PP62
Well-Known Member
Well, some games I wear a pink top and tutu so it can be hard to blame them!
Seriously though, we do need to judge the level of a conversation and a calm, quiet remark is not the same as a yell across the pitch
Mong?
- Thread starter Padfoot
- Start date
- Status
Well, some games I wear a pink top and tutu so it can be hard to blame them!
Seriously though, we do need to judge the level of a conversation and a calm, quiet remark is not the same as a yell across the pitch
It is to some of the modern trigger happy brigade! 
The positive for referees is that certain words may be a ticking off for one ref, a yellow for another and even a red for another. Despite this ambiguity, I don't believe that any ref is wrong. You can only be insulted or offenses (and abusive I know!) by your own tolerance and not by someone else's.
I'd love to come and watch one of your games, are they all 5 a sides, eventually??
one
RefChat Addict
Here is when context comes in. I have been called a wog after a game which I let thought to the keeper. It was from another 'wog' I knew well (an old team mate) and it was in the context of complementing my performance in a humerus way. It all comes down to context. In another context, it can be red card.
My funniest was Douche Bag, I didnt know whether to laugh or be highly offended!! 
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
There are some terrible arguments in this thread.
What strikes me is that there are several posters explaining that they know a word is (now) offensive - actually it seems every single poster in this thread agress ”mong” is offensive - but then they are finding excuses to ignore it.
Step back. It’s classic last week’s ref stuff guys, not wanting to be unpopular.
It’s not your/our/my fault if an adult/child does not know if a word is offensive/pejorative.
If you are not giving a red card because ”he said it to me nicely” - which seems to be a common comment above - you are being had. Catch yourself on.
What strikes me is that there are several posters explaining that they know a word is (now) offensive - actually it seems every single poster in this thread agress ”mong” is offensive - but then they are finding excuses to ignore it.
Step back. It’s classic last week’s ref stuff guys, not wanting to be unpopular.
It’s not your/our/my fault if an adult/child does not know if a word is offensive/pejorative.
If you are not giving a red card because ”he said it to me nicely” - which seems to be a common comment above - you are being had. Catch yourself on.
Completely agree. For certain words, there doesn’t need to be context. Call a black person a wog or somebody with Down syndrome a mong on the street and it’s considered a hate crime by the authorities. Why are we suddenly playing the use of these words down because they said it with a smile on his face.
one
RefChat Addict
Wog is a term used to call immigrants here. It used to be used in a derogatory/racial way by non-immigrants but very rare now. It is not as offensive as it used to be (thanks to a couple comedy Aussie movies called "wog boy") but still not acceptable. It may be different in the UK.
I don't remember the exact words used but it was something like "I can't understand how a wog like you can be such a good referee" while patting my back on the way to change rooms. In that context, there was next to no chance anyone hearing it would have taken offence. In the remote chance of it happening, letting the bystander know that the person who said it is also an immigrant/wog (one of us) would surely clear any misunderstanding. So no I won't have changed my mind because it was absolutely clear there was no offence intended and anyone claiming to be offended within that context would have had other motives.
one
RefChat Addict
Let me make another example. We can all agree that calling a black person the N word is highly offensive. If I create a poll with a player calling a black player the N word, what do you do? Undoubtedly close to 100% will say red card.
Now if I later put this context on it how many of the voters would change their mind? A team with a lot of black players. One of them scores with screamer from 35 yard out into the top corner. A team mate who is also black, while embracing him in celebration says "from now on that's how you shoot ni***". You only hear this because you are standing less than 5 meters away otherwise you would not have heard it.
The point I am making is no matter how offensive the word is, you can't simply ignore context. In all likelihood you may still end up with red but don't make a judgement until you know the context.
Now if I later put this context on it how many of the voters would change their mind? A team with a lot of black players. One of them scores with screamer from 35 yard out into the top corner. A team mate who is also black, while embracing him in celebration says "from now on that's how you shoot ni***". You only hear this because you are standing less than 5 meters away otherwise you would not have heard it.
The point I am making is no matter how offensive the word is, you can't simply ignore context. In all likelihood you may still end up with red but don't make a judgement until you know the context.
Last edited:
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
There’s a massive assumption in your post......
You assume that I found being called a ‘mong’ offensive but chose to ignore it......and you would be very wrong. I didn’t consider myself offended, and given that it was said at a volume that wouldn’t be audible from more than a few yards away, I considered that anyone spectating would not have heard it and therefore be unaffected......so I dealt with it by another route......and it certainly wasn’t ignored.
And I suppose in part you can blame this very forum for my actions.
After all the robust discussions that have occurred over OFFINABUS on here, despite what some might think, I have considered all the viewpoints expressed and come to realise that much of the decision making process has to stem from the referees initial reaction to what was said......if they weren’t offended etc, then context comes into play, volume, aggression etc.
But that initial reaction is key because it will instantly filter the obviously offensive regardless of context from the grey words where context then has to be regarded.
But no one has yet answered whether they would dismiss a player for calling another player a ‘mong’?
one
RefChat Addict
I don't think I would, even now that I know what the term means
Is it fair to say that as referees, we are slightly more tolerant of what players say to one another than we are of comments aimed in our direction?
During the week, the non-league show on 3 Counties Radio had a guest speaker who'd been refereeing for 50 years. It's topical that he was discussing the language used by players over the years, His viewpoint was that it's fundamentally a working class game and there's a need to be accepting of 'industrious language', which hasn't really changed over the years
I'd of been a lonely man to send off for every curse word, in isolation most industrial words can sound worse than they were probably said or meant. Of course some are red lines, some most certainly are not!! I agree 100% with the context!!
Yet you've put it in context...
Targeting a person with down syndrome and calling them a mong is a red all day every day - that's the context!
If a teammate called his other teammate a mong as a joke I'm not sending him - again, context.
- Status