The Liverpool Thread

[Lee]

Please post some of the examples of the logical fallacies here Lee. As you know what they are, I imagine you understand that although logical fallacies can't be used to justify an argument, their inclusion has little to no relevance on its own. The core issue is whether or not the positive connotations of negrito can be used in a moment of anger. Anything else is semantics.

The logical fallacies were pretty much their basis for the verdict. Suarez also never said the word Negrito.

There are people who are better at writing words than me so I'll just link to them instead...

This one has a fairly broad look at the report and pokes a lot of holes in it fairly easily - Interesting section on the language as well --> The Trouble With Football: Analysis of Suarez & the FA, via Crowdsourcing

I apologise in advance - These two articles aren't by a Liverpool fan so you'll need to think of another reason why he's written them --> Part 1 - part 2

Those are just the ones from the top of my head, I'll find more reading material if you're interested.

Yes I have and I wont be like every Liverpool fan who sugar coats over the evidence. The evidence says Probably guilty not Probably innocent. Stop being so blind and defending your once proud club that people had respect for. All those connected with Liverpool including the fans are making themselves look like a right bunch of wankers. Accept the report you are not going to change the outcome. Move on with it and try to salvage any respect you have left. I ask myself why I am trying to argue against another blind Liverpool fan is beyond me.

I enjoyed the irony in this post.

 

[IanC]

The logical fallacies were pretty much their basis for the verdict. Suarez also never said the word Negrito.

There are people who are better at writing words than me so I'll just link to them instead...

This one has a fairly broad look at the report and pokes a lot of holes in it fairly easily - Interesting section on the language as well --> The Trouble With Football: Analysis of Suarez & the FA, via Crowdsourcing

I apologise in advance - These two articles aren't by a Liverpool fan so you'll need to think of another reason why he's written them --> Part 1 - part 2

Those are just the ones from the top of my head, I'll find more reading material if you're interested.




I enjoyed the irony in this post.

Explain the irony in the post then Lee. If thats the best you can come up with you seriously need to stop being blinkered when it is only Liverpool fans arguing against the outcome of the report.

 

[Lee]

[/B]
Then why did you not appeal? If you believed in it so strongly, had such confidence he was innocent and the report was so atrocious, and that anyone with an ounce of critical reasoning could find logical fallacies all over the place - then surely your team of highly paid lawyers should be having a field day with such an atrocity?

Well that's where it gets really really really fun. Basically we couldn't appeal the decision, just the ban. Appealing against an FA decision is a waste of everyone's time.

What do a panel of Spanish language experts have to gain from being partial to either party?

See Point #13

Just like there's always doubt in any criminal being guilty. The standard of guilt was set as the balance of probability.

If there's doubt in a court of law people are still found guilty? (Serious question, not sarcasm) What a ****** system.

 

[Lee]

Explain the irony in the post then Lee. If thats the best you can come up with you seriously need to stop being blinkered when it is only Liverpool fans arguing against the outcome of the report.

The irony was you're the one who is blind/close-minded.

It's not only Liverpool fans arguing against the report - it just happens our biases towards Liverpool are what lead the majority of us to look into the case instead of accepting the FA Report and the regurgitated conclusions in the media. Stop kidding yourself.

 

[Redders]

If there's doubt in a court of law people are still found guilty? (Serious question, not sarcasm) What a ****** system.

Most boring argument ever in the last few pages of this thread. Just wanted to answer Lee's question because i'm his best pal for life.

Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Joel`]

Then why did you not appeal? If you believed in it so strongly, had such confidence he was innocent and the report was so atrocious, and that anyone with an ounce of critical reasoning could find logical fallacies all over the place - then surely your team of highly paid lawyers should be having a field day with such an atrocity?

Well that's where it gets really really really fun. Basically we couldn't appeal the decision, just the ban. Appealing against an FA decision is a waste of everyone's time.



See Point #13




If there's doubt in a court of law people are still found guilty? (Serious question, not sarcasm) What a ****** system.

But they could still have rejected the initial decision: “The Appeal Board shall have power to: (1) allow or dismiss the appeal”. This would suggest that the Appeal Board could find in favour of an LFC appeal, thus rejecting the IRCR findings.

Your lawyers should have known from day one all restrictions and constraints on an appeal, implying that they should have known an appeal was never on the cards. In that case, why mount such vociferous attacks on a decision you have no intention of appealing against? Everything the club took part in over the course of the investigation just makes you look like you have a lack of dignity and respect, but at least if you appealed and backed the player you supported so whole heartedly you'd look like everything you did had a cause. Now you just look like you had no conviction behind everything you did, and it's no surprise people are taking such dislike to your handling of the incident.

Even if the appeal is somewhat restrictive, if I was Suarez - and I believed and knew I was innocent - I'd have filed the appeal myself. He's being accused, and was found guilty, of racial abuse. There's only ever going to be Liverpool fans and a minority of others who don't believe this is true, it's going to stick, and I personally wouldn't want my reputation tarnished for something so serious, for something I didn't even do. It's a matter of pride.

And still, why would you not take having the ban removed altogether? The mass public would be on your side if your appeal succeeded, you'd have your star player and you apparently had absolute 100% confidence in your player. It makes zero sense to not appeal the decision, unless your lawyers had doubts over winning the appeal.

Your handling of the whole situation has been atrociously bad.

There's ALWAYS doubt. You're found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh, and both of the links you posted both say that Suarez admitted calling him negro. You said my claim was false.

 

[Subtle]

That post admits he said 'Negro' once as does Suarez himself. Negro does not have a positive connotation in Spanish when used in anger. That is racial abuse. Nothing else matters, what Suarez said was racial abuse.

A sad part of my life is having to wade through bullshit on a daily basis and people tend to go to extraordinary lengths to hide (either from you or, quite often, from themselves) the fact that there is a point that there is a point that proves them wrong and they can't change it. That is what I have seen countless examples of from Liverpool fans and I'm sure Mike will remember that I lead him round and round on a merry little dance on the issue a few months ago. Eventually he caught me because no matter how much I skipped around the point, no matter how many random and irrelevant things I threw at him, I couldn't change the fact that when you boiled it all down, I was wrong and he was right.

Evra lied about it being 5 times? Irrelevant.
Conflicting testimony? Irrelevant.
The fact that Evra got video footage and Suarez didn't? Irrelevant.
The fact that Evra said Suarez called him a '******'? Irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that Suarez admitted using a word in a context where it is only racially abusive. There is no way around that: he admits that he said it and no matter how much Liverpool fans try and will Spanish etymology into something else, the fact remains that saying negro in Spanish in an agitated state is racial abuse.

That is why it's disgusting to see people try and cloud the issue until they don't even see anything but their own fantasy anymore. If John Terry is found guilty of racially abusing Ferdinand you can bet your house that I won't look for excuses and little problems that I can pick apart and try and make into big issues (the logical fallacy issue is EXACTLY why people should not learn philosophy and rhetoric on the internet: you can find all the logical fallacies you want, he still called Evra a negro) because you know what, my club deserves better than that. If JT is found guilty, he is not worthy of captaining the side and I will not make my club and my fellow supporters look like a bunch of delusional fanatics just so I can save face.

 

[Subtle]

I'm not lumping you in with the idiots Lee because it is a genuinely confusing pile of crazy right now. It's easy and understandable to stick up for your club and your players, but sometimes you just have to take a step back and think: 'I'm being used here...'

 

[Lee]

Oh, and both of the links you posted both say that Suarez admitted calling him negro. You said my claim was false.

I meant false to admitting to what he was accused of saying. Suarez admitted to one instance of it. What Suarez admitted to saying wasn't offensive. But somehow the FA charged him for saying something offensive multiple times.

Might reply to the appeal stuff a little later, busy at the moment.

 

[Athe~]

What Suarez admitted to saying wasn't offensive.

What Suarez admitted to saying may or may not be offensive. For the nth time, just because it can be used in a non-offensive manner doesn't mean it was used that way.

 

[Lee]

What Suarez admitted to saying may or may not be offensive. For the nth time, just because it can be used in a non-offensive manner doesn't mean it was used that way.

Disclaimer: I don't have a clue about any form of Spanish.

From what I've read - what Suarez admitted to saying can never be used in a racially offensive way. It can be expressed in an aggressive or friendly way, but it's still not a reference to race.

 

[Mike.]

Lets try something new:


Summing the parts | Liverpool Midfield | Stats

Summing the parts | Liverpool Midfield | Stats | Premier League Stats

• February 7, 2012 7:38 pm
• Omar Chaudhuri
• 2,834 Views
• Featured, Liverpool, Statistical Comparisons
• 13 comments

There’s a chapter in Michael Lewis’ Moneyball called ‘Giambi’s Hole’, which discusses in part how the Oakland Athletics replaced their star first baseman Jason Giambi. Lewis describes the thinking:

The A’s front office had broken down Giambi into his obvious offensive statistics – walks, singles, doubles, home runs – along with his less obvious ones – pitches seen per plate appearance, walk to strikeout ratio – and asked: which can we afford to replace?
The previous season Giambi’s on-base percentage had been .477. (The average American League on-base percentage was .334.) Jason Giambi wasn’t the only player in the Oakland A’s lineup who needed replacing. Johnny Damon (on-base percentage .324) was gone from center field, and the designated hitter Olmedo Saenz (.291) was headed for the bench. The average on-base percentage of those three players was what Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta had set out to replace. They went looking for three players who shared an ability to get on base at a rate thirty points than the average big league player.

​

I’ll be the first to recognise Moneyball’s limited application in football at the moment, but I’m interested in the concept of replacing players by the sum of their parts. For example, when Arsenal lost Fabregas and Nasri, could they sign players who cumulatively cover the performance hole left by those two players? It’s a far less scientific in football, but I thought I’d make some baby steps, maybe expanding the analysis on feedback.

The central midfield of Liverpool in 2008/09 was proclaimed “the best midfield in the world” by its fans, with Alonso, Gerrard and Mascherano proving a holy trinity of sorts en route to second place in the league. The central midfield of Liverpool in 2011/12 is, on paper, more limited, with Adam, an older Gerrard, Lucas and Spearing largely filling central midfield roles.

Can the performance sum of these four players, therefore, match the performance sum of the players three seasons ago? For example, does Liverpool’s current central midfield make as many interceptions per minute as the team’s central midfield in 2008/09?

​

Liverpool’s current midfield make fewer defensive errors on average, more interceptions and more tackles, but in many other performance indicators they are down on the 2008/09 trio.

For instance, a combination of Alonso, Gerrard and Mascherano took an average of 86 minutes to deliver a successful cross in 2008/09. The current selection of central midfielders take over 93 minutes.

Needless to say there are all kinds of external issues with this analysis; the opposition, rest of the team, style of play etc. I’ve also not examined individual, match-by-match line ups which might reveal biases of who plays well with which teammates. But when you see figures such as -18%, it feels like a reflection of where the current midfield is at: about 20% worse than that fantastic trio.

For the time being, these numbers are a reflection of an attempt to try something new, there’s a lot unaccounted for but hopefully it provides food for thought.

 

[Frank]

Disclaimer: I don't have a clue about any form of Spanish.

From what I've read - what Suarez admitted to saying can never be used in a racially offensive way. It can be expressed in an aggressive or friendly way, but it's still not a reference to race.

employed language experts > what you've read.

 

[Athe~]

Disclaimer: I don't have a clue about any form of Spanish.

From what I've read - what Suarez admitted to saying can never be used in a racially offensive way. It can be expressed in an aggressive or friendly way, but it's still not a reference to race.

Lee, what he said can easily be used in a racially offensive way, and in the context of said conversation it could easily be the case.

 

[Aannddyy]

Punching myself in the face is less painful than reading this ****. I kinda feel sorry for Lee.. If I were you I'd just give up, there's no point trying to teach these people when they can't see through their own bias.

Also, It's funny how everyone seems to be worried about Liverpool's "terrible" position in the league [except for actual fans of the club], because we're 7th, what, 4 points off a very, very poor Chelsea in 4th. Dalglish, IMO, is doing a very good job, it's his first full season in charge and to be competing for fourth at this stage of the season is great; considering all the injuries, suspensions, and controversy.

Also, I think the main two points people continue make are about Evra's reliability, and Suarez's unreliability.

The Panel’s conclusion that Suarez called Evra “negro”, 7 times

Spoiler

Point 102 of the report reads as follows:

102. We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr EvraEvra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez.

The Panel thus uses Evra’s look of surprise as evidence that Suarez has said “negro” to him in this instance. However two key things to note here are that:
Suarez argues that this is the first and only time he used the word “negro” towards Evra.
If Evra’s version of events are to be believed, then this would actually be the 6th instance that Suarez had used the word.

The Panel themselves believe that Suarez must have said it at this particular point due to video footage of Evra’s reaction, but this actually supports Suarez’s testimony rather than Evra’s version.

Evra version (Point 5):

******* ****, why did you kick me?
Because you are a ******? (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
Say it to me again, I’m going to punch you.
I don’t speak to *******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
Okay, now I think I’m going to punch you.
Okay, ******, ******, ******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)

No one else heard this exchange. No evidence supports that it took place. Evra didn’t react in a way that supports that it took place. He didn’t run to the referee in disgust.
What’s more is that Suarez’s version (Point 6) more accurately corresponds with the video footage, for example his “quacking” motion (Point 372).

It is clear that the Panel has not worked to the concept of the 'balance of probabilities' fairly at all here.

The Panel also describe Suarez’s quacking gesture as “puzzling” (Point 373), when it is quite clear that it means “shut up” or “you’re all talk”, which would thus support Suarez’s version of events.

Inconsistencies in Suarez’s testimony

Spoiler

These discrepancies in Suarez's evidence were important factors for the Panel in their deciding that Suarez gave “unreliable” evidence.

316. There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

Change number 1:
This is a change in his testimony, but a very slight one in terms of time, in fact a matter of seconds.

Change number 2:
Again, something which seems completely inconsequential.

Change number 3:
Why would Suarez changing his mind about what Evra may have “thought”, be used as a stick to beat him with? Indeed it's shown elsewhere in the report that Evra himself did not even remember being pinched (Point 95), so surely its equally possible that Suarez also forgot about this until seeing it in the video footage and the importance randomly later placed on the pinching as racially motivated by the Panel (Point 73).

These changes that Suarez is accused of making are there, but they seem very slight and understandable discrepancies, far from the picture of Suarez as deliberately making things up to get away with it that the Panel’s report portrays.

 

[Mike.]

Punching myself in the face is less painful than reading this ****. I kinda feel sorry for Lee.. If I were you I'd just give up, there's no point trying to teach these people when they can't see through their own bias.

Also, It's funny how everyone seems to be worried about Liverpool's "terrible" position in the league [except for actual fans of the club], because we're 7th, what, 4 points off a very, very poor Chelsea in 4th. Dalglish, IMO, is doing a very good job, it's his first full season in charge and to be competing for fourth at this stage of the season is great; considering all the injuries, suspensions, and controversy.

Also, I think the main two points people continue make are about Evra's reliability, and Suarez's unreliability.

The Panel’s conclusion that Suarez called Evra “negro”, 7 times

Spoiler

Point 102 of the report reads as follows:

102. We examined closely the video footage of this moment which took place in the 64th minute. When the referee blew his whistle to stop play, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez were standing close to each other, having just run and challenged for the corner. The referee called them over to him. Mr Suarez said something to Mr Evra, then started to walk away. There is a clear reaction by Mr Evra to Mr Suarez's comment. This is apparent in two ways. First, there is a facial reaction by Mr Evra, akin to a look of surprise. Secondly, whilst looking at the referee, Mr EvraEvra walks towards the referee and says something while pointing back at Mr Suarez.

The Panel thus uses Evra’s look of surprise as evidence that Suarez has said “negro” to him in this instance. However two key things to note here are that:
Suarez argues that this is the first and only time he used the word “negro” towards Evra.
If Evra’s version of events are to be believed, then this would actually be the 6th instance that Suarez had used the word.

The Panel themselves believe that Suarez must have said it at this particular point due to video footage of Evra’s reaction, but this actually supports Suarez’s testimony rather than Evra’s version.

Evra version (Point 5):

******* ****, why did you kick me?
Because you are a ******? (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
Say it to me again, I’m going to punch you.
I don’t speak to *******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)
Okay, now I think I’m going to punch you.
Okay, ******, ******, ******. (no visible or physical reaction from Evra)

No one else heard this exchange. No evidence supports that it took place. Evra didn’t react in a way that supports that it took place. He didn’t run to the referee in disgust.
What’s more is that Suarez’s version (Point 6) more accurately corresponds with the video footage, for example his “quacking” motion (Point 372).

It is clear that the Panel has not worked to the concept of the 'balance of probabilities' fairly at all here.

The Panel also describe Suarez’s quacking gesture as “puzzling” (Point 373), when it is quite clear that it means “shut up” or “you’re all talk”, which would thus support Suarez’s version of events.

Inconsistencies in Suarez’s testimony

Spoiler

These discrepancies in Suarez's evidence were important factors for the Panel in their deciding that Suarez gave “unreliable” evidence.

316. There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

Change number 1:
This is a change in his testimony, but a very slight one in terms of time, in fact a matter of seconds.

Change number 2:
Again, something which seems completely inconsequential.

Change number 3:
Why would Suarez changing his mind about what Evra may have “thought”, be used as a stick to beat him with? Indeed it's shown elsewhere in the report that Evra himself did not even remember being pinched (Point 95), so surely its equally possible that Suarez also forgot about this until seeing it in the video footage and the importance randomly later placed on the pinching as racially motivated by the Panel (Point 73).

These changes that Suarez is accused of making are there, but they seem very slight and understandable discrepancies, far from the picture of Suarez as deliberately making things up to get away with it that the Panel’s report portrays.

wasn't going to get into this. but to say people arent listening because of bias, is very simplistic and incredibly dismissive. Same to those who say liverpool fans arent listening because of bias

Also re: 7th yeah you are 4 points of chelsea, but you are in a tough fight against a chelsea side who arent at their best but still overall playing better than you, an inconsistent but dangerout Arsenal and a Newcastle sie playing out their skins. Considering that 4th is the target, i would argue Liverpool are in danger of missing that, and its not a great position to be in. Could be worse, if the two london clubs were not so inconsistent mind.

Not having a go, its not a terrible position, but its a tough one.

 

[Ride The Walrus]

****'s sake, the ban is over, whether it's right/wrong, it's getting incredibly tedious to hear the same people barking the same point at one another.

 

[ajt09]

****'s sake, the ban is over, whether it's right/wrong, it's getting incredibly tedious to hear the same people barking the same point at one another.

Must say I'd rather be talking football matters on the pitch. Said a while back a line should be drawn under this.

 

[Joel`]

****'s sake, the ban is over, whether it's right/wrong, it's getting incredibly tedious to hear the same people barking the same point at one another.

Tell that to your manager.

 

[Mike.]

****'s sake, the ban is over, whether it's right/wrong, it's getting incredibly tedious to hear the same people barking the same point at one another.

Its alright, Capello left. The country has something else to ***** about anyway. FA back to its (ludicrous) best