7 games for joking that Sons cousins all look the same.

Stupid - Definitely but is the ban harsh ? More than double that you can get for a leg breaking tackle. Or is it reasonable if they want to 'Kick it Out' ? 

Utterly stupid.

More fucking senseless and over the top virtue signalling.

Seems about right as Suarez got 8 games

Firstly, I don't think we should ever compare punishment for racism to punishment for bad tackles.

Secondly, as to whether the ban is harsh or not. Possibly, but surely a line has to be drawn and racism is racism. If not you have to go down a path of ranking what is acceptable racism and what isn't.

Of course, the usual suspects will think all of the above is absolute bollocks. 😀

A couple of questions for those that think the ban is too long.

1) How long should the ban have been?

2) What would Bentancur have needed to say for a 7 game ban to have been the correct punishment?

 

10 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Firstly, I don't think we should ever compare punishment for racism to punishment for bad tackles.

Secondly, as to whether the ban is harsh or not. Possibly, but surely a line has to be drawn and racism is racism. If not you have to go down a path of ranking what is acceptable racism and what isn't.

Of course, the usual suspects will think all of the above is absolute bollocks. 😀

The racists will.

4 hours ago, Ani said:

7 games for joking that Sons cousins all look the same.

 

Misunderstood. Was talking about his own nephews.

47 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Firstly, I don't think we should ever compare punishment for racism to punishment for bad tackles.

Secondly, as to whether the ban is harsh or not. Possibly, but surely a line has to be drawn and racism is racism. If not you have to go down a path of ranking what is acceptable racism and what isn't.

Of course, the usual suspects will think all of the above is absolute bollocks. 😀

Not sure I get the point on comparing the two.

If you think racism is worse you would support a longer punishment for that, if you think is just a bit of 'fun' you won't. 

what's son said about it?

5 minutes ago, L/H White said:

what's son said about it?

That's irrelevant.

That'd be like saying telling racist jokes in a pub is OK if the black barman laughs at them.

Edited November 21, 20241 yr by DazBob

2 minutes ago, DazBob said:

That's irrelevant.

That'd be like saying telling racist jokes in a pub is OK if the black barman laughs at them.

I want to know the context around it, I genuinely don't know

8 minutes ago, Ani said:

Not sure I get the point on comparing the two.

Because bad tackles are part and parcel of the game. You step out on a pitch there's always the chance you'll get hurt. There's a fine line between a good, hard tackle that we love to see and one that's a fraction late that breaks a leg.

Being racially abused should never be part of the game in any way ... and in this instance it's not. You could also bring in why players are banned for so long for other non-footballing indiscretions, such as gambling.

That's why I don't think the two are comparable.

9 minutes ago, L/H White said:

what's son said about it?

He has said, Bentancur apologised via text and in person , was nearly in tears whilst apologising and he is his brother.

The matter is now with FA who will deal with it

 

Obviously this is paraphrased rather than a direct quote in case anyone picks fault with it 

Just now, DazBob said:

Because bad tackles are part and parcel of the game. You step out on a pitch there's always the chance you'll get hurt. There's a fine line between a good, hard tackle that we love to see and one that's a fraction late that breaks a leg.

Being racially abused should never be part of the game in any way ... and in this instance it's not. You could also bring in why players are banned for so long for other non-footballing indiscretions, such as gambling.

That's why I don't think the two are comparable.

Fair point .... but say Keanes tackle on Haaland back in the day, they are not 'part of the game'. 

6 minutes ago, L/H White said:

I want to know the context around it, I genuinely don't know

In a media interview when asked by a presenter for a Tottenham shirt, Bentancur replied: "Sonny's? It could be Sonny's cousin too as they all look the same."

1 minute ago, Ani said:

Fair point .... but say Keanes tackle on Haaland back in the day, they are not 'part of the game'. 

No arguments from me on that.

A pre-meditated assault should carry a lengthy ban. I'd not be against the offender being banned for as long as the injured player is out of action.

Trouble is it's gonna be nigh on impossible to prove in the majority of cases.

1 hour ago, DazBob said:

That's irrelevant.

That'd be like saying telling racist jokes in a pub is OK if the black barman laughs at them.

That entirely depends upon the relationship between all the individuals. 

Harks back to the Yorkshire cricket situation. 

Two mates chucking jibes at each other. Both of a similar nature.

Then one changes his mind and complains that the club is racist.

 

23 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That entirely depends upon the relationship between all the individuals. 

If in private, yes, I conpletely agree.

This wasn't in private.

2 hours ago, DazBob said:

Firstly, I don't think we should ever compare punishment for racism to punishment for bad tackles.

Secondly, as to whether the ban is harsh or not. Possibly, but surely a line has to be drawn and racism is racism. If not you have to go down a path of ranking what is acceptable racism and what isn't.

Of course, the usual suspects will think all of the above is absolute bollocks. 😀

Yes. Me.

OTT stupidity.

15 minutes ago, DazBob said:

If in private, yes, I conpletely agree.

This wasn't in private.

And Son wasn't even present.

1 hour ago, DazBob said:

In a media interview when asked by a presenter for a Tottenham shirt, Bentancur replied: "Sonny's? It could be Sonny's cousin too as they all look the same."

See that's not the same as the suarez thing for me. It's not like he's bowled up to him and called him a slanty eyed rice muncher or summet. 

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

See that's not the same as the suarez thing for me. It's not like he's bowled up to him and called him a slanty eyed rice muncher or summet. 

Aye, and that's where it becomes a dangerous road of what is acceptable racism and what isn't. 

 

3 hours ago, L/H White said:

what's son said about it?

WE ALL LOOK THE SAME 

3 hours ago, DazBob said:

Aye, and that's where it becomes a dangerous road of what is acceptable racism and what isn't. 

 

Aye but saying sickening or similar on here isn't the same as calling a player the N word or summet.

Surely there's levels. Wasn't an insult really, just a daft comment based on generalisation.

Should both be sent back on boats. Stopping good English guys saying it. Probably didn’t even say it in English.