🚨 OFFICIAL: Correa, SUSPENDED for 5 games
This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇪🇸 here.
Atlético Madrid's Argentine striker was sent off last matchday in La Liga and seriously insulted the referee.It was speculated that Correa could receive a harsh sanction for his insults to the referee after his expulsion in Getafe. Well, the Committee has already dictated the sanction.
🎙️ Informa @isaacfouto 🟥 El Comité de Disciplina de la @rfef sanciona a Ángel Correa con 5 partidos tras su expulsión en Getafe➡️ Cuatro por insultar al árbitro y uno por la expulsión❌ La sanción la cumplirá en liga y copa📻 #PartidazoCOPE pic.twitter.com/SLwtPWdlEt
— El Partidazo de COPE (@partidazocope) March 12, 2025
Correa will not be able to play the next five games with Atleti, this sanction must be served in both La Liga and Copa del Rey.
📸 Florencia Tan Jun - 2025 Getty Images
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mayor of Fuengirola calls for help after Eddie Lyons Jr and Ross Monaghan murders
THE mayor of Fuengirola has called for help from the Spanish Government after two Scottish men were killed in a 'gangland' shooting in the town. A gunman fired several shots at Monaghan's Bar in Andalusia, Southern Spain, on Saturday evening, killing Eddie Lyons Junior and Ross Monaghan. Spanish detectives previously told BBC News that investigations into the double murder, which took place at around 11.30pm on the day, were ongoing. READ NEXT: Spain bar shootings: Who was Glasgow man Ross Monaghan? Left to right: Eddie Lyons Junior and Ross Monaghan (Image: Mike Gibbons, Spindrift) Now, Ana Mula, mayor of Fuengirola, is asking for more resources and help from the Spanish central government, Sur in English reports. In an emergency meeting with national and local police, as well as the area's councillor for public safety, Jose Luis Ponce, she demanded more police specialised in organised crime. She said: 'We live in a world and at a time when crime knows no borders. And in places like the Costa del Sol, phenomena are occurring which, by expansion, affect us irremediably. 'This is why our determination is to tackle it without hot air, to put all possible threats on the table and to prepare ourselves to face this new context, with the means at our disposal, with the best guarantees. 'We need the involvement of the state to be much greater in this matter.' READ NEXT: Mayor Mula stated that she had organised the meeting to 'reinforce collaboration and improve prevention and action in terms of public safety'. She did, however, go on to highlight that this is already 'extraordinary'. It comes after graphic footage of the shooting emerged recently. Spanish TV aired the horrific scenes inside Monaghan's Bar on Fuengirola's promenade. (Image: BBC) These showed Ross Monaghan in his final moments, just seconds after Eddie Lyons Junior was gunned down outside. The gunman appeared to be wearing a black baseball cap, a black jacket, black shorts, and had a white T-shirt around his neck, which he is thought to have used to hide his face before opening fire. He later fled on foot before rejoining an accomplice in a car. No details about the getaway vehicle have been released. READ NEXT: Spanish police confirmed on Monday that they had yet to make any arrests. A spokesperson said: 'The investigation is continuing into the fatal shooting of two men at a pub in Fuengirola, with nothing new at the moment.' There is speculation that the shootings are linked to the ongoing 'gangland feud' in central Scotland, which has resulted in dozens of incidents, including alleged attempted murders, and more than 40 arrests. Some of the people targeted in the violence are linked to the Daniels crime group - long-time rivals of another serious organised crime group, the Lyons family, of which Eddie Lyons Junior, 46, and Ross Monaghan, 43, were members. Monaghan was acquitted of the murder of Kevin 'Gerbil' Carroll in 2010 after the judge at his 2012 trial ruled there was insufficient evidence. Kevin 'Gerbil' Carroll (Image: Archives) Eddie Lyons Junior had previously been shot in 2006 in an incident that was believed to be part of a gang feud. Meanwhile, Monaghan was shot in the back after dropping his child off at a primary school in Glasgow in 2017.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Polling About War Crimes Comes With Extra Responsibilities
Against the backdrop of Israel's escalating ground offensive in Gaza and this weekend's massacre at a humanitarian aid distribution site there, several recent polls show Israeli support for the war in Gaza on the decline. Approximately 70 percent of Israelis now prefer to end the war if it means bringing home the hostages still being held in the territory. Distinguished Israeli leaders are also speaking out more forcefully against what they view as crimes against humanity committed by Israeli forces in Gaza. In a recent op-ed, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Israel is waging a 'war of extermination: the indiscriminate, unrestrained, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians,' a view he reiterated on CNN on Sunday. Over 1,200 Israeli academics have penned a letter calling for an end to the suffering of the Palestinians. And as many as 40 percent of Israeli conscripts are refusing service; one stated, 'I would prefer [jail] over killing children.' But even as this peace—or anti-war crimes—movement gains ground, a much more disturbing poll of Israeli citizens published on May 22 alleges that nearly half of Israelis support the extermination of all Palestinians in Gaza. This poll had asked Israelis to signal their support for or opposition to Israeli policies in Gaza as well as dehumanizing rhetoric, particularly biblical references to exterminating enemies, popularized by rightwing religious figures and political elites since Hamas' attacks of Oct. 7, 2023. The survey focused on the rhetoric of ultra-orthodox Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used similar references to justify Israel's siege warfare against Gaza, which has killed an estimated 64,000 people—a third of them under 18 years old—according to Reuters, with many more at risk of starvation. The poll was conducted using rigorous weighted sampling methods by Israeli polling firm Geocartography Knowledge Group at the request of two U.S.-based historians—Tamir Sorek and Shai Hiskani of Penn State University and the University of Maryland, respectively. None of the standard meta-data—including margins of error, demographic breakdowns and comprehensive question wording—appear to have been made public in English, but the scholars' stated aim, according to an op-ed in Haaretz, was to 'ask impolite questions' to discover 'just how appealing the apocalyptic language offered by Ginsburg is to Israeli-Jews from all walks of life.' To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter. The poll asked respondents whether they 'support the claim that the [Israeli military], when conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites acted when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, that is, kill all its inhabitants?' Just under half of respondents—47 percent—responded in the affirmative. And 82 percent supported forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, which may have sounded to respondents like a more humane option by contrast to extermination. Given these scholars' previous work on conflict and resistance, the publication of their op-ed in a left-wing, secular newspaper like Haaretz, and a separate piece outlining their concerns over what they refer to as the 'mainstreaming' of genocidal rhetoric, it is reasonable to believe their intent was to generate opposition to war crimes in Gaza, if not the war itself. But unfortunately, based on what social scientists know about the politics of conflict research, it is more likely this survey could have an exacerbating rather than constraining effect on Israel's campaign in Gaza. The first thing to know is that survey respondents who are invited to express support for war crimes may be likelier to believe such acts aren't crimes at all. This effect is illustrated by research conducted by myself and colleagues Alexander Montgomery and Alexandria Nylen a few years ago. We analyzed what happens to U.S. public attitudes on the laws of war when respondents are asked to express a preference for or against a policy that qualifies as a war crime. The fictional scenario in question involved a gross violation of humanitarian law—firebombing an Iranian city—presumably to end a war, a question we replicated from an earlier study. One difference between the original study and ours is that we also asked our respondents their attitudes on the lawfulness of targeting civilians in the abstract. But we asked a randomly selected half of the respondents this other question before they were asked their views on the Iran scenario, and the other half after. This enabled us to determine not only whether respondents' baseline views on targeting civilians affected their attitudes toward the firebombing scenario, but also to measure how much the experience of first answering the firebombing question affected their views on the legality of targeting of civilians. Both effects were evident. Knowledge of international law, or even just being asked to think about international law, reduced support for the deadly strike. But conversely, being asked to express a policy opinion about targeting actual civilians reduced respondents' belief that doing so was even banned by international law at all—even for those who in fact opposed the strike. So researchers can inadvertently affect citizens' viewpoints on what conduct is legally permissible in the way they ask survey questions. Since studies show international law has a powerful moderating effect on citizen attitudes, when researchers undermine those understandings, they may inadvertently 'prime' respondents to go along with war crimes. Second, this effect can actually be exacerbated when such survey results are disseminated in the media through press releases or op-eds that get picked up and uncritically circulated by other sources. For example, the bombing survey we were replicating had been publicized with headlines like 'Americans Wouldn't Mind if We Just Nuked Somebody.' To test the impact of this dynamic, we created a treatment group in our survey, informing them about the earlier survey result that Americans were 'okay' with targeting civilians. That knowledge increased their own willingness to firebomb the Iranian city. Ours was a fictional scenario, but this effect may be worse in ongoing conflicts, such as Israel's war in Gaza, where the media ecosystem is especially polarized. Finally, publicizing popular support for war crimes risks affecting conflict dynamics directly. A perception of public support, however accurate, can make it easier for politicians to order abuses and dilutes the political space for resisting atrocities. The perception that support for war crimes is widespread among a population also increases support for crimes against that population. This risks putting all civilians in danger of revenge attacks for crimes perpetrated by their nation's army, even if many of them actually oppose those crimes, as 53 percent of Israelis did in the poll in question. Understanding the political psychology of public support or opposition to war crimes is vitally important, and we know what we do about the subject thanks to good survey research. Nevertheless, because of the framing effects that survey designs themselves create, pollsters and social scientists are increasingly cognizant of their role in measuring public opinion—but also their responsibility to avoid potentially influencing it in ways that harm. That responsibility is even greater when asking respondents about ongoing atrocities rather than fictional scenarios. Some best practices are emerging in the social sciences and the opinion polling industry to gather information on conflict psychology while minimizing potential harm in high-risk environments. Among these are transparency—pollsters should always make their methodologies and question wording easily available to audiences; neutrality—pollsters should adopt a nonpartisan stance applying equally to both conflict parties; and protection of human subjects' data—pollsters should ensure informed consent and confidentiality. These precautions protect vulnerable populations and the integrity of the research enterprise. But conflict researchers can go beyond this to ensure their work minimizes social harm. First, when it comes to researching war crimes, conflict researchers and pollsters can use the preamble to the actual survey questions to highlight current international legal standards. They can then invite respondents to evaluate policymakers' actions and rhetoric against those standards, rather than simply inviting them to express support for illegal acts. A study structured in this way would likely yield a different result. Of course, the purpose of the study conducted by Sorek and Hiskani was specifically to analyze the influence of apocalyptical biblical references on Israeli attitudes toward the war in Gaza, rather than legal standards alone. So how might researchers get at questions like this without giving the impression that such policies are legitimate? One possible solution would be to compare two respondent groups, each receiving a neutral question about proposed policies in Gaza and facts about current international law, but with only one group also hearing mention of the biblical reference to Jericho in the preamble, rather than baked into the question itself. This approach captures the impact of rhetoric on answers about policy without privileging that rhetoric or inviting citizens to directly endorse it themselves. And it allows a comparison of the two groups' answers in order to isolate the effect of the framing. However, social scientists already know a lot about how genocidal rhetoric affects attitudes, and less about how to counter it. So, one could also imagine studying the effect of biblical references that support tolerance, restraint and protecting the innocent rather than those that include genocidal rhetoric—or even comparing the influence of both. And pollsters can build on what we already know: Even just adding an informational disclaimer at the end of such a survey, citing actual international legal standards, while doing so in any press releases as well, is a way to inoculate respondents and audiences against the pernicious effects of thinking about the unthinkable. Another solution is asking respondents to think aloud about how to solve specific policy problems, without priming them with specific policy options at all. This creates a more neutral window into what resonates in a particular political moment without the risk of over-determining the result. For example, in a separate Iranian firebombing study, we asked one group of respondents not a close-ended question about whether they supported or opposed the strike, but rather an open-ended question: 'If you were the Commander-in-Chief what would you do in this scenario?' The number wishing to bomb the city dropped dramatically when not forced into one of two boxes. Many respondents thought outside the box altogether, a sorely needed ability in polarized conflicts. The point is not to criticize this particular survey but to highlight choices pollsters can make in conflict zones. Like other forms of reporting on war and peace, surveys carry risks but can also have a constructive informational effect on conflict-affected populations: amplifying alternative frames, opening space for resistance and yielding results that, when published, can support efforts to resolve rather than escalate violence by stressing humanizing rather than dehumanizing narratives across collective groups. The same critical lens could be applied to other opinion polls on Israel's war in Gaza. Polls asking Israelis whether they care more about eradicating Gaza or bringing the hostages home imply these are the only options—and mutually exclusive ones at that. And polls asking Israelis whether they support the war rarely ask, among those who say yes, whether they nonetheless oppose war crimes. Measured correctly, the opposition might be much stronger than observers think, if not as strong as they wish. Without that ethical nuance, such polls are unlikely to fully capture public opinion and may instead risk perpetuating a polarizing media climate that increases the possibility of war crimes and decreases the chances for peace. Rather than dwell on the resonance of the more alarming narratives measured by this latest poll, it may be worth thinking about how to amplify and measure the impact of the Israeli and Palestinian voices now fighting so hard to offer alternatives. Charli Carpenter is a professor of political science and legal studies at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, specializing in human security and international law. She tweets at @charlicarpenter. The post Polling About War Crimes Comes With Extra Responsibilities appeared first on World Politics Review.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
China Dominates 'Dark' Network Behind Global Fishing Crisis
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new report exposes the sophisticated networks propping up Chinese squid fleets accused of illegal fishing off South America. These activities—often carried out with Automatic Identification System (AIS) trackers turned off, or "dark"—are undercutting local fishers who depend on regional marine resources for their livelihoods, according to Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit C4ADS. Illegal, Unreported And Unregulated The rising demand for seafood and dwindling local stocks have pushed fishing fleets farther from home. The vessels now operate in international waters for months—even years—at a time, virtually unmonitored, increasing the risk of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and labor abuses. China and Taiwan account for about 60 percent of distant-water fishing, and Chinese vessels in particular have faced growing scrutiny for allegedly operating illegally within South American exclusive economic zones, prompting rising grassroots pressure to tighten enforcement and close regulatory loopholes. Newsweek reached out to the Chinese embassies in Paraguay and Uruguay with emailed requests for comment. Close-up shot of the backs of several fishing trawlers in Hong Kong on February 6, 2019. Close-up shot of the backs of several fishing trawlers in Hong Kong on February 6, 2019. StephenWhat To Know The abundant stocks of jumbo flying squid and Argentine shortfin squid have attracted distant-water fishing fleets to the coasts of South America. A report released Tuesday by the C4Dfound that 69 percent of squid jiggers operating off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts share ownership with ships allegedly involved in illicit activities, or vessels of concern. While these operations are theoretically under the oversight of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO), enforcement is often spotty. The situation is even more tenuous on the Atlantic coast, which lacks a comparable fisheries management framework. Monitoring these vessels is challenging because of extended periods between port calls. Complicating matters further are sophisticated networks of onshore and offshore actors who facilitate illicit operations by obscuring catch data, obfuscating labor abuses, and lobbying to maintain lax regulations, according to C4ADS. Offshore Support A variety of offshore support vessels is crucial to sustaining these industrial squid fishing operations over extended periods. Refrigerated cargo ships, or "reefers," transfer catches, equipment, supplies and crew between vessels, allowing fishing ships to cut down on port visits, where they may be subject to inspections, and obscure the origin of hauls. Reefers then typically offload catches at ports in states that are not party to the Port State Measures Agreement, a treaty aimed at blocking illegal fishing vessels from offloading their harvest. Enforcement is further hindered by relatively lax regulations. Unlike other distant-water fishers restricted to interacting with SPRFMO-authorized vessels, squid jiggers are only required to report transshipments within 30 days and provide operational details quarterly. Chinese firms have a significant presence in this sector. Nearly 90 percent of transshipment events involving distant-water squid jiggers were linked to Chinese-owned reefers, with just 15 ships accounting for 72 percent of these interactions. All 15 operated under flags of convenience, registering under foreign nations in order to mask Chinese ownership and reduce oversight. Tankers also play a key role by refueling these ships and allowing them to remain at sea for longer periods. Unlike reefers, tankers are typically not required to report encounters with squid jiggers. Additionally, owners of tankers supplying fuel to squid fishers are not mandated to register these vessels within fleets that directly contact fishing vessels, creating a regulatory gap that enables support with a minimal record of activities. Support vessels referred to as "floating offshore fishery bases" by C4ADS also bolster these operations. These are squid jiggers that have adopted multifunctional roles, providing logistics, operational coordination and limited medical care. These ships not only extend time at sea but also help conceal labor abuses. While hospital ships have traditionally supported distant-water fishing, the report focuses on those registered solely as fishing vessels, whose activities extend beyond medical aid. Onshore Support While much of the squid fleet's activity plays out at sea, critical support also comes from land. Two key land-based sectors help sustain these operations, sometimes enabling illicit behavior in the process. Port agents act as an important link between vessels and local authorities, managing logistics and relaying operational details. Yet the same access that facilitates oversight can also be used to shield questionable practices from government scrutiny, C4ADS wrote. Insurance providers also play a role. Many underwrite high-risk vessels despite ties to IUU fishing, forced labor or sanctions violations—offering a financial cushion that helps these operations continue. Insurance claims themselves can sometimes offer a clearer picture of crew movement and health than data from vessel tracking systems, per the report. What People Are Saying Sara Nix, C4ADS natural resource security analyst, told Newsweek: "The distant water squid fleet relies on a global network of enablers, from port agents to tankers, that allow operations to continue largely unchecked. "What's shifting the tide is growing grassroots pressure, especially in Peru and Argentina, where squid is vital to food security and local economies. "As squid landings decline, whether due to climatic variations like El Niño, overfishing, or IUU activity, frustration is mounting. Local fishers and civic groups are increasingly demanding stronger oversight, not just of foreign vessels but of the opaque systems that enable them to operate with impunity."
