Mario Balotelli [On the Road to Ballon d'or)

[Doc_Piptorious]

Because the devil usually lies in the detail.

That is hard to disagree with as a standalone comment, but sometimes the simple answer is the correct one.


If we were talking about a court of law then I would be 100% behind what you have said to me in this thread.

But we are not discussing a court of law here, we are discussing an organisation that is on record as having stated that it does make some disciplinary decisions based on probabilities. So if an organisation is making decisions based on probabilities then they are already simplifying the process when compared to a court of law.


Handing out punishments based on probabilities removes the need for hard evidence, it removes the need for there to be no reasonable doubt, and it could even be argued that you go into a FA hearing as being presumed guilty and needing to prove your innocence rather than them having to prove without any doubt that you are guilty of what you have been brought before them for.


In short if we were talking about the real world and courts of law, then detail is everything, but within the bubble that the FA seems to operate in detail can be as important or an unimportant as they deem necessary. Their own rules allow for the simplified method, rightly or wrongly, and in my eyes the FA should be judged on whether or not they are consistent in using their own rules.

[fidget]

That is hard to disagree with as a standalone comment, but sometimes the simple answer is the correct one.


If we were talking about a court of law then I would be 100% behind what you have said to me in this thread.

But we are not discussing a court of law here, we are discussing an organisation that is on record as having stated that it does make some disciplinary decisions based on probabilities. So if an organisation is making decisions based on probabilities then they are already simplifying the process when compared to a court of law.


Handing out punishments based on probabilities removes the need for hard evidence, it removes the need for there to be no reasonable doubt, and it could even be argued that you go into a FA hearing as being presumed guilty and needing to prove your innocence rather than them having to prove without any doubt that you are guilty of what you have been brought before them for.


In short if we were talking about the real world and courts of law, then detail is everything, but within the bubble that the FA seems to operate in detail can be as important or an unimportant as they deem necessary. Their own rules allow for the simplified method, rightly or wrongly, and in my eyes the FA should be judged on whether or not they are consistent in using their own rules.

Well put.

[Kenneth]

I don't see why balance of probabilities removes the need for consideration of evidence or a simplified method. The judgments in the Suarez and Terry cases suggests they went into a lot of detail. In defamation cases the courts make judgements based on balance of probabilities and they don't just guess. The case against suarez was stronger than the case against Terry. Terry was found guilty of using racist language on the pitch, not of directing it at Ferdinand as abuse. Suarez was found guilty of repeatedly using racist language towards evra in a derogatory fashion. The distinction was made because of the evidence presented.

[fidget]

I don't see why balance of probabilities removes the need for consideration of evidence or a simplified method. The judgments in the Suarez and Terry cases suggests they went into a lot of detail. In defamation cases the courts make judgements based on balance of probabilities and they don't just guess. The case against suarez was stronger than the case against Terry. Terry was found guilty of using racist language on the pitch, not of directing it at Ferdinand as abuse. Suarez was found guilty of repeatedly using racist language towards evra in a derogatory fashion. The distinction was made because of the evidence presented.

And the evidence presented is tailored to suit the agenda.
The FA do what they please.

[Doc_Piptorious]

I don't see why balance of probabilities removes the need for consideration of evidence or a simplified method. The judgments in the Suarez and Terry cases suggests they went into a lot of detail. In defamation cases the courts make judgements based on balance of probabilities and they don't just guess. The case against suarez was stronger than the case against Terry. Terry was found guilty of using racist language on the pitch, not of directing it at Ferdinand as abuse. Suarez was found guilty of repeatedly using racist language towards evra in a derogatory fashion. The distinction was made because of the evidence presented.

If a person is to be found guilty of something based on probabilities rather than hard evidence, then the process has been simplified so that an if, but, or maybe can be used for a verdict to be reached.

In a defamation case in court one still have to prove that the defaming comment or comments were made before a decision can be made as to whether or not the comments were defamatory in nature. Probabilities kick in after it has been proven that what was claimed to be said was actually said.


The FA on the other hand can find someone guilty without proving the person did what they were meant to have done, and things like context, hard evidence etc can go out the window with such a system, hence me thinking it is a simpler system and one that in certain cases would allow for fairly quick decisions when there is actual evidence to what was said available.

I don't actually think we disagree all that much when it comes to what Balotelli actually put online or whether or not he should be punished. We just have differing stances/opinions with regards to the FA's way of doing things.

[Kenneth]

I disagree, a judgement based on balance of probabilities does not preclude a detailed consideration of evidence in theory or in practice. Anyway, whether the FA process is simpler or not, to remove context from cases for the purposes of a simplified comparison does not make more sense than considering them.

[Doc_Piptorious]

I disagree, a judgement based on balance of probabilities does not preclude a detailed consideration of evidence in theory or in practice. Anyway, whether the FA process is simpler or not, to remove context from cases for the purposes of a simplified comparison does not make more sense than considering them.

Yes but the only system that I am talking about is the FA system. A system that does not give much weight to context or maybe better to say that it does not appear to be consistent in how much weight they give to context.

In the real world I agree with you, but I honestly do not believe that the FA are consistent enough to give each case the same level of consideration, and I do not believe that two separate cases that did the exact same thing with no difference in terms of context would necessarily receive the same judgement from the FA.


Just boils down to me having no confidence in their ability to remain consistent using their own rules.

[Kenneth]

Do you think we might be devoting too much time to this?

[Doc_Piptorious]

Do you think we might be devoting too much time to this?

[marcus50bucks]

“As as a club we felt that buying Mario was the solution at the time,” said Rodgers.

“In the summer, we had Rickie Lambert. Fabio Borini looked 100 per cent that he was leaving, and obviously Daniel Sturridge has shown in his career so far that he gets injuries.

“To go into the season with no-one else would have been very difficult for us."

“It would have been unfair to leave Rickie Lambert, as a 32-year-old, as the only other striker that we had.

“I felt it was a risk we needed to take with Mario because, as a group, we couldn’t afford not to a that time.

“It was obviously late on and we needed to have someone in.

“It’s something that we can’t regret now. I made it clear at the beginning it was a calculated risk - and that is why he probably cost the money he did.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/mario-balotelli-signing-gamble-backfired-4760914

Talk about throwing your own player under the bus. He is bang out of order here and it's not the first time he's opened his big mouth!

[Fosterbloke]

Depends on the player's mentality. Some will rise to the challenge while others wilt.

[Bender]

“As as a club we felt that buying Mario was the solution at the time,” said Rodgers.

“In the summer, we had Rickie Lambert. Fabio Borini looked 100 per cent that he was leaving, and obviously Daniel Sturridge has shown in his career so far that he gets injuries.

“To go into the season with no-one else would have been very difficult for us."

“It would have been unfair to leave Rickie Lambert, as a 32-year-old, as the only other striker that we had.

“I felt it was a risk we needed to take with Mario because, as a group, we couldn’t afford not to a that time.

“It was obviously late on and we needed to have someone in.

“It’s something that we can’t regret now. I made it clear at the beginning it was a calculated risk - and that is why he probably cost the money he did.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/mario-balotelli-signing-gamble-backfired-4760914

Talk about throwing your own player under the bus. He is bang out of order here and it's not the first time he's opened his big mouth!

Unbelievable from Brendan Hodgson

[Assassin]

“As as a club we felt that buying Mario was the solution at the time,” said Rodgers.

“In the summer, we had Rickie Lambert. Fabio Borini looked 100 per cent that he was leaving, and obviously Daniel Sturridge has shown in his career so far that he gets injuries.

“To go into the season with no-one else would have been very difficult for us."

“It would have been unfair to leave Rickie Lambert, as a 32-year-old, as the only other striker that we had.

“I felt it was a risk we needed to take with Mario because, as a group, we couldn’t afford not to a that time.

“It was obviously late on and we needed to have someone in.

“It’s something that we can’t regret now. I made it clear at the beginning it was a calculated risk - and that is why he probably cost the money he did.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/mario-balotelli-signing-gamble-backfired-4760914

Talk about throwing your own player under the bus. He is bang out of order here and it's not the first time he's opened his big mouth!

To me this looks more like the kick up the arse Ballotelli needs...

[marcus50bucks]

To me this looks more like the kick up the arse Ballotelli needs...

Well I don't buy that one bit. It seems like he's deflecting blame yet again. How about keeping stuff like this in house? This is the second time he's made comments like this about Balotelli. It was only a couple of months ago when he said Balotelli was a calculated risk and a last resort signing. It's unnecessary, he needs to keep his mouth shut.

[RichC]

Is this the full interview and exactly what he's said ? Rags like the mirror have a long history of moving quotes around and cutting bits out to get the story they want.