Player swears at an opponent verbal abuse only

[PP62]

I watched a mate referee a low level open age game yesterday. There was a junior game, about U15, on the next pitch with a lot of parents present. We had a mass brawl including spectators and the language throughout was terrible. The open age game was a joy to watch with very little swearing and played in good spirits. Who would do junior football?

 

[Big Cat]

Also depends on the Level/Standard of football. Saturday, Step 6/7, they're competitive (big lads) and unlikely to be offended by toilette talk
U14's County League with parents watching their 'Little Timmy's', I don't want to justifying the unjustifiable, especially as it's gonna be offensive to at least one mutha or fatha
Sunday League, probably somewhere in between; depending on which way the wind is blowing

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I think the important thing with O/I/A language/gestures is to do something about it early in the game. I don't buy this approach of seeing how spectators/opponents/coaches react, as the law is clear . . . O/I/A language/gestures should not be accepted in any level of football. It's unnecessary, and often leads to physical offences if not checked. Make it clear early that you won't accept it, and you've set the bar for the rest of the game.

 

[JamesL]

I think the important thing with O/I/A language/gestures is to do something about it early in the game. I don't buy this approach of seeing how spectators/opponents/coaches react, as the law is clear . . . O/I/A language/gestures should not be accepted in any level of football. It's unnecessary, and often leads to physical offences if not checked. Make it clear early that you won't accept it, and you've set the bar for the rest of the game.

Right. Understood.
But who decides what is O/I/A because I'd call my best mate a c u next Tuesday as I don't find it offensive yet there are some people what are offended by the phrase "good morning ladies and gentlemen."
Now I am not saying they are wrong to be offended, of course, but we are at opposite ends of the scale when it comes to offence.
So, we do need to, some degree, work out what is and isn't offensive to the recipient and participants.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Right. Understood.
But who decides what is O/I/A because I'd call my best mate a c u next Tuesday as I don't find it offensive yet there are some people what are offended by the phrase "good morning ladies and gentlemen."
Now I am not saying they are wrong to be offended, of course, but we are at opposite ends of the scale when it comes to offence.
So, we do need to, some degree, work out what is and isn't offensive to the recipient and participants.

If someone you don't know were to call you what you choose to call your mate, would it be abusive/offensive/insulting? Yup!

 

[one]

If someone you don't know were to call you what you choose to call your mate, would it be abusive/offensive/insulting? Yup!

But was it offinabus to him or to you? If to you then it shouldn't matter who calls whom. If to him then how do you know? Because you have a set of 'tools' you built over years to be able to judge it.

How he reacts is one thing I have chosen to add into my toolbag as one of many tools. If you chose not to then I disagree with you but that is your choice.

 

[Mooseybaby]

In my last season as a referee I walked an U15s player in the last minute of a game for shouting "F*** you C***" in his opponents face.
The aggravation it caused me immediately and in the days after the game did make me wonder for a while should I have taken the easy way out and pretended I didn't hear it/ignore it, but having spoken to a few people about it (one of whom is an ex-pro who played at Premier League level) and the club's appeal being thrown out, I quickly reassured myself I had done the right thing.

Was the red card expected? Probably not.
Do I regret it? No
Would I do it again if I ever end my self imposed exile from the game and referee again? Yes I would, absolutely!

 

[JamesL]

If someone you don't know were to call you what you choose to call your mate, would it be abusive/offensive/insulting? Yup!

Not necessarily. Because they might say it in such a way I view it as a term of endearment, as such with my friend and may take zero offence, insult or abuse from it.
It's not as straight forward as it's a (perceived) naughty word and he's off. We do need to verify its offensiveness and part of that is participant reaction.
Of course there are taboo subjects, such as homophobia, racism and such like where we must act irrespective of if we can see someone who is offended, but day to day, industrial insults not so much.

 

[one]

Of course there are taboo subjects, such as homophobia, racism

Social acceptance gauge, another tool in the toolbag. But most things are not black an white. The more tools you have the better you can judge. Many things where socially accepted 20 or 30 years ago but absolute no no now. Some things are ok now but who knows in 20 years time.

"You play like a girl" said to a male opponent to get under their skin. Is this sexist and offensive?

 

[socal lurker]

shouting "F*** you C***" in his opponents face.
. . . .
Was the red card expected? Probably not.
Do I regret it? No
Would I do it again if I ever end my self imposed exile from the game and referee again? Yes I would, absolutely!

I find it disturbing that it would not be expected. I wouldn't even blink before sending off for that.

 

[Degnann]

Being a Glaswegian, the C word is used as a filler word. I’m not sure how I’d react if I heard it in the park

 

[Big Cat]

Being a Glaswegian, the C word is used as a filler word. I’m not sure how I’d react if I heard it in the park

Chelsea and West Ham fans are particularly fond of the C word
It would be the last word I'd resort to, but it's the native language inside some areas of the M25

 

[Peter Grove]

Offensive? - tick
Insulting? - tick
Abusive? - tick

That's one view of it. Another could be:

Offensive? Not necessarily*
Insulting? Not necessarily*
Abusive? Not necessarily*

*Depending on the exact circumstances and context.

I might just point out that I was raised in an era when the 'f' word was considered highly offensive, however I'm cognisant of the fact that it is much more widely used nowadays (it's even printed in newspapers) and seems generally considered to be more acceptable than it used to be.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That's one view of it. Another could be:

Offensive? Not necessarily*
Insulting? Not necessarily*
Abusive? Not necessarily*

*Depending on the exact circumstances and context.

I might just point out that I was raised in an era when the 'f' word was considered highly offensive, however I'm cognisant of the fact that it is much more widely used nowadays (it's even printed in newspapers) and seems generally considered to be more acceptable than it used to be.

You and I grew up in a similar era, Peter. I think there is an issue here which has not been highlighted yet, which is the fact that football is played in public in the great majority of cases, so language is heard by people in nearby homes and gardens, people walking nearby, parents with children, etc., people who do not wish to hear inappropriate language.
An indication from the referee early in the game to tone down their language usually has an effect, and sets up disciplinary action if needed later.
Whilst the "F" word is in more general use than it was a couple of decades ago, it is still (thankfully) not in general currency.

 

[Kes]

That's one view of it. Another could be:

Offensive? Not necessarily*
Insulting? Not necessarily*
Abusive? Not necessarily*

*Depending on the exact circumstances and context.

I might just point out that I was raised in an era when the 'f' word was considered highly offensive, however I'm cognisant of the fact that it is much more widely used nowadays (it's even printed in newspapers) and seems generally considered to be more acceptable than it used to be.

I know all that Peter. (See previous post).

Another way of looking at it could be:

Offensive? - Possibly
Insulting - Definitely (because that's how a sentence like that is intended, no matter how you dress it up)
Abusive - Possibly

Put it this way, if the player said those words to you as the referee, would you be reaching for the red?

 

[GraemeS]

You and I grew up in a similar era, Peter. I think there is an issue here which has not been highlighted yet, which is the fact that football is played in public in the great majority of cases, so language is heard by people in nearby homes and gardens, people walking nearby, parents with children, etc., people who do not wish to hear inappropriate language.
An indication from the referee early in the game to tone down their language usually has an effect, and sets up disciplinary action if needed later.
Whilst the "F" word is in more general use than it was a couple of decades ago, it is still (thankfully) not in general currency.

I really strongly disagree with using this as a guiding principal, it just opens up a huge amount of inconsistency and unfairness.

What if the supporter demographics change from all adult to mixed adults/kids half way through the game - are you suddenly sending a player off for language which has been acceptable for the first half? Or vice-versa - send a player off for OFFINABUS, then later in the match there are no kids around so you can just let the same language go? What if you set this up as your philosophy, but fail to notice a kid joining or leaving the spectators mid-match, and therefore apply the wrong morality standards in any given moment?

Similarly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the away team to have scouted the area and adjusted their language in response. You as a referee are of course entitled to set the bar where you see fit and need to be prepared to explain and act on that as necessary. But there are enough on-pitch factors that you need to be able to react to in order to set your tolerance, adding geography/crowd demographics/weather/..... is just going to cause you to misapply your own standards.

I hate to be the person who moans about NIMBYs, but if you have a problem with swearing then you need to be smart enough to factor in the existence of a sports field when buying your house. If I buy a house with a garden backing onto a football pitch, I know to expect 2 things: lots of shouting on Sat afternoon/Sunday morning, and occasionally I will find a free football in my garden!

 

[one]

I really strongly disagree with using this as a guiding principal, it just opens up a huge amount of inconsistency and unfairness.

What if the supporter demographics change from all adult to mixed adults/kids half way through the game - are you suddenly sending a player off for language which has been acceptable for the first half? Or vice-versa - send a player off for OFFINABUS, then later in the match there are no kids around so you can just let the same language go? What if you set this up as your philosophy, but fail to notice a kid joining or leaving the spectators mid-match, and therefore apply the wrong morality standards in any given moment?

Similarly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the away team to have scouted the area and adjusted their language in response. You as a referee are of course entitled to set the bar where you see fit and need to be prepared to explain and act on that as necessary. But there are enough on-pitch factors that you need to be able to react to in order to set your tolerance, adding geography/crowd demographics/weather/..... is just going to cause you to misapply your own standards.

I hate to be the person who moans about NIMBYs, but if you have a problem with swearing then you need to be smart enough to factor in the existence of a sports field when buying your house. If I buy a house with a garden backing onto a football pitch, I know to expect 2 things: lots of shouting on Sat afternoon/Sunday morning, and occasionally I will find a free football in my garden!

And no parking space available around your house on game day/night.

I am not dismissing @ChasObserverRefDeveloper 's post altogether though. It's just another consideration when makeing a decision. Not a big one for me though.

I have seen 'kids' who put many adults to shame in terms of choice of words when it comes to offensive language. To say something is offensive because there are kids around as a definitive statement is not for me. It would have probably been a few decades ago.
Children nowadays have freely access to things that I couldn't imagine existed when I was a kid.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I really strongly disagree with using this as a guiding principal, it just opens up a huge amount of inconsistency and unfairness.

What if the supporter demographics change from all adult to mixed adults/kids half way through the game - are you suddenly sending a player off for language which has been acceptable for the first half? Or vice-versa - send a player off for OFFINABUS, then later in the match there are no kids around so you can just let the same language go? What if you set this up as your philosophy, but fail to notice a kid joining or leaving the spectators mid-match, and therefore apply the wrong morality standards in any given moment?

Similarly, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the away team to have scouted the area and adjusted their language in response. You as a referee are of course entitled to set the bar where you see fit and need to be prepared to explain and act on that as necessary. But there are enough on-pitch factors that you need to be able to react to in order to set your tolerance, adding geography/crowd demographics/weather/..... is just going to cause you to misapply your own standards.

I hate to be the person who moans about NIMBYs, but if you have a problem with swearing then you need to be smart enough to factor in the existence of a sports field when buying your house. If I buy a house with a garden backing onto a football pitch, I know to expect 2 things: lots of shouting on Sat afternoon/Sunday morning, and occasionally I will find a free football in my garden!

I included children alongside adults as people who may be subject to hearing inappropriate language, whether when out and about or in their garden next to a park. The long and short of it is that O/I/A language is not being dealt with by a lot of referees, so when one does apply Law 12 the argument about inconsistency rears its head again.
I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable despite an early warning from me, and hope current referees will not be frightened to do so.

 

[GraemeS]

I included children alongside adults as people who may be subject to hearing inappropriate language, whether when out and about or in their garden next to a park. The long and short of it is that O/I/A language is not being dealt with by a lot of referees, so when one does apply Law 12 the argument about inconsistency rears its head again.
I have sent off players in public parks, stadia, military establishments, whenever the language has become unacceptable despite an early warning from me, and hope current referees will not be frightened to do so.

Implying anyone who doesn't show a red card for these offences is frightened is insulting - personally I'm more offended by that suggestion than I would be by happening to witness a player shouting "f***" in frustration when they miss a chance.

Where you recall showing a red card for this, were you personally offended/aware of a specific person who was offended by what was said? Or were you imagining a hypothetical family behind a hedge who you imagined were horrified by what they heard? The former is correct in law, the latter is not - "fear" doesn't come into it.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Implying anyone who doesn't show a red card for these offences is frightened is insulting - personally I'm more offended by that suggestion than I would be by happening to witness a player shouting "f***" in frustration when they miss a chance.

Where you recall showing a red card for this, were you personally offended/aware of a specific person who was offended by what was said? Or were you imagining a hypothetical family behind a hedge who you imagined were horrified by what they heard? The former is correct in law, the latter is not - "fear" doesn't come into it.

For the second time in a row, you are misquoting my post, Graeme.
I know of a number of referees who choose not to take action in response to O/I/A language (including some Refchat contributors) and I know others who are frightened to do so because more senior colleagues locally choose to ignore it.
On occasions when I sent off, the language included words which should not be shouted in public. I always used an early opportunity to remind re language usage by players/coaches, irrespective of venue/who was present.
I never sent off for shouts in frustration, only for incidents where a loud shout using inappropriate language to another person occurred.
Whether or not the person being addressed was offended is to my mind immaterial.
Law 12 is clear, but this section is being largely ignored by many referees.