Very good question.
I might possibly have a word in this situation but if it wasn't heeded, I'd be reaching for the red card.
Dismiss and stick with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
"OFFINABUS" or "delay that taxi" ...?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I might possibly have a word in this situation but if it wasn't heeded, I'd be reaching for the red card.
Yeah, I think it depends on context, reaction and volume.
A you have to be there to judge it?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So now it's 2 black players it depends on context etc?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
This isn't entirely hypothetical:
When I played, one of our players was nicknamed n***** (no idea why, I didn't join in on that). He was caucasian too. Fortunately nothing came of it, but I couldn't have been opposed to one of our players being sent off if they called him that on the field.
Especially if it's said loud enough for spectators to hear, I think that word leaves the referee with little choice. And it doesn't matter the colour of the skin of the person saying it, IMO. I'm not going to partake in the BS of 'one ethnicity is allowed to say it but another isn't'.
If it's said quietly and this 'hey we're just friends' scenario came up then maybe you could consider it. Unfortunately, the very real possibility is also that he's lying because he wants the guilty party to stay on the field so he can break his leg next tackle. Less likely than him telling the truth though.
When I played, one of our players was nicknamed n***** (no idea why, I didn't join in on that). He was caucasian too. Fortunately nothing came of it, but I couldn't have been opposed to one of our players being sent off if they called him that on the field.
Especially if it's said loud enough for spectators to hear, I think that word leaves the referee with little choice. And it doesn't matter the colour of the skin of the person saying it, IMO. I'm not going to partake in the BS of 'one ethnicity is allowed to say it but another isn't'.
If it's said quietly and this 'hey we're just friends' scenario came up then maybe you could consider it. Unfortunately, the very real possibility is also that he's lying because he wants the guilty party to stay on the field so he can break his leg next tackle. Less likely than him telling the truth though.
Yes it does. Used by a white person it is (correctly) deemed to be a derogatory racist term. Used by a black person it can be a term of endearment but many black people are still uncomfortable with its use in this way because of its origins. For example the African American registry says this...
This final habit, as a kind word, is particularly challenging. "Zup N****h" has become an almost universal greeting among young urban Blacks. When asked, Blacks who use n****r or its variants argue that it has to be understood in its situation; repeated use of the word by Blacks will make it less offensive. It’s not really the same word because Whites are saying n****r (and n****rs) but Blacks are saying n****h (and n****z). Also it is just a word and Blacks should not be prisoners of the past or the ugly words that originated in the past.
Yes. Racist language applies to all without distinction. As posted above anyone can be offended by the language, not just the direct recipient of it.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So...it's racist and a guaranteed red card if a white player says it....but if a black player says it you'll consider letting them off because of the colour of their skin......hmmmm
Not sure I'd want to admit to making that distinction.....
SM
The avuncular one
hopefully this is theoretical and nobody would really allow such racist language regardless of who's mouth it comes out of?
While there may be some who now use such words without problem, there are just as many who hate the word. Especially those who will remember how bad racism was in this country in our not too distant past.
While there may be some who now use such words without problem, there are just as many who hate the word. Especially those who will remember how bad racism was in this country in our not too distant past.
This is a classic example of someone not understanding racism. I suppose everyone on the sideline offended by the racist language should accept it because his mate accepted it.
Like if someone said oh don't worry we always call him a faggot.
Red card and throw the book
Like if someone said oh don't worry we always call him a faggot.
Red card and throw the book
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I agree, anyone who has had to sit through a equality and diversity training course will know "It's not about how it is intended, it's about how it is perceived".
And as mentioned above, even if the player aginst whom the comment was directed didn't care, a spectator, or another member of either team could easily be offended and still make a complaint.
And as mentioned above, even if the player aginst whom the comment was directed didn't care, a spectator, or another member of either team could easily be offended and still make a complaint.
No, I said I would have to consider the context and deal with it. It certainly wouldn't be used in an aggressive way, over a long distance (i.e. loudly) or a second time in a game. If it fitted any of those criteria, then it would be am instant dismissal.
I haven't had to sit through two courses, I took them voluntarily. It is important to know the protected characteristics
Original yes, but I was following up on whether it was a black person saying it to a black person. Now is there any chance you could remove yourself from my oesophagus.
I include that. The original refereeing decision regardless of skin colour. You're suggesting that two black players have the right to use racist language? You realise that it's racist language regardless who says it? You realise that it's not up to a black or white person to decide if the word Is appropriate or not?
To allow two black players to use the word because they're black is discriminatory.
I refer you to my previous posts on this matter
http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/offinabus-or-delay-that-taxi.6485/page-2#post-55405
http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/offinabus-or-delay-that-taxi.6485/page-2#post-55436
(Edited as I quoted the wrong post)
I'd also refer you to this
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-40-fall-2011/feature/straight-talk-about-n-word
Last edited:
Well that's a great reference. I believe I can find many people to reference who completely disagree...Barack Obama for one, and perhaps most relevant to us, the kick it out campaign. I'm pretty sure that a couple of years ago a Kick it out executive resigned after he referred to another black person with that word.
The point is that football is played in a public place. Anyone can be offended by that language and has the right to expect action to be taken against it.
The point is that football is played in a public place. Anyone can be offended by that language and has the right to expect action to be taken against it.
"kick it out condems racial slurs. The use of the n-word irrespective of context, and will act on any complaints made to the organisation on it."
Did you read this post?
http://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/offinabus-or-delay-that-taxi.6485/page-2#post-55436
I am very familiar with the work of Kick it Out and worked with them a couple of years ago. Let me be very clear on this, I do not condone the use of racist language or behaviour. I do however have a game of football to referee and like many discussions on this forum it boils down to trying to explain in written text something which is much easier to explain or understand in a practical context.
It was Paul Elliott a Kick it Out ambassador who resigned following the use of the word in a text message. He also subsequently lost a case of libel against someone he said had leaked the text.
Fair enough. Still you are of the opinion that there is a context on the football field where you wouldn't send a player off for using it?
Whereas Kick it out make it clear that context is irrelevant?