Macca
Active Member
Are you okay in an open age game for one player to call another player "gay"?
Homophobic language
- Thread starter Pezza
- Start date
- Status
Anubis
RefChat Addict
If am reffing and Sir Ian Mckellen is playing, and someone calls him ' gay ',
now what?
There is not one size fits all.
Plenty of players are c**ts but we don't allow others to call them that either!
If it sounds offensive, and is used in an offensive context, it's offensive. We don't need to complicate that. Having said that, I'd personally be looking to bring in the coach and manage this for this age group - but probably not for anyone much older.
No we aren't changing society. That's not what's happening here.
There's a reason there is only 1 publicly out professional football player. And it's not because there's only one. It's because they live in fear of being abused by thousands because authorities haven't historically taken the right course of action to stamp it out. As a referee, you are the authority in that game. So to hear refs saying, ah, it's just a word only serves to strengthen the view of those not wanting to go public as they won't get the protection they deserve.
If the ref won't do anything. The associations are next to powerless to do anything.
I can say with almost certainty, ateast in England, if somone called someone gay, you heard it, did nothing, it was reported and your response at your hearing (because you would be having one) was it is just a word, you would find yourself on a mandatory course before being allowed to officiate again.
Tbf I am not surprised these are your views as I recall having a very closely related conversation with your alter ego @Ciley Myrus which went a similar way.
Have you asked? What would I be surprised by? And can this skewed anecdotal sample be used to apply a sweeping generalisation regarding the understanding of all nine-year-olds?
Some nine-year-olds may get crushes, many will not, many simply will not understand the differing emotions they feel at that pint in their lives because as a species we are divergent and our brain development differs. A nine-year-old cannot have the same level of understanding as an adult. It is fact. Its biological and neurological fact. A child at nine brain is not fully developed, their brains are a decade and a half away from that full development.
Many children still believe in father Christmas at nine, my son still believed he could be a superhero and would attempt to play on the pitch like one. This is something the FA observed in their old psychology courses for coaches – Children are not adults, they should not be treated as such and they certainly cannot have the same level of understanding as an adult.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
You yourself are now discriminating by using " they"
its, us. By using they, you are expressing a segregation.
Hopefully the next fresh topic is more on field football related than a society theme.
Macca
Active Member
Not to derail the thread, but I had an u17 game the weekend when one player said to another player "shut up you ginger". The player did have ginger hair, and I had words with the person who said it.
I had words and told the player who said it that it wasn't on and could be considered abusive language and a red card but instead gave him a yellow. I was a caught off guard as haven't encountered this one before.
I had words and told the player who said it that it wasn't on and could be considered abusive language and a red card but instead gave him a yellow. I was a caught off guard as haven't encountered this one before.
They
used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
No, its not discriminatory, its correct use ot the word as per Oxford English dictionary.
I can't use we, because that would imply myself as being gay, which is not the case. Bearing in mind the LGBQT+ community stands as a group of people, referring to them as they, is not discriminatory.
It's also not discrimination because I am not using it in an injust or prejudicial way.
Last edited:
Tough one. Hair colour is not a protected characteristic so it's not automatically offensive in that sense.
I'd be looking at reaction of the person it was aimed at for offence.
Could still be abusive and insulting so you could easily still go red. I'd be using player reaction to inform some of my thinking here. I knew a lad with red hair who introduced himself as ginge, so he really wouldnt be offended, not see it as insulting or abusive but for that 1 person there are probably thousands of people on the other side of who would be.
At 10 years old, I disagree. My boy would have no clue. However, the player knows he's behaving in an unsporting manner, regardless of age
It's a tricky one, cos my 12 year old would have some insight and my 14 year old probably knows more than me. But I'm not one to pigeon hole myself with only one option. I'd rather use my judgement with respect to very unusual incidents
So, if he has no clue then I assume he wouldn't use the word.
If he uses the word he must have some knowledge (right or wrong) of what it means, and some knowledge of the context in which he is using it, else, how would he know how/when to say it?
He might not really understand the wider implications we are discussing here but if it's in his vocabulary then he must know the word and therefore he must attribute some meaning to it.
- Status