Bobby Madley is back

[GraemeS]

You can be discriminatory about any number of things. It seems absolutely anything can be offensive these days. My whiteness and the apparent privilege that comes with it, seems to be offensive to a growing number of ‘wokes’ these days. Clear racism, but again it’s practically accepted- which is outrageous. But make a joke about a welsh fella and sheep and you are committing a criminal offence! See how ridiculous it is?

Using your example, person B can mock person A for being bald instead. Where does it end? Do we hand person B out to dry too? Who’s to say person B would’ve have found it funny? I’ve joked to friends who were no longer in one piece, about that fact. No different than them taking the piss out of me for any number of reasons in that circumstance.

The end , it seems to me, is the episode of the twighlight zone where everybody has to think happy thoughts!

BM has made a comment in private, sounds like it’s in bad taste, it’s a quiet word in my book.

I understand that it can be difficult and seem inconsistent to people who grew up in a different era with different standards. People do exist who honestly believe that this stuff should be obvious, and that therefore by being offensive, you're actively choosing to ignore modern standards and be a ****. And then again to turn it back around, it's obviously frustrating to be someone who's upholding the moral standard they're used to and then being told they're a **** for doing so.

Honestly, there is an easy answer to this, the list of "Protected Characteristics" https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics. And as referees, we really should know this list off the top of our heads: comments that would otherwise be OK can be considered OFFINABUS purely because they include this characteristics, and any OFFINABUS along those lines immediately requires extra reports as well as the standard processes. And just as a person (ie. not a referee), this acts as a pretty good guide - if you're going to make a joke about something on that list, you've got to be pretty confident you're pitching it correctly, and prepared for pushback if you get it wrong.

Context is important of course - if I turn up to a Jimmy Carr gig and then kick off about certain jokes, then it's me that's the arsehole, not the guy on stage who's act is explicitly about pushing boundaries. But conversely, if I turn up to play a game of football with my mates, it should be a space where I don't have to worry about racism or any of the other assorted -phobias on that list. Why should it be on me to put up with abuse just because I want to enjoy being part of a game of football? And as referees, we've chosen to put ourselves in a position where we need to be guardians of that particular safe space - if you're not willing to do that, I'd honestly question if you're prepared to do your job as a referee.

 

[santa sangria]

As referees on the field it is brilliant that we have to uphold the highest standards of anti-discrimination.
This is something that should be in focus as part of changing perceptions about what we do.

The rest of the world can get on with "pushing boundaries"! The world does change very slowly. On one hand it is great that racial and sexual orientation discrimination have been addressed by our society and media for some time (even if there are massive issues still). On the other hand, society/we still make excuses for people and corporations that profit out of abusive behaviour.

I know this is off topic but - my personal beef is now with misogynist abuse. I write songs and love a lot of the artists in question but it does my nut when I hear misogynist content in songs on the radio or on TV, effectively condoned by the media/streaming giants, and effectively normalised because we are just so used to (totally unnecessary) b**ching and h*ing in song lyrics. It's not big, clever or pushing boundaries. I can't wait for the world to move on and cut it off - at least put in a paper bag on the top shelf.

 

[CanuckRef]

I see where you’re coming from but where does it stop?

I’m from Liverpool and have had a lifetime of the stereotype filled jibes. Some meant in jest, most not...is it a big deal? No. It’s accepted, countrywide. Should people be hung out to dry for it? Absolutely not.

How about discriminatory jokes towards:

Hair colour
Weight
Dress sense
Height
Personality
Education
Nationality
Accent
Fitness level
Sporting ability

Comments on any of the above can be deemed to be offensive to someone. All are accepted. But it’s all got to stop. Sound ridiculous? It’s because it is.

Bobby doesn’t need a course. A person who wouldn’t give another person a job because of any of the above, would absolutely require a course. Bobby should have gotten a quiet word- at worst...purely because of his position.

It may have been a genuine apology for the comment but let’s be honest, he didn’t have a choice. He’s not in a position to say ‘it’s a joke, don’t you have anything better to do?’.

Imagine... a scouser talking sense!

Now, should I get fired for that? Of course not.

 

[Eddie]

I understand that it can be difficult and seem inconsistent to people who grew up in a different era with different standards. People do exist who honestly believe that this stuff should be obvious, and that therefore by being offensive, you're actively choosing to ignore modern standards and be a ****. And then again to turn it back around, it's obviously frustrating to be someone who's upholding the moral standard they're used to and then being told they're a **** for doing so.

Honestly, there is an easy answer to this, the list of "Protected Characteristics" https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics. And as referees, we really should know this list off the top of our heads: comments that would otherwise be OK can be considered OFFINABUS purely because they include this characteristics, and any OFFINABUS along those lines immediately requires extra reports as well as the standard processes. And just as a person (ie. not a referee), this acts as a pretty good guide - if you're going to make a joke about something on that list, you've got to be pretty confident you're pitching it correctly, and prepared for pushback if you get it wrong.

Context is important of course - if I turn up to a Jimmy Carr gig and then kick off about certain jokes, then it's me that's the arsehole, not the guy on stage who's act is explicitly about pushing boundaries. But conversely, if I turn up to play a game of football with my mates, it should be a space where I don't have to worry about racism or any of the other assorted -phobias on that list. Why should it be on me to put up with abuse just because I want to enjoy being part of a game of football? And as referees, we've chosen to put ourselves in a position where we need to be guardians of that particular safe space - if you're not willing to do that, I'd honestly question if you're prepared to do your job as a referee.

As a referee I don’t apply ‘real life’ standards on the pitch, for the reasons you’ve highlighted. You’ve got to be whiter than white in that position IMO. An example from my match on Saturday, where I warned a player for essentially gloating as he put a ball through a defenders legs. “It’s only a laugh ref”. We all know where that can lead and I agree you do need to be more sensitive.

Off the pitch, away from football it doesn’t apply. I’m not saying everyone is fair game etc. but I’m not having the current standard being set by the self-appointed ‘offensive comment-police’ who are out to see people’s lives being ruined because they said something somebody else may not like the sound of.

If the above is indeed the way society should be going then all potentially offensive comments have to dealt with in the same manner. That means the next time somebody ridicules boris Johnson’s haircut, they have to be reprimanded. Same for those who mock Diane Abbott’s arithmetic- reprimand them...it’s offensive, right?

It may sound pedantic but as I’ve said a couple of times, this whole thing around offending people and people being offended by the most trivial of things, is ridiculous.

 

[Eddie]

Imagine... a scouser talking sense!

Now, should I get fired for that? Of course not.

It usually happens when certain planets are aligned!

Well, I don’t think so but someone else who isn’t a scouser, might be offended on behalf of scousers, in the event there’s a scouser out there who could be offended. Stock up on PPI just incase

 

[GraemeS]

As a referee I don’t apply ‘real life’ standards on the pitch, for the reasons you’ve highlighted. You’ve got to be whiter than white in that position IMO. An example from my match on Saturday, where I warned a player for essentially gloating as he put a ball through a defenders legs. “It’s only a laugh ref”. We all know where that can lead and I agree you do need to be more sensitive.

Off the pitch, away from football it doesn’t apply. I’m not saying everyone is fair game etc. but I’m not having the current standard being set by the self-appointed ‘offensive comment-police’ who are out to see people’s lives being ruined because they said something somebody else may not like the sound of.

If the above is indeed the way society should be going then all potentially offensive comments have to dealt with in the same manner. That means the next time somebody ridicules boris Johnson’s haircut, they have to be reprimanded. Same for those who mock Diane Abott’s arithmetic- reprimand them...it’s offensive, right?

It may sound pedantic but as I’ve said a couple of times, this whole thing around offending people and people being offended by the most trivial of things, is ridiculous.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, up until the point I've highlighted. Not everything "offensive" is the same and trying to argue they should be is drawing a false equivalence. In fact, the law is fairly clear that not everything offensive is the same - if offensive comments appears on the protected characteristics list I posted earlier, you'll find the police take a very different view compared to offensive comments that don't.

And you've finished off your post by using the word "trivial", which unfortunately again shows a slight missing of the point. It doesn't matter if you as the person saying something, or hearing it as a neutral party thinks it should be deemed trivial. If it's on the list and it's upset someone, then by definition it's not "trivial" - and your opinion on if it "should" matter or not is 100% irrelevant. Sorry.

 

[Eddie]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, up until the point I've highlighted. Not everything "offensive" is the same and trying to argue they should be is drawing a false equivalence. In fact, the law is fairly clear that not everything offensive is the same - if offensive comments appears on the protected characteristics list I posted earlier, you'll find the police take a very different view compared to offensive comments that don't.

And you've finished off your post by using the word "trivial", which unfortunately again shows a slight missing of the point. It doesn't matter if you as the person saying something, or hearing it as a neutral party thinks it should be deemed trivial. If it's on the list and it's upset someone, then by definition it's not "trivial" - and your opinion on if it "should" matter or not is 100% irrelevant. Sorry.

Perhaps I should clarify my stance. I’m not suggesting all offensive comments are the same...as I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread, there’s a line. I appreciate this will differ from person to person but common sense should prevail.

Unfortunately the type of people who try to ruin other people’s lives because they said ‘there’s only 2 genders’, are generally lacking in common sense. These are the people I have issue with. They won’t accept other people’s opinions or views so try to shut them down by accusing them of being offensive. The same type of person would think nothing of accusing someone of being a nazi because they voted conservative, for example. Which I’d take great offence at, personally. Which comment would have the police at your door though?

In regards to the list, if it’s not on it, then it’s ‘trivial’...in the eyes of the police. Which is exactly what I’m getting at. As long as the line isn’t crossed, it’s no big deal and we can go back to worrying about actual issues, such as the merits of running a diagonal without any assistants.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Perhaps I should clarify my stance. I’m not suggesting all offensive comments are the same...as I’ve mentioned earlier in the thread, there’s a line. I appreciate this will differ from person to person but common sense should prevail.

Unfortunately the type of people who try to ruin other people’s lives because they said ‘there’s only 2 genders’, are generally lacking in common sense. These are the people I have issue with. They won’t accept other people’s opinions or views so try to shut them down by accusing them of being offensive. The same type of person would think nothing of accusing someone of being a nazi because they voted conservative, for example. Which I’d take great offence at, personally. Which comment would have the police at your door though?

In regards to the list, if it’s not on it, then it’s ‘trivial’...in the eyes of the police. Which is exactly what I’m getting at. As long as the line isn’t crossed, it’s no big deal and we can go back to worrying about actual issues, such as the merits of running a diagonal without any assistants.

Discrimination against someone because of their gender is also on the list of protected characteristics on the Equality Act of 2010. And as before, if you didn't know that, you do know.

But dragging this somewhere back near football, Champions League eh? Who will win it? Will Bob ever make it back there or will it be him phoning his brother from the centre circle of a local league final... ah but that's another story which I'll share one time.

 

[Eddie]

Discrimination against someone because of their gender is also on the list of protected characteristics on the Equality Act of 2010. And as before, if you didn't know that, you do know.

But dragging this somewhere back near football, Champions League eh? Who will win it? Will Bob ever make it back there or will it be him phoning his brother from the centre circle of a local league final... ah but that's another story which I'll share one time.

Yes, I’m aware of that one. I’m not trivialising discrimination as that’s more black and white. Having an opinion which differs to those who say there’s 1588 genders, isn’t discrimination. Apparently it’s offensive and worthy of police time but certainly not on my radar it isn’t!

Thankfully a recent case with the above example seen common sense prevail.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Yes, I’m aware of that one. I’m not trivialising discrimination as that’s more black and white. Having an opinion which differs to those who say there’s 1588 genders, isn’t discrimination. Apparently it’s offensive and worthy of police time but certainly not on my radar it isn’t!

Thankfully a recent case with the above example seen common sense prevail.

Ah how refreshing that you are up to date with current events. Now as for the story about the phone call from the local cup final? No I don't think you've earned that one just yet.

Oh I've just seen your comment regarding trivialisation of discrimination, how 1970s of you. If it offends but a single person then that's enough because who's to say that single person is not representative of a larger cohort?

You keep going, because no doubt soon you'll be appealing the sacking of Sabisky.

Anyway back to football. Liverpool lose, Haaland continues his romp through European defences and Ian Wright is a very nice human being.

 

[Eddie]

Ah how refreshing that you are up to date with current events. Now as for the story about the phone call from the local cup final? No I don't think you've earned that one just yet.

Oh I've just seen your comment regarding trivialisation of discrimination, how 1970s of you. If it offends but a single person then that's enough because who's to say that single person is not representative of a larger cohort?

You keep going, because no doubt soon you'll be appealing the sacking of Sabisky.

Anyway back to football. Liverpool lose, Haaland continues his romp through European defences and Ian Wright is a very nice human being.

Ok. You keep quoting discrimination...which has absolutely nothing to do with any of this really. BM wasn’t discriminatory. He made a comment which could’ve been considered to be offensive. Unless you’re suggesting he only makes jokes about disabled people, exclusively?

My argument is unless he’s crossed the line with his comment, then he shouldn’t have lost his job for it.

If you think that’s 70’s of me, fine. Couldn't care less. I’m certainly not alone in not buying into the absolute nonsense where potentially minor offensive comments, are considered severe enough to ruin someone’s life over. Especially since the same people who get offended on other people’s behalf and want to be outraged over almost anything, will turn a blind eye to racism.

It’s a farce and I don’t mind saying so.

 

[zarathustra]

But he was discriminatory, he, by his own admission, made fun of someone with a disability.

Whether we think the punishment was in proportion to the crime is a different matter entirely.

 

[Eddie]

But he was discriminatory, he, by his own admission, made fun of someone with a disability.

Whether we think the punishment was in proportion to the crime is a different matter entirely.

If he refused to buy that person a drink within a round on the basis they were disabled, then he’s being discriminatory.

If he’s made a comment about their disability, apparently in jest, then that’s offensive. It could only be discriminatory if he only made comments about disabled people exclusively. Which I doubt.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

@Eddie is the new Padfoot

 

[Mr Dean]

How has a thread about the return of Bobby Madley turned into defining discrimination as the hypothetical purchase of a beverage? The fact that some referees are displaying such ignorance just goes to show that the FA's respect and education programme has fallen short.

Back to the topic of the thread; I believe it's next to impossible for Madley to return to the select group because the PGMOL will not want a 'celebrity referee' in the headlines. Madley will probably continue to referee with a low profile at the lower levels of professional football (which is still a great level to be at).

 

[Big Cat]

I predict he'll make it back to the top. He's been banished to oblivion for a mistake, had his reputation mullered by fake news, has shown humility and remorse and will be rehabilitated back to his best by the FA's course
Even in today's super-sensitive, hyped-up , hypocritical society, I fancy he'll navigate the stormy waters back to where he belongs

 

[zarathustra]

Whether he makes it back to the top depends on who is in charge of such things in the future.

PGMOL were very quick to get rid of him, even if there were no underlying motives (i.e. someone looking for a reason to get rid of him), people would have to be willing to swallow their pride and admit their mistake to let him back into SG1

 

[StiltonRef]

2 or 3 years max and he will be back on the EPL I reckon.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Whether he makes it back to the top depends on who is in charge of such things in the future.

PGMOL were very quick to get rid of him, even if there were no underlying motives (i.e. someone looking for a reason to get rid of him), people would have to be willing to swallow their pride and admit their mistake to let him back into SG1

How is it admitting a mistake to let him back. It’s time spent, sentence served, move on!

 

[zarathustra]

How is it admitting a mistake to let him back. It’s time spent, sentence served, move on!

You don't summarily fire someone and then give them a job again a couple of years later.

To do so implies that the offence they were fired for wasn't that serious, and that they were dealt with in an overly harsh manner to begin with.

This offer to return to PGMOL in League 1 & 2 only came after he went public about what he did, and what happened subsequently.