A&H

PSG vs Istanbul

The Referee Store
Isn't that the words of the Referee?
OK, the words were spoken just as the referee was speaking. Not exactly the sorta thing a ref would say to two players, but then I'm not sure I comprehend this world we live in :confused:
 
Nothing else is heard from Hategan after that but he still continues speaking (=not coming from him). Also that doesn't sound like him at all.
 
So to the game today . . .

Makkelie just had a REALLY good VAR process that ultimately led to a PSG goal via penalty.

Neymar is tripped by the BSR (sorry, I just have a hard time spelling that name consistently) keeper. After the contact, Neymar passes to an offside PSG player who scores. Makkelie clearly rules an advantage by giving the two-armed advantage signal up the field, so he acknowledges Neymar was fouled. Makkelie and team first checks offside via VAR and correctly rules offside. This offside was a clear error, but I understand why the AR missed it. The ball was the offside line because the keeper was the last defender, and the keeper's body blocked the ball. Right call for the AR to keep the flag down in a VAR environment because he couldn't see the ball, but the camera angle on the opposite side clearly showed the PSG player ahead of the ball. After the offside is signalled to nullify the open-play goal, Makkelie awards the penalty on the field (at least that's what I understood from his audio - interesting that the audio on Makkelie was pretty clear, so I wonder if that was intentional for UEFA to do that today). VAR checks and does not recommend an OFR, so Makkelie finalizes the penalty and cautions the BSR keeper. Mbappe then converts the penalty. I went back, and Makkelie clearly states (and the audio picks it up) that he explains he gave the goal with the advantage. He then could go back and award the penalty because the penalty occurred before the pass (and therefore the advantage didn't materialize).

The overall process to award the goal via advantage, then use VAR to check offside and correctly rule offside to nullify the goal, THEN to caution the keeper (DOGSO-caution) and award the penalty was just excellent team refereeing. The whole process didn't take more than about 90 seconds from the goal to Mbappe taking the penalty. The whole process just looked smooth, smart, and professional. The play is somewhat difficult to describe and make it sound good, but if you watch the play you'll see how well Makkelie manages the whole process from beginning to end.

So overall, excellent VAR usage by one of the best in the business at using VAR, and simply one of the best in the world period. (Side note - I still find it amusing how Makkelie wears both of his watches on the same wrist. Just a quirk he has.)
 
Last edited:
If the offender had been the ONLY Caucasian team official in that technical area then I can well imagine that being the way he might have been identified. Likewise, if he was the only one with ginger hair, that could easily be used as a convenient short cut (despite the fact that in other circumstances, "Ginger" could be used as an offensive term). Are we saying that both of these choices would be equally unacceptable?

Personally, I feel that the biggest issue here is that the Romanian word used is almost indistinguishable from other English words that are way more 'loaded' in meaning
Agree with this but.... The 4O should should have been aware of the sensitivity of what he chose to identify the manager with. A person being white is not a sensitive matter right now.

We talk about context for OFINABUS all the time. But there are two parts to it. The context it is meant in and the context it is perceived. The latter was the problem not the former. The 4O should have known this.

Put it this way if the 4O wants Ibrahimovic sent off from the bench and identifies him as the guy with a big nose, he has to be prepared for a sh!tstorm.
 
Last edited:
A person being white is not a sensitive matter right now.

I have to disagree with this, one. A black person is black, a white person is white, a brown person is brown. It’s a perfectly acceptable defining characteristic, in the absence of any other in this circumstance. It’s nothing to be sensitive about. Would I advise you use skin colour if you had a reasonable alternative to identify someone? No. Is it worthy of an accusation of racism? Absolutely not...it’s ridiculous.

The reality is, especially these days, some people will look for issues where there aren’t one.

IMO the whole circumstance boils down to a misunderstanding/misinterpretation. I can see why there may have been an initial reaction based on that, fair enough. But far more people would sooner fly off the handle- throw around career destroying racism accusations, rather than accept or even consider the reasonable explanation and carry on.
 
A black person is black, a white person is white, a brown person is brown. It’s a perfectly acceptable defining characteristic, in the absence of any other in this circumstance. It’s nothing to be sensitive about. Would I advise you use skin colour if you had a reasonable alternative to identify someone? No. Is it worthy of an accusation of racism? Absolutely not...it’s ridiculous.
I would agree with the second part/advisce of your comment above.

But I would still stick by what I said a person skin color being black is is sensitive matter right now. This is very evident by many protest around the world and the BLM action in the last couple of years. There has been nothing similar around for white skin. Hence if someone is identified by their white skin, even though not right, is unlikely to create any issues. But if a person is identified by the black skin, even with no racial discrimination intent, that is also not right AND very likely to case issues
 
I have to disagree with this, one. A black person is black, a white person is white, a brown person is brown. It’s a perfectly acceptable defining characteristic, in the absence of any other in this circumstance. It’s nothing to be sensitive about.
If we consider that matter in terms of simple logic, you are totally correct. But sadly history shows that for centuries this "perfectly acceptable defining characteristic" was used as an excuse to treat people with the wrong colour skin as second class, unworthy of equal rights, and even to enable them to be bought and sold like animals. For this reason, logic has to be ignored - the plain simple fact is that hundreds of years of discrimination means it IS something to be sensitive about.
 
The referee and the fourth official are both fluent in English. As are the team officials. This whole situation could have been avoided if the fourth official simply spoke to his colleague in English, which is the standard language in international football. Instead, the fourth official spoke in a little-known language which is easy to misinterpret.
"Little-known" is a nonsense descriptor for the language spoken by close to 30 millions people and the main tongue of two different countries.

And if English is meant to be the official language of officials, why was the entire original officiating team Romanian? Why was the entire team on the Olympiacos game all German speakers? (and only one not German nationality themselves)

Clearly FIFA don't expect the officials to use English in all communication on the field, so picking on this official for using the language that he, and his entire team, know best is utter bovine gut product.
 
If we consider that matter in terms of simple logic, you are totally correct. But sadly history shows that for centuries this "perfectly acceptable defining characteristic" was used as an excuse to treat people with the wrong colour skin as second class, unworthy of equal rights, and even to enable them to be bought and sold like animals. For this reason, logic has to be ignored - the plain simple fact is that hundreds of years of discrimination means it IS something to be sensitive about.
sorry, got to disagree there. Whilst what you’re saying in terms of discrimination is 100% correct, we’re not in an environment where we can’t simply say somebody is black. What the referee said was not discrimination, he didn’t insult him, or use it as a way to make him superior etc, he simply used it was a defining feature to point him out to the referee. The coaching staff bar the AM are all white, and all of them are wearing identical clothing. Is it bad practice? Absolutely and if he got another chance, I’m sure he wouldn’t say it but when you’re rushing, you just say what you see.

This quite simply, has got out of hand
 
A clip published on other referee forum shows someone from Basaksehir bench saying "in my country Romanians are always gypsies".


Sounds to me like the same team official who said "You sent him off because of his colour... You are a racist" to the 4O. Given match control was already gone, I'd have been sending off for that comment. What a ridiculous thing to say!

at 8:15
 
Having watched, listened to and read a ton of stuff about this, I'm of the opinion that the 4O was not being racist in his comments. He was merely using a word in his language to describe the individual he wanted to identify. Now if using the word "black" to describe someone is seen as infamatory and frowned upon, why on earth have we all been watching players taking a knee and supporting a campaign which is named "Black Lives Matter".
 
I would agree with the second part/advisce of your comment above.

But I would still stick by what I said a person skin color being black is is sensitive matter right now. This is very evident by many protest around the world and the BLM action in the last couple of years. There has been nothing similar around for white skin. Hence if someone is identified by their white skin, even though not right, is unlikely to create any issues. But if a person is identified by the black skin, even with no racial discrimination intent, that is also not right AND very likely to case issues.

I’m very conscious of not letting this spiral into a political debate so I’m not going to go into it.

If someone is so sensitive that they construe somebody identifying them using a major identifying characteristic, when no other identifying characteristic was seemingly available, as racism...then that’s their issue. Nobody reasonable should be siding with that person.

I get what you’re saying about how it’s a sensitive matter, it is, there’s no denying it. But it’s sensitive because certain groups want it that way, and are doing their level best to create tension. IMO.

At the risk of repeating myself, being identified (not discriminated) by your skin colour is common and perfectly fine, it’s by no way offensive. Anybody offended by it is choosing to be offended.

Identifying a person in uniform, out of a group in the same uniform- using their skin colour, following a heroic act in order to reward them, would by no way be considered racist.
 
I get what you’re saying about how it’s a sensitive matter, it is, there’s no denying it. But it’s sensitive because certain groups want it that way, and are doing their level best to create tension. IMO.
Are black people trying to make the concept of identifying someone based on their skin colour a major issue? Something that results in pushback and tension? You're absolutely right they are, that's literally the entire point of BLM - well done identifying that. If you could just push through and work out why BLM thinks making that approach feel problematic is worthwhile, you'll have got your head around the whole concept!
 
I put the 24/7 News Channels on last night for a short time. There's something really nauseating and insincere about their coverage of this incident and the BLM in general. These channels are desperate to squeeze as much out of BLM as possible to promote their own self-image
WRT this 4O incident, the channels are desperate to find some element of discrimination so they can perpetuate their own personal gain
 
Are black people trying to make the concept of identifying someone based on their skin colour a major issue? Something that results in pushback and tension? You're absolutely right they are, that's literally the entire point of BLM - well done identifying that. If you could just push through and work out why BLM thinks making that approach feel problematic is worthwhile, you'll have got your head around the whole concept!

If that is indeed the case I think BLM would be better off fighting for inequality and discrimination, where it exists, rather than creating an environment where if you’re a certain skin colour your not allowed to say another person has a certain skin colour, when identifying them. It’s an absurd notion.

It’s a major identifying characteristic, which is why the police use it and will carry on using it regardless of politics.

Would I advise anyone uses it in the first instance? No. Regardless of skin colour. But where you have seconds to identify a person who’s effectively in matching uniform with nothing else to go with, then it’s perfectly reasonable and should never not be.
 
I put the 24/7 News Channels on last night for a short time. There's something really nauseating and insincere about their coverage of this incident and the BLM in general. These channels are desperate to squeeze as much out of BLM as possible to promote their own self-image
WRT this 4O incident, the channels are desperate to find some element of discrimination so they can perpetuate their own personal gain

Virtue signalling. Gary Linekar done a fine job on BT.
 
If that is indeed the case I think BLM would be better off fighting for inequality and discrimination, where it exists, rather than creating an environment where if you’re a certain skin colour your not allowed to say another person has a certain skin colour, when identifying them. It’s an absurd notion.

It’s a major identifying characteristic, which is why the police use it and will carry on using it regardless of politics.

Would I advise anyone uses it in the first instance? No. Regardless of skin colour. But where you have seconds to identify a person who’s effectively in matching uniform with nothing else to go with, then it’s perfectly reasonable and should never not be.
The fact you don't see the connection between those two statements is the concerning bit. Black people have a long and storied history where their skin colour has been all that is required to trigger serious discrimination. Moving away from seeing that as a primary characteristic unless strictly necessary is clearly a benefit to reducing that discrimination.
 
The fact you don't see the connection between those two statements is the concerning bit. Black people have a long and storied history where their skin colour has been all that is required to trigger serious discrimination. Moving away from seeing that as a primary characteristic unless strictly necessary is clearly a benefit to reducing that discrimination.

There’s nothing to be concerned about, Graeme. I’ve mentioned a 2/3 occasions that using skin colour in the first instance isn’t something I’d advice doing and that using it when there’s no alternative, is perfectly fine.

The fact that it’s seems perfectly acceptable to falsely accuse someone of racism, with full intention of causing damage to reputation and career, for doing just that is a far bigger issue.
 
Back
Top