Team Expelled from Leinster Football League over Assault and "Xenophobic Insults"

[JCSkinner]

We see what you're getting at. And I've admitted that the collective punishment could be excessive, depending on what happened that day and depending on the expelled team's "form".

Could be excessive?

But you're attitude to both the Leinster FA rules and customary practice in football disciplinary matters is strange and contradictory.
You make an appeal based expressly on the Leinster FA rules.

I didn't make any appeal. I merely presented the rules of the Association here so that people knew the circumstances surrounding this bizarre punishment.

But then you continue to refer to the assault and abuse as "alleged", even after the Leinster FA has made a finding of fact under those same rules based on the referee's report. (The referee's report being the customary source of independent evidence in football disciplinary matters.)

The assault remains alleged until proven in a court of law. The suggestion of racism is being appealed and hence also remains alleged.

Do you accept that once you've acknowledged the authority of those Leinster FA rules, and the place of the referee's report, you have to accept the legitimacy (pending appeal) of a finding under those rules and based on the report?

Key words there: 'pending appeal.'

You can't suddenly opt out of respect for the rules and disciplinary process and refer to the offence as "alleged", just because it's not been proven in a court of criminal law or because you suspect some (unproven) element of overbearing influence on the FA.

Sure I can, because the punishment is being appealed on the basis that the alleged offence is not as has been described.

[Libero]

To get to the point, JCSkinner, if the ruling and punishment is upheld on appeal, will you accept that?

I'm just pointing out that you can hardly refer to the Leinster FA rules for part of your argument, and then switch to some other process (you've referred to "a court of law") for another part of your argument.

You either accept the legitimacy of disciplinary process established by the Leinster FA and the FAI, or you don't.

[The_SR]

Thats probably going to be my favourite quote today.

Its a cracker.

Ethnic minorities can't complain about racism because they are minorities.

Next week, why women can't go to the cops if they are raped.

[JCSkinner]

To get to the point, JCSkinner, if the ruling and punishment is upheld on appeal, will you accept that?

The ruling, absolutely. However, the punishment remains without precedent and is clearly disproportionate.

I'm just pointing out that you can hardly refer to the Leinster FA rules for part of your argument, and then switch to some other process (you've referred to "a court of law") for another part of your argument.

You either accept the legitimacy of disciplinary process established by the Leinster FA and the FAI, or you don't.

Assault is a criminal offence and requires a court to adjudicate. Do you accept that?

[oscartango]

If the Latvian lads were racially abusing the Irish lads in Latvian, how would we know ?

[Libero]

Its a cracker.

Ethnic minorities can't complain about racism because they are minorities.

Next week, why women can't go to the cops if they are raped.

But don'chya know... women are always playing the rape card.

And when the ALLEGED rapist is convicted, it's often because the court is scared by the negative publicity that would come from not convicting. Or so says me.

And once upon a time, there was a group of women who said they'd lose faith in the justice system if an ALLEGED rapist was not convicted. So obviously this was moral blackmail on the part of those women. And shame on the court for being influenced by them!

But I'm not a pro-rapist, me. I just strain myself to make excuses for ALLEGED rapists. In fact, I'll continue to refer to them as ALLEGED rapists even when they've been convicted under the rules I've cited in their defence. And it is purely in the interests of justice and fair play that I cast slurs on those making accusations, or who stand by the victim and show solidarity (this is called being "chippy").

[Libero]

The ruling, absolutely. However, the punishment remains without precedent and is clearly disproportionate.

I've accepted already that the punishment might be disproportionate. But it might not be, not if the assault and abuse was particularly co-ordinated and nasty and/or the club in question have been misbehaving in the past and this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Neither you nor I have access to the referee's report or the club's record but the Leinster FA and the FAI do.

Assault is a criminal offence and requires a court to adjudicate. Do you accept that?

For a criminal sentence to be handed down as a result of the adjudication, yes. That's what our constitution demands.

But one can also be found guilty in a civil court of assault and battery.

And if one signs up (either individually or collectively) to a sporting league's rules, one shouldn't dispute the legitimacy of a punishment handed down under those rules. I definitely think that it is spectacularly incoherent to refer to those rules in ones defence (as you did, pointing out how violent conduct is specifically mentioned under Rule 33) but then make out that violent conduct can only be adjudicated upon by a criminal court of law.

[JCSkinner]

I've accepted already that the punishment might be disproportionate. But it might not be, not if the assault and abuse was particularly co-ordinated and nasty and/or the club in question have been misbehaving in the past and this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Neither you nor I have access to the referee's report or the club's record but the Leinster FA and the FAI do.

There's been no suggestion of any of that. And even then, there is STILL no precedent for expelling the team from the league over this.
It's self-evident the expulsion has followed the demand from the Latvians that this be the case. It remains disproportionate and unprecedented.

For a criminal sentence to be handed down as a result of the adjudication, yes. That's what our constitution demands.
But one can also be found guilty in a civil court of assault and battery.

So you agree that for it to be accurately described as an assault, we await a hearing in court?

And if one signs up (either individually or collectively) to a sporting league's rules, one shouldn't dispute the legitimacy of a punishment handed down under those rules. I definitely think that it is spectacularly incoherent to refer to those rules in ones defence (as you did, pointing out how violent conduct is specifically mentioned under Rule 33) but then make out that violent conduct can only be adjudicated upon by a criminal court of law.

Violent conduct is not 'assault'. I'm pointing out that people, including you, are tremendously quick to make assumptions about this case which may bear little or no relation to the reality.
For the incident to be an assault, it has to be found so in a court of law. For it to be violent conduct, the Leinster FA need only deem it such.
That's the difference. Hence - alleged assault.
Furthermore, I have no involvement with any of the parties in this case and therefore am not seeking to place anything in my defence, as I have no need to defend myself. Your attempt to somehow implicate me in these events is, frankly, not only incoherent but despicable.

[The_SR]

Libero, you are wasting your time.

Skinner gave me a negative rep and told me I was being "childish" for calling him on flip flopping over whether the LSL acted within their rules. Despite his original claims, we now know they did. As you say, we know nothing of the context.

He has made a monumental fool of himself here and you are just wasting time and badnwith at this point. You won hands down.

[Libero]

Libero, you are wasting your time.

Skinner gave me a negative rep and told me I was being "childish" for calling him on flip flopping over whether the LSL acted within their rules. Despite his original claims, we now know they did. As you say, we know nothing of the context.

He has made a monumental fool of himself here and you are just wasting time and badnwith at this point. You won hands down.

I think it's kinda cute how he seizes on my use of the words "appeal" and "defence" and offers his hurt protestations that he has nothing to do with the parties involved, as if I'd just made out that he was some kind of legal representative for the expelled club.

The semantic wordplay reaches new heights though when he, quite suddenly, differentiates between the terms assault and violent conduct. As it happens, it's pretty much impossible to imagine an action that would constitute violent conduct for the purposes of the Leinster FA that wouldn't also cross the very low barrier for liability (physical contact isn't even required) under the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.

If you look back at his posting history, you'll see he regularly retreats into wordplay to avoid admitting that he's failed with his argument.

And the sad thing is this: the Leinster FA quite possibly have overreacted by imposing collective punishment on the expelled club. But they and the FAI will probably be slower to backtrack not only because of astute media-driven pressure from the "chippy" complainants, but also for fear of giving succour to the racism that does exist in society and which shows itself not only on the sports field but also through incoherent and breathless defence and downplaying of prima facie acts of racist assault.