Persistent swearing in a non-abusive context

[TomThompson]

As a player in the lower (and lowest) leagues for 35 years I am used to hearing (and quite often using) foul language. As a ref I am scrupulous in avoiding its use. Most of the time players are not using it to abuse or insult, and so as a ref I tolerate it in such contexts; e.g. “he’s kicked the f*** out of me all game, Ref”.

In only my second game as a ref I encountered a player more emotionally wound up than I had ever encountered before as a player. Dissent was inevitable, but after the first instance was dealt with by a warning and an instruction to “calm down”, nothing more was aimed directly at me, to my great relief.

However throughout the game, and especially at stoppages he persistently barked “encouragement” at his own team to up their game and to try harder. His motivational orders were never abusive but so loud and strewn with foul language that it grated.

Reluctantly applying my own benchmark that if not abusive it does not infringe the laws I took no action. On reflection I feel I should have. But what? Red for OffInAbus? Yellow for UB under “lack of respect for the game”, or “even verbally distracting”?

Assuming common sense is used and a warning has been given, what should be done? What have others done? I am guessing that cautioning such "emotionally unchallenged" individuals can very often provoke further offenses.

 

[mikedn]

The player can be cautioned for foul and abusive language even at his own team mates, i for one would gave him his first "calm down, stop swearing even at your team mates" warning then if he persisted i would have cautioned him.

 

[Alex71]

I am not looking to intervene at a player swearing at a team mate or just shouting a non-directed expletive (e.g. after shanking a shot wide of goal) ... it would need to be having an obvious effect on the team mate or those watching (e.g. with kids) for me to get involved

There are a lot of regional / local differences to what is deemed acceptable - I mainly referee in East London but the League stretches out into rural Essex - there is a massive difference in player language just within 50 miles of each other ... use of the see-you-next-Tuesday is unfortunately common locally - even in youth football ... I am not going to penalise it unless I deem it offensive - which 95% of the time it isn't

 

[TomThompson]

it would need to be having an obvious effect on the team mate or those watching

And if it was having an effect...UB or OffInAbus? It is not abusive or intentionally offensive; So which aspect of the law does it then infringe?

I would say that "could be having" rather that "need to be having" might be a better benchmark. Given that games are usually attended by biased individuals, some spectators will excuse the behaviour while others will exaggerate their indignation, judging spectator response is flawed.
Should there be some protection of "respect for the game" in here?

 

[mikedn]

The majority of the matches i referee in are held at public parks with women and children always within earshot, and players wives and children sometimes watching, i for one would not want to watch a match listening to players effing and blinding constantly.
When there are spectators (even at private pitches, normally family friends) i say to both teams i want no C*** being shouted, i don't mind the odd eff word after a failed shot on goal but not too loud and prolonged. As for U18 matches i tolerate no swearing at all and i tell the managers such as them telling their players would have a better effect than i would plus they can't complain when i caution players for USB for swearing. But that's the way i control the match for offensive language, and i must say it works 100% ( so far)

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
Foul language was removed from the laws in 1997 because the use of swear words had become so common place that it just was not tenable to caution for same. For many swear words / foul language are unfortunately part of the common vocabulary. Some do not even know that. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect players who use such language in their day-to-day lives, when speaking to their friends and families, to be expected to clean up their language when they are in the fierce intensity of a game of football. It is the language that is intended to insult or offend, or to provoke, that referees are now asked to punish in accordance with the Laws which is a sending off.
Now the referee can ask the player to desist or clean up their language and if the advice is not heeded could interpret that as dissent. I usually say to players that there is no need to swear and sometimes it is done in frustration at a miss etc.

 

[PinnerPaul]

The player can be cautioned for foul and abusive language even at his own team mates, i for one would gave him his first "calm down, stop swearing even at your team mates" warning then if he persisted i would have cautioned him.

Except "foul" left the definition of OFFINBUS some time ago.

Been debated several times on here, general consensus is if YOU find it offensive, insulting or abusive then you can issue red.

"dissent" and USB cover a multitude of sins in this regard, so yellow "easier" to issue/justify, or at the tolerant end of the scale there is the "quiet word" approach.

At grassroots, "crowd"/surroundings need to be taken into account, if literally no one around and swearing is just as described - encouragement for team mates - then it is easier to ignore.

 

[Padfoot]

The player can be cautioned for foul and abusive language even at his own team mates, i for one would gave him his first "calm down, stop swearing even at your team mates" warning then if he persisted i would have cautioned him.

Really? A caution for abusive language.....

No wonder RESPECT is failing.....

 

[mikedn]

oh yes most definately if it was loud and consistent

 

[Padfoot]

This is exactly why the RESPECT campaign is failing/has failed......referees who are unable or unwilling to use the tools given to them to manage the game.

Offensive, abusive or insulting language is only sanctionable by a RED card and dismissal........................cautioning for a player using such language (or gestures) is utterly incorrect in law, a gross neglect of responsibility and a massive millstone around the neck of fellow referees.

By all means talk to the offending player and point out the error of their ways, but if you are bringing out the cards for such language it can only be one colour................

 

[GraemeS]

This is exactly why the RESPECT campaign is failing/has failed......referees who are unable or unwilling to use the tools given to them to manage the game.

Offensive, abusive or insulting language is only sanctionable by a RED card and dismissal........................cautioning for a player using such language (or gestures) is utterly incorrect in law, a gross neglect of responsibility and a massive millstone around the neck of fellow referees.

By all means talk to the offending player and point out the error of their ways, but if you are bringing out the cards for such language it can only be one colour................

But the original poster explicitly states that no one was offended or insulted and there was nothing abusive about the way the language was used. Unless that changed, I'm not sure it would be technically correct to dismiss him under any aspect of OFFINABUS?

 

[Padfoot]

But the original poster explicitly states that no one was offended or insulted and there was nothing abusive about the way the language was used. Unless that changed, I'm not sure it would be technically correct to dismiss him under any aspect of OFFINABUS?

Please show me where, in the LOTG, it states a requirement for someone to be offended or insulted?

The offence is the use of offensive etc language or gestures......

Been done to death.....only referees seeking to excuse their weaknesses hide behind "but no one was offended......".

 

[RustyRef]

Whilst, and somewhat worryingly this finds me agreeing with Padfoot, you can't caution a player for swearing. If you are worried about his language and want to take action you can only send him off, after all what exactly are you cautioning him for?

If you are worried about a player's language in general during the game the only real options you have are ...

- ignore it
- have a quiet word and ask him to cut it out
- send him off

There really is no grounds for a caution here that I can see.

 

[Mintyref]

Whilst, and somewhat worryingly this finds me agreeing with Padfoot, you can't caution a player for swearing. If you are worried about his language and want to take action you can only send him off, after all what exactly are you cautioning him for?

If you are worried about a player's language in general during the game the only real options you have are ...

- ignore it
- have a quiet word and ask him to cut it out
- send him off

There really is no grounds for a caution here that I can see.

And if you don't dismiss the player the very first time offinabus language is used, option three becomes a very difficult option because of your lack of consistency......

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

A caution is justifiable as USB, IMO. Distasteful language? ;-)

 

[one]

For me, if the language has not offended/insulted/abused anyone then you are going to have trouble convincing anyone it was offensive/insulting/abusive.

Having said that you are not going to ask every kid and adult around the ground to find out if they were offended.

I judge it by the reaction of others to the language (the actual reaction and not pretence). If they are clearly offended and it’s going to affect game control then it a straight red. I have had many of these.

If it’s only distasteful (usually in the context of a missed shot or instructions to teammates) and said loud enough to be heard outside the boundaries of the FOP then it’s a quiet “keep the language clean please” for the first time, “keep it clean or I will take action” the second time, public warning and/or a caution for USB/dissent to follow. I can only remember going to the extent of caution once in the case of repeated distasteful language. I would have applied this strategy in the case of OP as well.

 

[Padfoot]

And the excuses keep coming......

Invest in a thesaurus.....look up 'distasteful'.....act all surprised when you discover what you already know but don't want to admit.....that 'distasteful' is just another word for OFFENSIVE.

Just do the job properly or leave it to those of us who are willing to.

 

[TomThompson]

Please show me where, in the LOTG, it states a requirement for someone to be offended or insulted?

The offence is the use of offensive etc language or gestures......
.".

I think this is semantic slight-of-hand.

If the emphasis of judgement is to go on "language" only, you will create problems for yourself.
"Use offensive language" means: something said was meant to offend. It may be foul or not. Likewise, a given word or phrase might offend in one context but not in another. So...

If I call an opponent a "stupid pr*ck" for slipping over, I intend to offend (and insult) him. I could reasonably see a red for that.
But if I call my own teammate a "stupid pr*ck" for putting his shirt on backwards, while everyone, including the butt of the remark falls around laughing, then woe betide any referee brandishing red. Would you?

Offensive intent should be the benchmark. Use judgement, not a profanisaurus

 

[PinnerPaul]

Please show me where, in the LOTG, it states a requirement for someone to be offended or insulted?

The offence is the use of offensive etc language or gestures......

Been done to death.....only referees seeking to excuse their weaknesses hide behind "but no one was offended......".

I tend to agree with you but on purely grammatical/philosophical grounds, for ANYTHING to be offensive/insulting, someone has to find it so surely?

 

[one]

@Padfoot I am quite happy with the dictionary/thesaurus I use thank you very much.