Question of impartial ...

[Padfoot]

A red card for "there's two teams ref"?!?! Even for you Padders that's a frankly remarkable position to take. Personally, if I heard about a colleague sending off for that statement, I would instead feel that it was HIM letting down his fellow referees, by perpetuating the myth that we are an officious, overly authoritarian bunch with no real empathy for the game ....

Yep...my bad. Wasn't suggesting a red for that particular comment....had quoted the post for the use of "tolerance"............I would agree that that comment could be handled differently.

Ok devils advocate here - so if you dont have to be offended do you/did you dismiss every player that ever swears/swore, whether at you or otherwise? Because by your logic you should.
Similarly, where does it say that if a referee's inpartiality is questioned then this is a dismissable offence... answer is doesnt specifically. It says that referees decisions should be respected and it says a player must not use offinabus language, well whether you think it or like it or not this is open to interpretation and is dependent on tolerance levels of the individual referee.
I am not saying whether this is wrong or right, nor am I saying my actions were correct of how I handled that situation I am just saying that tolerance plays a massive factor, always has, always will.

Consider the fact that certain words/phrases can be intended to be offensive, insulting or abusive, and that whether or not they achieve their desired result, it is the intention behind those words that should be sanctioned, not the result?

Using things like "tolerance", "volume", "temperature/nature of the game" etc etc are just referees making excuses for not applying the LOTG correctly.....weak refereeing.

The player doesn't care if his mates haven't heard it......he only cares that you heard it, as that was his intention.....so why should you care who else heard it? He's called you a cheat........if you have so little self respect that you can feel happy cautioning for that, then at least consider your colleagues who have more respect for themselves, and how your capitulation makes their job a little more difficult when the player does the same thing next week and gets dismissed for it?

I agree, and if that was me I wouldn't even be going for a card and rather would be going back with something like "I know, and the other one is playing better than yours".

For suggesting I had got on, or should put on, a certain coloured shirt then a card of some description is coming out. What colour it is would depend on factors like volume, nature of game, etc. If other players have heard it and leaving him on is likely to cause me problems with match control then he goes.

A typical "I'm protecting my marks at the expense of my self respect" comment. The players called you a cheat........have the testicular fortitude to deal with it properly....if not for your own sake, then for your colleagues.

 

[RustyRef]

Y
A typical "I'm protecting my marks at the expense of my self respect" comment. The players called you a cheat........have the testicular fortitude to deal with it properly....if not for your own sake, then for your colleagues.

You don't know me, if you did you would know that I don't give a hoot about my club marks. I used to when I was in the system, but that stopped once I stepped back down to level 5.

Not everyone thinks like you, which I suspect some would think is a good thing. So when you try to hoist your views upon everyone else you aren't always right, appreciate that might be difficult to accept but it is true. If I'm offended, feel insulted or abused I'll send the offender off, I won't send them off because you think I should feel offended, insulted or abused.

 

[Padfoot]

You don't know me, if you did you would know that I don't give a hoot about my club marks. I used to when I was in the system, but that stopped once I stepped back down to level 5.

Not everyone thinks like you, which I suspect some would think is a good thing. So when you try to hoist your views upon everyone else you aren't always right, appreciate that might be difficult to accept but it is true. If I'm offended, feel insulted or abused I'll send the offender off, I won't send them off because you think I should feel offended, insulted or abused.

I couldn't care less whether you feel offended, insulted or abused.......there isn't a requirement under the LOTG for anyone to actually feel offended, insulted or abused. The requirement is that participants who use offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures is dismissed.

It is entirely possible to use words, phrases or gestures that are designed/intended to offend, insult or abuse......whether or not they achieve that aim is entirely irrelevant as far as the offence goes. If one player calls another "n*gger".....but the other player doesn't react, or even laughs and walks away.....are you dismissing the offending player?

 

[JamesL]

I couldn't care less whether you feel offended, insulted or abused.......there isn't a requirement under the LOTG for anyone to actually feel offended, insulted or abused. The requirement is that participants who use offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures is dismissed.

It is entirely possible to use words, phrases or gestures that are designed/intended to offend, insult or abuse......whether or not they achieve that aim is entirely irrelevant as far as the offence goes. If one player calls another "n*gger".....but the other player doesn't react, or even laughs and walks away.....are you dismissing the offending player?

Law 5 says:
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws
of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the
referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework
of the Laws of the Game.

The law are applied based on the opinion of the referee on the day and it is exactly that why these matters are so subjective and each referees tolerance level is going to be part of the equation. One referees opinion is different to that of another e.g. rusty and your opinions are different it doesnt make either argument less valid.

Within reason context and situation do need to be taken into account, I think that is a fair approach.

I fail to see how asking a question regarding racism is valid to the thread, the thread is about impartiality accusations of which there are no such campaigns nor additional must do stipulations as there are with the reporting of racial abuse.

 

[ref craig]

I would of asked him are you implying that I'm cheating if he answers yes I'm binning no chances about it

 

[TopCat]

I couldn't care less whether you feel offended, insulted or abused.......there isn't a requirement under the LOTG for anyone to actually feel offended, insulted or abused. The requirement is that participants who use offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures is dismissed.

It is entirely possible to use words, phrases or gestures that are designed/intended to offend, insult or abuse......whether or not they achieve that aim is entirely irrelevant as far as the offence goes. If one player calls another "n*gger".....but the other player doesn't react, or even laughs and walks away.....are you dismissing the offending player?

I may be being thick here but what is your answer here Padfoot are you saying you would send that player off for n word?

 

[Padfoot]

Law 5 says:
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws
of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the
referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework
of the Laws of the Game.

The law are applied based on the opinion of the referee on the day and it is exactly that why these matters are so subjective and each referees tolerance level is going to be part of the equation. One referees opinion is different to that of another e.g. rusty and your opinions are different it doesnt make either argument less valid.

Within reason context and situation do need to be taken into account, I think that is a fair approach.

I fail to see how asking a question regarding racism is valid to the thread, the thread is about impartiality accusations of which there are no such campaigns nor additional must do stipulations as there are with the reporting of racial abuse.

You highlighted the wrong section of text........

The thread is about referees failing to apply the LOTG correctly because they have got erroneous buzzwords like "tolerance", "context", and "spirit of the game" floating around in their heads.........so answer the question.....if a players calls another player "n*gger" yet the other player doesn't react or is clearly not offended, abused, or insulted, are you dismissing the player?

 

[Mintyref]

I may be being thick here but what is your answer here Padfoot are you saying you would send that player off for n word?

I'll answer for him......YES. Why did you even ask?

 

[lincs22]

If the N word was heard by as an observer, I would expect the player to be dismissed. The same would apply for the H word and any word no longer acceptable. If the referee didn't, I would be "killing the referee in the report" and make the report myself to the CFA.

On the implied cheating, all need to remember that it is in the opinion of the referee whether any terms / words are OFFINABUS. Only the referee can make that decision - one referee could deem the word / term OFFINABUS while other will deem dissent. This is not weak refereeing, just the correct decision as it is their opinion - just like a handball or trip..!

 

[Padfoot]

I may be being thick here but what is your answer here Padfoot are you saying you would send that player off for n word?

My answer isn't important......I know what I would do and why......I'm curious to hear what Rusty, and anyone else who believes that someone actually needs to be offended etc, would do and why.....

 

[TopCat]

I'll answer for him......YES. Why did you even ask?

About my fifth game in had two teams with lots of black guys in both sides, fairly contested friendly match. Everyone was waiting for keeper to retrieve ball, blue skipper (black guy) says kind of out loud to people around from both teams this n*gger looks like Jamie foxx and points at opposition guy stood near by, 4 or 5 people including lad who had been pointed at (black guy who actually does look like Jamie foxx) laugh. Guy starts signing Jamie foxx song all very jovial. In my personal opinion I would have looked an absolute prat suddenly blowing whistle and whipping a red card out. May be wrong in theory but would I do anything different? No.

 

[JamesL]

My answer isn't important......I know what I would do and why......I'm curious to hear what Rusty, and anyone else who believes that someone actually needs to be offended etc, would do and why.....

Of course I would. I would be offended by it for starters.
Secondly, we are required by FA directive to report and act upon any racial abuse even of we javent heard it for ourselves which is why I fail to see the relevance in this debate.
@lincs22 has nailed it for me and is exactly where I am at.

 

[Padfoot]

If the N word was heard by as an observer, I would expect the player to be dismissed. The same would apply for the H word and any word no longer acceptable. If the referee didn't, I would be "killing the referee in the report" and make the report myself to the CFA.

On the implied cheating, all need to remember that it is in the opinion of the referee whether any terms / words are OFFINABUS. Only the referee can make that decision - one referee could deem the word / term OFFINABUS while other will deem dissent. This is not weak refereeing, just the correct decision as it is their opinion - just like a handball or trip..!

But it isn't the correct decision....it's a cop out to avoid making an unpopular decision.

You know they are calling you a cheat.....but because they haven't used the actual word, you have a get out.....a way of avoiding the unpopular. And some referees will grasp that lifeline and then kid themselves that it wasn't really meant to be abusive or insulting....just a bit of banter.....

It just sells their more conscientious colleagues down the river.......if they don't want to do the job properly, hang up the whistle and leave to those who are prepared to make the difficult decisions.

 

[Padfoot]

Of course I would. I would be offended by it for starters.
Secondly, we are required by FA directive to report and act upon any racial abuse which is why I fail to see the relevance in this debate.
@lincs22 has nailed it for me and is exactly where I am at.

But its not abuse unless some feels abused?

 

[JamesL]

But its not abuse unless some feels abused?

Still not sure where you are going with this.... but that isnnot what I have said or implied. Its all about opinions, ours may differ at times, we move on.
The thread is about accusations to referee impartiality.

 

[RustyRef]

A racist comment being used to anyone, be that a player, match official, spectator, whoever, is totally different to a player implying that a referee may be less than impartial. So yes, I would send off for it as it wouldn't be down to whether I was offended (although I would be) and rather because an (racially) abusive word had been used. I don't need to be offended for that, but I do need to be offended to send a player off who implies I may be less than impartial.

 

[ref craig]

I'm with padfoot look you hear in the slightest say are you wearing the opposition colour as I said in a relative post I'd be asking him are you implying that I'm cheating. yes some referees even don't punish for spirit for game/game management which I think is a disgrace and doesn't help next weeks ref who might get the same thing and then might send them off that week so please think what players are saying and don't think it in the slightest of the game.

 

[Padfoot]

A racist comment being used to anyone, be that a player, match official, spectator, whoever, is totally different to a player implying that a referee may be less than impartial. So yes, I would send off for it as it wouldn't be down to whether I was offended (although I would be) and rather because an (racially) abusive word had been used. I don't need to be offended for that, but I do need to be offended to send a player off who implies I may be less than impartial.

Where does it stipulate that in Law 12?

The uncomfortable reality is that there is NO requirement for anyone to be offended, insulted or abused for an offence to be complete under the LOTG. None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The offence is complete the moment a player tries to offend, insult or abuse, not whether they succeed or not.

 

[lincs22]

Where does it stipulate that in Law 12?

The uncomfortable reality is that there is NO requirement for anyone to be offended, insulted or abused for an offence to be complete under the LOTG. None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The offence is complete the moment a player tries to offend, insult or abuse, not whether they succeed or not.

@Padfoot is quite correct on this point, there is no requirement for anyone to be offended, insulted or abused.

But Law 5 "Decisions...... will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action.....". FIFA have allowed the referee to have discretion to make decisions based on their opinion, and as we know FIFA is always right (even when the bribes are following!).

Back to the original point of this topic - @Charlie Jones I think the conclusion is that most referees would have taken some disciplinary action without the warning.

 

[ARF]

Where does it stipulate that in Law 12?

The uncomfortable reality is that there is NO requirement for anyone to be offended, insulted or abused for an offence to be complete under the LOTG. None. Nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The offence is complete the moment a player tries to offend, insult or abuse, not whether they succeed or not.

And who decides what qualifies as offensive/insulting/abusive language? Where is the master list of every word and phrase, alongside the instruction of whether it's not worthy of a card, cautionable or dismissable?