The Ref Stop

Should I have sent this kid off?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As referees we are there to uphold the laws of the game which are in place to protect the image of football.

Say for example, there was a gay person beside the incident who heard what was said and seen that only a yellow card was given, is that person likely to become involved in football or is he more likely to have a bad impression at the homophobia which is permitted?

What if the blue player did actually take offence but did not show any outward emotion of is, does this mean that it is not a red? How do you know that the blue player has learned to live with such abuse because no one takes his feelings seriously so has to suppress them?

Yes, we may be referees and a one man crusade may not be ideal, but if we all leave it to someone else to deal with then no one deals with it and the problem will get worse. If be called him "black" and he took no offence, would you still give a yellow? We cannot have double standards.

I'm sure if you had given a red card and the player got banned, word would get about the other teams in the league that that language is not acceptable and will be punished. All it takes is one brave referee and soon attitudes change.

In my opinion, any language which may offend or is intended as derogatory or demeaning is a red. We do not make the laws, however we have to enforce them.

Rant over and not a personal attack at OP or anyone else.
 
The Ref Stop
Would you be referring to the chanting about the tottenham fans lack of gential parts?

A widely sung song for many a moon now ... And indeed by myself at UP etc

Would it make you feel better if I told you I come from a Jewish back ground?
 
micky2001 said:
As referees we are there to uphold the laws of the game which are in place to protect the image of football.

Say for example, there was a gay person beside the incident who heard what was said and seen that only a yellow card was given, is that person likely to become involved in football or is he more likely to have a bad impression at the homophobia which is permitted?

What if the blue player did actually take offence but did not show any outward emotion of is, does this mean that it is not a red? How do you know that the blue player has learned to live with such abuse because no one takes his feelings seriously so has to suppress them?

Yes, we may be referees and a one man crusade may not be ideal, but if we all leave it to someone else to deal with then no one deals with it and the problem will get worse. If be called him "black" and he took no offence, would you still give a yellow? We cannot have double standards.

I'm sure if you had given a red card and the player got banned, word would get about the other teams in the league that that language is not acceptable and will be punished. All it takes is one brave referee and soon attitudes change.

In my opinion, any language which may offend or is intended as derogatory or demeaning is a red. We do not make the laws, however we have to enforce them.

Rant over and not a personal attack at OP or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree in part.

Problem is as others have said it's difficult to go on a one man crusade.

And I'm sorry but I don't accept this not 'dealt with' business. It was acknowledged, punished and the player cautioned with a loud reprimand that this language and behaviour is not acceptable.

How is that not dealing with it?
 
@Charlie Jones - discrimination of any nature is not allowed. I see the point you are trying to make. Your point, however, is not well made and verges on homophobia.

Discrimination is discrimination. End of story.

Please tone it down lads.
 
The only point I was trying to make was that ... We have a hard enough job on a Sunday - one if us - a good 30 odd of them ... Do we need to make a rod for our own back by giving cynical red cards?

Maybe that's better put without leaning on homophobia (wonderful how the mans brain can work when his having a poo)

Also, apologies SM
 
It was definitely cynical that I was meant to use ...

Cynical ... Believing the worst of someone

So it would be making a rod for you own back by giving a red for looking further into a comment than is actually needed on a muddy Hackney Marsh field with 30-odd blokes that have spent the prevailing Saturday party into the early hours

Hypocritical would be sending a guy off 20 minutes earlier for the same offence that you've just booked said chappy for

Consider this grammar lesson a freebie Haywain ... I usually charge
 
It's not cynical to send a player off when you consider him to have committed a serious offence worthy of a red card. Obviously opinions are split on this - which is as I expected really. While I made the argument against a red card I wouldn't criticise any ref who did issue one (nor would I mark down a referee I was assessing)

And hypocritical is just completely wrong :)
 
But what I said would be a cynical red card ☺️

I wouldn't ever argue against a red, and depending on the attitude of the game and that players attitude throughout my decision would sway
 
Hypocritical is a very odd word.

Hypo in ordinary use when prefixing a word means below/less than normal/less than expected etc.

Yet it means something else entirely in this word. Oddity of the English language I guess.

Not sure why I posted this... :)
 
So, instead of a caution saying 'it's not cool, but forgivable', you'd rather take the option of saying 'nah, it's perfectly acceptable language!'
 
Charlie, I meant hypocritical in the sense that, since you are happy to use homophobic terminology yourself, then it would be, to your mind, hypocritical of you to book players for doing the same thing.
 
RegalRef said:
I agree in part.

Problem is as others have said it's difficult to go on a one man crusade.

And I'm sorry but I don't accept this not 'dealt with' business. It was acknowledged, punished and the player cautioned with a loud reprimand that this language and behaviour is not acceptable.

How is that not dealing with it?
Click to expand...

Difficult to go on one man crusade? Sorry, but who said it is a crusade? It is effectively and appropriately applying the LOTG. In your title you question whether or not you should have sent him off which in my opinion shows that you considered his statement to be OFFINABUS but didn't act as such because the player didn't take offence. What if he did take offence but didn't show it? What kind of reaction of "offence" do you wait for before deciding whether it is a red? What if he got up and punched the guy? Would this have been enough of a reaction for a red? My point, just because someone doesn't react doesn't mean that the offence still hasn't been committed.

When Nicholas Anelka made his anti-Jewish gesture, no one on the FOP took offence but he was later hit with a ban. Why? Because it is was likely to cause offence to others. How is calling someone a f****t anything but offensive to anyone?

And I'm sorry, you feel that way with the "dealt with" business. Yes, technically you did deal with it by issuing a yellow and a "reprimand" but in my opinion the way in which you "dealt with" the situation is a complete cop out as you did not take the appropriate and necessary action. If a player was one on one with the keeper and was taken out, would you give a yellow and a reprimand? NO! You would give a red! Why should OFFINABUS be treated different?! Please don't bend the rules to make things easier for yourself or try to make excuses to take the easier option. His language was insulting, and potentially abusive, meeting the criteria for a red. Nowhere in the LOTG does it say someone must actually show they are offended, insulted or abused by the language or gestures, just that the language (or gestures) is forbidden and must be dealt with by expulsion from the field of play. As I said earlier, you must have considered the statement OFFINABUS otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread and in my opinion it was a clear red.

One question I would like to ask you though, regarding the horror tackle on the Chelsea player who then got sent off for his retaliation. The referee dealt with the offending player by speaking to him and giving Chelsea a FK. Yes, the referee dealt with the situation but no one I have spoken to thinks it was anything other than a red card. My point is, although it was dealt with, it was not dealt with effectively or appropriately, and I think this is what you did.

Please remember, this is not a personal attack on you, just personal opinion on an incident which you can disagree with and I will happily accept your view point. Other people have seem to be happy with a yellow and others think red and I strongly believe his statement was no different to racism or other discriminatory language.
 
I'm sorry but for me OFFINABUS is all about gauging if a player is offended or not if it is directed towards him.

And short of stopping the game and offering the affected player psyciatric therapy the only way of knowing if it caused offence is by gauging his reaction.

A good example of this is the situation you have before - if he gets up and lamps him then I'm pretty sure it caused offence and therefore they're both off.

Had he directed that word at me I would have taken offence and sent him off. But people have different tolerance levels.Some people wouldn't.

Believe me I have no issue with making unpopular decisions, there is no cop out from me, but it has to be fair and right in law as I see it.

Had he racially abused him I would be immediately offended as I'm certain many others would be, whether it was directed at me or not.Red no question no matter who it's aimed at.

If a player swears at me in frustration he gets a yellow, if he doesn't utter one swear word but calls me a cheat he's off.

It's not about the words used but their application, conviction and direction - as well as how they re received.

The point I was originally trying to clear was that this was a slightly unusual incident in the respect that it was said between two players rather than at me, was in a bit of a grey area as regards the type of language said and the application of it, and a phrase I wouldn't really expect to hear on a football pitch.

It seems the general view is 50:50 between red and yellow, but what is encouraging is everybody agrees they would deal with it in one way or another, despite that there may have been a difference in the severity of the punishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top