A&H

Grabbing Knackers

Big Cat

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Vinnie Jones grabs Gazza's Family Allowance
OFFINABUS or Violent Conduct?
Either way, I'd suggest submitting an Extraordinary Report, but interested in Forumite's opinions
 
The Referee Store
Given that when it happened Vinnie was frequently committing GBH on players I suspect that even had the officials seen it they would have brushed it off.

Today it would certainly be a red card, and given it involved contact with genitals I suspect an extraordinary incident would be required.
 
First, who in their right mind would do things like that these days, it's ridiculous. Second, VC, extraordinary report, get the hell out of there, it's too weird 🤣
 
Interesting everyone is saying VC...
I'd say it can be either depending on the nature of the incident.
If it's done in an aggressive / violent way then it's VC.
If it's more of an inappropriate action (i.e. not aggressive /violent) then I'd be inclined to say it sits in offinabus ("Verbal or physical behaviour which is rude, hurtful, disrespectful; punishable by a sending-off (red card)")
 
JamesL said:
If it's more of an inappropriate action (i.e. not aggressive /violent) then I'd be inclined to say it sits in offinabus ("Verbal or physical behaviour which is rude, hurtful, disrespectful; punishable by a sending-off (red card)")
Click to expand...
I'm strongly inclined to think it's OFFINABUS (with an ER)
It may be possible for a player to successfully appeal a charge of Violent Conduct, whereas OFFINABUS is irrefutable
Whilst it would be sexual assault if it happened whilst walking down the street, the same does not hold true in the context of the Sporting Arena

In a WhatsApp Group full of younger folk, they unanimously argued VC. My different view on the subject seems to be a generational thing
 
For something to be violent by definition in general (not necessarily as defined by IFAB) it has to be intended to hurt/damage or worse.
 
RefereeX said:
For something to be violent by definition in general (not necessarily as defined by IFAB) it has to be intended to hurt/damage or worse.
Click to expand...
I think there is a good argument for emotional hurt and damage being intended by grabbing someone's genitals. Why else would you possibly want to do that?
 
I'd consider violent to only apply to physical hurt / damage as opposed to emotional. As James said, if it's done with force to physically hurt then VC can fit, but I agree with the idea that it would have to be OFFINABUS otherwise.
 
RefereeX said:
I'd consider violent to only apply to physical hurt / damage as opposed to emotional. As James said, if it's done with force to physically hurt then VC can fit, but I agree with the idea that it would have to be OFFINABUS otherwise.
Click to expand...
I can understand that. However, IMHO, grabbing that area of someone's body is being reported in an extraordinary as well as RC anyway. So, if The FA/CFA disagree with the code, they can change their punishment accordingly. It definitely has to be one of those two.
 
Big Cat said:
I'm strongly inclined to think it's OFFINABUS (with an ER)
It may be possible for a player to successfully appeal a charge of Violent Conduct, whereas OFFINABUS is irrefutable
Whilst it would be sexual assault if it happened whilst walking down the street, the same does not hold true in the context of the Sporting Arena

In a WhatsApp Group full of younger folk, they unanimously argued VC. My different view on the subject seems to be a generational thing
Click to expand...
And I am presumably somewhere in the middle, perhaps.
Its all in context isn't it. I can see the VC argument but it does fit more into offinabus imo.
 
A player saying they're going to knock my head in or words to that effect are definitely intending emotional distress, but as James pointed out, they're going for OFFINABUS.

For reference, VC gets the player banned one game longer minimum ;) - But seriously, for me it's a violent act, but I totally get the argument for S6
 
george.g said:
For reference, VC gets the player banned one game longer minimum ;) -
Click to expand...
Umm, I would doubt that as the ER would most likely raise a more serious charge and the standard punishments would not be sufficient.
george.g said:
But seriously, for me it's a violent act, but I totally get the argument for S6
Click to expand...
Devils advocate - what is violent about it?
 
JamesL said:
Umm, I would doubt that as the ER would most likely raise a more serious charge and the standard punishments would not be sufficient.
Click to expand...
Yeah was only messing. The ER would take it up to the ban length after a disciplinary process. Actually makes no grand difference in terms of sanction or anything.
JamesL said:
Devils advocate - what is violent about it?
Click to expand...
Without getting into specifics of sack grabbing, I'd guess if its done with intensity or any intent to cause any reasonable harm (which I understand is what you were getting at earlier). For me, the act is inherently violent, however I think that's more a hunch than any real justifiable belief. I'd agree with your OFFINABUS
 
I'm struggling to see any argument against VC. If someone grabs your nuts and squeezes it is done to cause you pain, how is that not in any way violent?

Add to that, these days it is also arguably going to be classed as sexual assault. Making unwanted contact with someone's genitals is the very definition of that.
 
george.g said:
For me, the act is inherently violent, however I think that's more a hunch than any real justifiable belief. I'd agree with your OFFINABUS
Click to expand...
I think in reality it's contextual. It can't be inherently violent because it could be done in a non-violent manner, just as easily as it could be done in a violent manner. Without the context it's difficult to draw a conclusion on what the action caused offence, insult or abuse, or whether it was brutal / UEF (let's not go down the any contact is excessive rabbit hole again).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top