek to condone it but, I must confess to being confused these days as to what is or what isn't acceptable. On the one hand we are told using the term 'coloured' is offensive & we should say black & yet, in alleged cases like this & others such a reference is racist?

As with anything, we have to factor context into the equation but, I must say that I despair at times because some of these instances smack of witch hunts & in that we end up in very dangerous territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SPAZZA said:

Spin, he either did say something and there is proof and he can **** off back to where he came from 

OR 

There is no proof.

 

Well I’m guessing as he has been found guilty then he did say something and the FA have been presented with the evidence that swings the balance of probability to guilty. That’s kind of what being found guilty means I think.

Hopefully the next bit of your rant was tongue in cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GreedyHarry said:

Well I’m guessing as he has been found guilty then he did say something and the FA have been presented with the evidence that swings the balance of probability to guilty. That’s kind of what being found guilty means I think.

Hopefully the next bit of your rant was tongue in cheek.

He is alleged to have said “mark the black lad” in Spanish. Obviously Black in Spanish is Negro so....

Either they are alleging he said the real “N” word.

OR 

They are alleging he was racist in saying “Mark the black lad” of indeed he said it at all.

Suarez got a 6 game ban for actually racially abusing Evra WITH video evidence.

I think this will be appealed and if was Casilla I’d be suing the FA for defamation of character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...