Video: The FA's Report May Be Inconsistent in the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra Saga

Kaustav BoseCorrespondent IJanuary 1, 2012

Video: The FA's Report May Be Inconsistent in the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra Saga

0 of 1

    Hopefully by now all of you have read the FA's detailed report on the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra saga.

    A lot has been said and reported on the issue already, and whatever I am going to put here is not a repetition of what has now been said and reported numerous times.

    Legal suits or potential ones have followed Liverpool for more than two years now. Firstly came the case where the Reds claimed a major victory over ownership issues. No sooner did the things start looking brighter on the pitch, Liverpool FC now find themselves cluttered in a drama of epic proportions. In other words, the Suarez-Evra racism case.

    Actually, I have been amazed at the level of the pro and anti-Suarez/Evra sentiments on the issue when what the basic conclusion that I understand from the report—and mainly the various controversies surrounding it—is this: (This is my understanding of the case only.)

    1) The FA has apparently has used the term "balance of probabilities" which actually has puzzled many a Liverpool fan but then as I find it, is a common parlance in civil and criminal law suits. (The term is generally used in civil practices). They have not said something like "beyond a reasonable doubt" as is the case with criminally offensive cases as the case involving John Terry and Antoine Ferdinand.

    2) Suarez has had his comments contradicted by Dirk Kuyt and Damien Comolli. Maybe this has made the FA believe that Suarez's comments are actually "unreliable". They also said that Suarez's comments were "inconsistent".

    3) The FA has also not really charged Suarez as a "racist" and even Evra's comments indicate that he may not think Suarez to be one. However, their punishment they have given to Suarez is on the use of the word they find offensive. This is almost an analogy to the case that a driver may end up in jail even if he didn't hit a person with his car on purpose but still injured him or killed him. However, the severity of the punishment seems unduly harsh. 

    3) However, I have also come to know that there is apparently video evidence which the FA has collected related to the case and they have based a lot of their judgements on those. The FA have also indicated that they believe Evra more than Suarez. 

    Now, although I haven't had access to all the videos that the FA says it has had access to, the following video can be used to say that the FA has itself been inconsistent or even wrong in at least one of their assumptions.

The Incident That Sparked off the Entire Saga

1 of 1

    An interesting observation from the FA's report is as follows; (courtesy: the Red and White Kop forum) :

    "In the 58th minute of the game, Mr Suarez fouled Mr Evra between the edge of the Manchester United penalty area and the corner flag at the Kop end. It seemed to us to be a deliberate foul, and the referee awarded a free kick. The foul was committed by Mr Suarez kicking Mr Evra on his right knee. Mr Evra explained that he had previously had a bad problem in that knee. He remained on the ground receiving medical treatment for about one minute after the tackle.


    2nd point: Mr Evra said that while he was lying on the ground, Mr Kuyt came up to him and said "stand up, you fucking prick". Mr Kuyt said "This is untrue. What I did say was something to the effect of "Stand up, stand up", as if to say that it had been a foul but he was making too much of it". The video footage did not show Mr Kuyt speaking to Mr Evra at this time, but Mr Kuyt admitted that he did so. "

    Now although this video may not provide substantial insight into what Evra and Suarez said to each other, it proves evidence on the following ground;

    Watching the video from 1:15 onwards we find there was no intentional kick on Evra from Suarez and Kuyt did in fact say something to Evra, which from his gestures could be interpreted as something like "Stand up".

    Yet the FA didn't find any evidence of this from all their videos. Does this not leave loop holes into whatever other videos they say are conclusive on any lines?

    Now, although after Suarez has admitted to having said the word "Negro" in spanish which means "black" in English and thus, could have punitive actions taken against him, the evidence from the video suggests that Evra wasn't clearly kicked in such a way such that he should really pick up a hostile conversation with Suarez in the first place. For more instances which state why Evra can be easily considered "inconsistent" to the same level as Suarez, read this.

    Whatever, actions Liverpool FC decide to take after having defended Luis Suarez for most of the time after the incident occured and also given evidence, it could be very well guessed that they are not going to take it lying down.

    However, to have a more amicable solution among the parties and keep the club and the players away from all the distraction Liverpool may even NOT choose to appeal, but on grounds that the FA clarifies again that Luis Suarez is not a racist and that conclusions drawn may not be as fool proof. If the FA just goes by the above video, they can easily see why Evra had no issues to start an angry conversation in the first place.