A&H

Swearing on the pitch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ciley Myrus said:
Its not really a matter for simply the clubs and community. Its more simple than that. Its for YOU, as referee, its YOUR pitch during your game, you call the shots and YOU are responsible for what goes on during your visit You decide if the colours clash, you decide if the park is playable, you are responsible for volume, tone and nature of what is going on.
If Mrs Brown complains to the facility, they simply would ask the league as to who the referee was that allowed the offensiveness to continue and you would be answering to your association as to why you allowed it.
Click to expand...

I thought this thread might have died a death....

There are 3 options:

1) You deem it is an offence and punish with the correct sanction in this case Red Card for OFFINABUS (correct in law)
2) You deem it is not an offence and take no sanction (correct in law)
3) You deem it is an offence and punish with an alternate sanction such as a warning or a yellow card (incorrect in law)

And if the answer that you gave was:

"There were 3 occasions within the match where different players missed golden opportunities to score and loudly said f*** after doing so. Based on the circumstances, I didn't deem any of the occasions to be Offensive, Insulting or Abusive, so therefore did not dismiss the players in question"

As I didn't deem it offensive i'm correct in Law by not sanctioning.

Fundamentally, unless there is a definitive list published of what words should be considered offensive AND guidelines on at what volume they need to be spoken in order to constitute being offensive, it comes down to interpretation by the referee on the day based on a whole number of different elements. When you leave that level of interpretation down to individual referees you are going to obviously get a massive deviation of results.
 
The Referee Store
Is it accepted and proper that **** go down the high street at 3pm Saturday screaming "F%%%" ?
Prob not, but then again, there is no referee
When the referee turns up, in this case, police, they decide if the behaviour is acceptable
On that park, at that time, you are the referee, no, you are not there to uphold the laws of the land, but you are there to manage and control the event to the best of your ability. If the best of your ability involves Mrs Brown having to drink her coffee indoors because the language coming from YOUR park was vile, then that's a reflection on firstly you, and secondly, your inability to control whats in front of you

as ever, whatever works for the individual is fine, but if my park is a riot and rammy, I cant help thinking its a reflection on me, so, I try keep it as neat and tidy as I can.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Is it accepted and proper that **** go down the high street at 3pm Saturday screaming "F%%%" ?
Prob not, but then again, there is no referee
When the referee turns up, in this case, police, they decide if the behaviour is acceptable
Click to expand...

When the police turn up they decide whether an offence has been committed before taking action and either:

1) Decide an offence has been committed and act accordingly (normally by making an arrest)
2) Decide no offence has been committed and administer no sanction
3) Decide that whilst no offence has been committed, the "perpetrator" is walking a fine line and if they continue to do so are likely to be considered to be committing an offence which will be dealt with (keep it down, or move along now please) if subsequent to that they do the same, then in normal circumstances they would normally then be arrested.
 
You are missing the point. They are not already there. You, as referee, are there throughout

I guess its one folk need to be on the wrong side of to understand.
Am sure everyone on this forum, every single one, could do more re swearing/offensive, but leaves it for the guy next week. Myself included
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Is it accepted and proper that **** go down the high street at 3pm Saturday screaming "F%%%" ?
Prob not, but then again, there is no referee
When the referee turns up, in this case, police, they decide if the behaviour is acceptable
On that park, at that time, you are the referee, no, you are not there to uphold the laws of the land, but you are there to manage and control the event to the best of your ability. If the best of your ability involves Mrs Brown having to drink her coffee indoors because the language coming from YOUR park was vile, then that's a reflection on firstly you, and secondly, your inability to control whats in front of you

as ever, whatever works for the individual is fine, but if my park is a riot and rammy, I cant help thinking its a reflection on me, so, I try keep it as neat and tidy as I can.
Click to expand...
I'm not in the habit of making up imaginary people who might be offended in order to justify randomly administering harsh punishments. If something breaks the LOTG in my opinion, I'll punish for it. But my tolerance for swearing is MY tolerance and my tolerance alone. And my ability to judge how offended someone is has to be limited to those people in front of me, not someone who might be sat on the other side of a fence.

That's all I can do, and it's all I'm expected to do. It's my role as a football referee to referee a football match, not police society as a whole.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
You are missing the point. They are not already there. You, as referee, are there throughout

I guess its one folk need to be on the wrong side of to understand.
Am sure everyone on this forum, every single one, could do more re swearing/offensive, but leaves it for the guy next week. Myself included
Click to expand...
Police would take witness statements and review any specific CCTV footage (potentially) to decide whether an offence has been committed or not and then would take the appropriate action.
 
I don't think I have ever had a red for OFFINABUS where I haven't reached for the back pocket within a fraction of a second of the words being issued. I don't just mean used against me either, but also when words are said to an opponent.

In my view the decision as to whether it is red or not should be instinctive, if you need to think about it for more than a fraction of a second the card should be staying away. One of those where you gut instinct will almost always be correct.

I also don't agree that it is red or nothing. For the use of certain words it will be, but, for example, a player says "that's b0ll0x ref" or "that's sh1t ref". You would potentially be justified for saying red, even if I think that is in the harsh side, but equally you would be fully justified in saying it was dissent and a caution.
 
RustyRef said:
I don't think I have ever had a red for OFFINABUS where I haven't reached for the back pocket within a fraction of a second of the words being issued. I don't just mean used against me either, but also when words are said to an opponent.

In my view the decision as to whether it is red or not should be instinctive, if you need to think about it for more than a fraction of a second the card should be staying away. One of those where you gut instinct will almost always be correct.

I also don't agree that it is red or nothing. For the use of certain words it will be, but, for example, a player says "that's b0ll0x ref" or "that's sh1t ref". You would potentially be justified for saying red, even if I think that is in the harsh side, but equally you would be fully justified in saying it was dissent and a caution.
Click to expand...
Yes Rusty, industrial language is not necessarily offinabus. Context, attitude and aggression are all important. A stated "that's an effing crap decision ref" may be dissent, "you're effing crap ref" shouted at me will have me reaching for the red.....!
 
RustyRef said:
I don't think I have ever had a red for OFFINABUS where I haven't reached for the back pocket within a fraction of a second of the words being issued. I don't just mean used against me either, but also when words are said to an opponent.

In my view the decision as to whether it is red or not should be instinctive, if you need to think about it for more than a fraction of a second the card should be staying away. One of those where you gut instinct will almost always be correct.

I also don't agree that it is red or nothing. For the use of certain words it will be, but, for example, a player says "that's b0ll0x ref" or "that's sh1t ref". You would potentially be justified for saying red, even if I think that is in the harsh side, but equally you would be fully justified in saying it was dissent and a caution.
Click to expand...

You're deliberately obfuscating the discussion by introducing dissent. Clearly if the referee feels either or both of your examples is offensive, abusive or insulting they would be 100% correct in dismissing the player.
And I would be interested in hearing your arguments towards why they aren't abusive and/or insulting, even if you don't find them offensive?
 
Padfoot said:
You're deliberately obfuscating the discussion by introducing dissent. Clearly if the referee feels either or both of your examples is offensive, abusive or insulting they would be 100% correct in dismissing the player.
And I would be interested in hearing your arguments towards why they aren't abusive and/or insulting, even if you don't find them offensive?
Click to expand...

Love a big word chucked in to becloud the natives!!! :smoke: Respect!!! :rolleyes:
 
We're going off at Tangents here.

There is a difference between language being directed towards the referee that may or may not include swearing as given in Rusty's post and what I believe we were discussing, which is swearing loudly during the course of the game, examples being:

A player misses an open goal from 3 yards out and shouts "C**t" out of frustration at their mistake
A player using swear words in exhorting his team to better efforts - "Come on lads, get the f***ing ball on the floor and play our f***ing passing game"

Those are the elements which are IMHO much less clear cut and some down to a definition of what is and isn't offensive - as they certainly do not tick the boxes for Insulting or Abusive (again IMHO)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Padfoot said:
You're deliberately obfuscating the discussion by introducing dissent. Clearly if the referee feels either or both of your examples is offensive, abusive or insulting they would be 100% correct in dismissing the player.
And I would be interested in hearing your arguments towards why they aren't abusive and/or insulting, even if you don't find them offensive?
Click to expand...

I'm not obfuscating anything, I'm from the North and I don't even know what that means ... :)

I don't find words the likes of sh!t, B0ll0cks, etc, offensive insulting or abusive as I hear them day in day out in a work environment, and indeed use them myself. And they are not a patch on what I hear in referees changing rooms.

The image below was previously used for referee training. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, for example I would be moving the work Pr1ck from yellow to red, or at least an overlap of red and yellow, but I think it still remains to be a useful guide for referees.

Bad-Language.png
 
RustyRef said:
I'm not obfuscating anything, I'm from the North and I don't even know what that means ... :)

I don't find words the likes of sh!t, B0ll0cks, etc, offensive insulting or abusive as I hear them day in day out in a work environment, and indeed use them myself. And they are not a patch on what I hear in referees changing rooms.

The image below was previously used for referee training. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, for example I would be moving the work Pr1ck from yellow to red, or at least an overlap of red and yellow, but I think it still remains to be a useful guide for referees.

Bad-Language.png
Click to expand...
Where does "c*ckwomble" fit?
 
The problem with the language chart which has been around for a while is it doesn't take into account context, intent, aggression and other factors contributing to its 'offensiveness'.

For anyone who says I will take care of the impact on the pitch only, what would you do in the common scenario of (earlier mentioned by myself and @Justylove ), a player misses an open goal from 3 yards out and shouts "F$%k" out of frustration. An opponent approaches you and says can you do something about the swearing ref, I don't want my wife and 3 year old on the sideline to be exposed to this.

You can't just ignore this now as an element of 'offensiveness' has been raised from the pitch. A red card is most extreme and unfair IMO.

Years ago there was a zero tolerance on swearing memo sent out from our FA. I was on the line for a game and ref had told both teams about the memo. 10 minutes in and we had that exact scenario of shouting "f$%k" for a missed shot. The ref blows the whistle and as he was reaching for his pocket, players from the opposing team surrounded the ref asking him not to send the player off but the ref stayed with his decision. Apparently we had more than a dozen send offs that week for similar circumstances. A clarification was sent out by the FA the following week to use common sense when swearing is used in frustration at themselves.
 
Personally I would have very little patience with a player who came up to me with that sort of complaint. Can't stand the heat etc. I agree with Rusty: if it's not clear to me instantly that it's offinabus, I will move on. Any attempt to draw my attention to potentially offensive language is probably gamesmanship anyway (next thing you know, teams will bring nuns along to try to get the opposition down to 9 men before half time). Also, should we have consideration for conditions such as Tourette's syndrome etc.?
 
one said:
The problem with the language chart which has been around for a while is it doesn't take into account context, intent, aggression and other factors contributing to its 'offensiveness'.

For anyone who says I will take care of the impact on the pitch only, what would you do in the common scenario of (earlier mentioned by myself and @Justylove ), a player misses an open goal from 3 yards out and shouts "F$%k" out of frustration. An opponent approaches you and says can you do something about the swearing ref, I don't want my wife and 3 year old on the sideline to be exposed to this.

You can't just ignore this now as an element of 'offensiveness' has been raised from the pitch. A red card is most extreme and unfair IMO.

Years ago there was a zero tolerance on swearing memo sent out from our FA. I was on the line for a game and ref had told both teams about the memo. 10 minutes in and we had that exact scenario of shouting "f$%k" for a missed shot. The ref blows the whistle and as he was reaching for his pocket, players from the opposing team surrounded the ref asking him not to send the player off but the ref stayed with his decision. Apparently we had more than a dozen send offs that week for similar circumstances. A clarification was sent out by the FA the following week to use common sense when swearing is used in frustration at themselves.
Click to expand...

You can ignore it......if you decide it wasn't designed to be offensive, insulting and/or abusive.......stop worrying about whether somebody is actually offended, insulted and/or abused and start getting your noggin around the concept that OFFINABUS is much more about the intent behind the words, phrases or gestures than the actual result.
Of course, there will always be some words, phrases or gestures that are inherently offensive in nature (whether or not you as the referee are offended by them) but it is entirely possible to commit OFFINABUS without swearing at all.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm not in the habit of making up imaginary people who might be offended in order to justify randomly administering harsh punishments. If something breaks the LOTG in my opinion, I'll punish for it. But my tolerance for swearing is MY tolerance and my tolerance alone. And my ability to judge how offended someone is has to be limited to those people in front of me, not someone who might be sat on the other side of a fence.

That's all I can do, and it's all I'm expected to do. It's my role as a football referee to referee a football match, not police society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Bravo, spot on :)

Where things get tricky and interesting is indeed on those leagues who are trying to clamp down on 'bad language' in general. Those 'unnecessary' curses in frustration or to gee up team mates are then the ones that the leagues are asking their officials to police on their behalf. And it's in those kinds of situations where (IMO) a yellow card becomes an acceptable sanction for continuing with gratuitous language having been asked to stop. Continuing with such language after a warning (even if the referee does not himself deem the language to be offensive) becomes dissent. Much in the same way as continued 'chirping' about decisions can do so if the referee has said that enough is enough ....
 
Russell Jones said:
Bravo, spot on :)

Where things get tricky and interesting is indeed on those leagues who are trying to clamp down on 'bad language' in general. Those 'unnecessary' curses in frustration or to gee up team mates are then the ones that the leagues are asking their officials to police on their behalf. And it's in those kinds of situations where (IMO) a yellow card becomes an acceptable sanction for continuing with gratuitous language having been asked to stop. Continuing with such language after a warning (even if the referee does not himself deem the language to be offensive) becomes dissent. Much in the same way as continued 'chirping' about decisions can do so if the referee has said that enough is enough ....
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it is, but there is simply no basis in law for a caution for using offensive language. None. Nil. Nada.

Even worse, once you have warned them (something else that has no basis in law and the player has no right to expect or receive) you are even more bound to the one and only option of a red card.

Stop wussing about and do the bloody job properly.
 
Padfoot said:
You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it is, but there is simply no basis in law for a caution for using offensive language. None. Nil. Nada.

Even worse, once you have warned them (something else that has no basis in law and the player has no right to expect or receive) you are even more bound to the one and only option of a red card.

Stop wussing about and do the bloody job properly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I thought I'd made myself abundantly clear ... but apparently not :rolleyes:. I'm talking about the language of frustration that neither I, nor anyone that I am aware of, nor 'common, modern day, bounds of decency' would deem to be offensive. The kind of language I would happily completely ignore on the FOP day in, day out and no one would bat an eyelid. So the ONLY reason that I, as a referee am getting involved in it, is because of a league directive .. much like a subs board, type of ball etc, it's just the way that the league would prefertheir matches to be. In those circumstances, I'm warning the player not for language that is truly offensive but for language the league would prefer avoided. If the player chooses to ignore the warning then they are guilty of dissent. Simples :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top