Yampy
RefChat Addict
That sounds a bit PC if you ask me.What about the players rights?
That sounds a bit PC if you ask me.What about the players rights?
For that particular referee to impose his own personal religious belief on that particular player was (IMO) an absolute disgrace. Nothing less. He had no more right to abuse that use of his power than the player did to expect to be sent off for it. What about the players rights?
How many times have you seen/heard a team captain turn and bollock one of his players publically (not necessarily using any obscenities) on the pitch for a misdemeanour/error. Would you send him off for that? Maybe like most, you'd just consider that to be a normal part of the game? Hows about if the player found it offensive? What if he found it insulting and offensive to be humiliated in front of everybody like that? What would you do? Ask him? "Erm excuse me No 4 but are you in any way offended or insulted by those comments from your team mate?". He might laugh at you eh? How about if he comes up to you and says "Hey, ref, are you going to let him get away with insulting me/my ability like that? My family are watching me today". What then?
The whole premise of it is a complete minefield if you try and view it subjectively which is why I stand by the base of what I said earlier.
Far too many people these days try to draw attention to themselves by claiming to be "offended". Let them, that's their right, but don't be trying to do it on their behalf as a referee. It's about the football, not the politics.
So, what you're saying is that OFFINABUS shouldn't be enforced when it may not be offensive to somebody the following week?
Sorry, @Kes, but that's something I wholeheartedly disagree with. To take your point on "using the Lord's name in vain", I'm making the assumption that the referee found it offensive enough to constitute OFFINABUS. If so, he was well within his rights to dismiss for that. There's an age old legal principle known as the "egg shell skull" rule, which basically means that you take your victim as you find him. You cannot assume that nobody will be offended, if it is offensive to you as the referee, you dismiss, regardless of whether next weeks ref/player finds it offensive or not.
To take your view would be overly simplistic in my opinion, purely because OFFINABUS is so subjective.
I fear we may have our wires crossed here. You're absolutely right in that we can't dismiss for OFFINABUS on the off chance that somebody might be offended, what a minefield that would be!
However, the referee may have found that particular comment highly offensive, so in my opinion would be well within his rights to dismiss the player. That's not to say that you should dismiss for that, just trying to get an insight into the mindset of the referee. It does set a dangerous precedent though.
Surely you have to view OFFINABUS subjectively? I personally don't think it can be all black and white...but that's why it causes so much debate. We may just be going round in circles here!
one player calling another badly?
That sounds a bit PC if you ask me.
I'm bald, and I'd send you off just for that crap spelling mate......
I do agree with you mate (and we probably are going around in circles ) but only about the minefield bit.
The whole point is that because it's such a minefiled, we can't afford to view it with anything more than perhaps just a tiny bit of subjectivity. (I prefer to call it awareness and/or common sense).
The example that Bloodbeard has given is a bad one because no matter how much you try and defend it, that referee was wrong. I'm guessing there was probably more to the scenario than that but in any event, applying your own personal (religious) belief system to a situation in order to produce a red card is nothing short of outrageous. Any level-headed christian/whatever referee would have at least just called the player over and explained to him that he personally found that offensive and to please tone it down. At worst, it was disgraceful, sanctimonious behaviour, at best, poor refereeing and management.
So, OFFINABUS should be viewed objectively and subjectively with a bit of common sense thrown in?
Equality Act 2010
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
I think a person would have a legal right to be offended if his or her religious beliefs were being infringed. That's not being "politically correct" which you do know is quite different from "politics" @Kes It is part of UK legislation which is supported by the legal system and courts.
- age
- disability;
- gender reassignment;
- marriage and civil partnership;
- pregnancy and maternity;
- race;
- religion or belief;
- sex;
- sexual orientation.
Are there not situations where the phrases or words used are designed to offend, insult and/or abuse, and that is what should be sanctioned rather than the end result?
@Kes whether we like it or not this is the world that we live in now.
After 12 years in the Army I doubt that there is a football player in the country who could say something that would offend me, or that I would even find insulting.
However, leaving aside the obvious things like calling the ref either of the c words, or the use of racist or homophobic remarks etc, we do have to consider whether the other players, spectators or even just people near by are offended by what they hear down the local rec on a Sunday morning.
It's never happened in one of my games, but there are some places in my area where yout and open aged football are played at the same time in close proximity, and as a spectators I have seen refs tell players to watch their language due to a u9 match being played on the next pitch (which to the credit of both teams, they did).