What would you do??

[Yampy]

What about the players rights?

That sounds a bit PC if you ask me.

 

[Matthew]

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.

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!

 

[Cheshire Ref]

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.

Being folically challenged should I send someone off for one player calling another BALDY?
**Edited to correct spelling thanks to baldy @Kes ****

 

[Kes]

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!

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.

one player calling another badly?

I'm bald, and I'd send you off just for that crap spelling mate......

That sounds a bit PC if you ask me.

Get back under your rock you.....

 

[Cheshire Ref]

I'm bald, and I'd send you off just for that crap spelling mate......

touché, I get called badly every week!!!!! BALDY!!!!

 

[Matthew]

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.

I'm all for using a bit of common sense and I guess it's difficult in this situation because we don't know exactly what happened. Probably best that we agree to disagree!

So, OFFINABUS should be viewed objectively and subjectively with a bit of common sense thrown in?

 

[Kes]

So, OFFINABUS should be viewed objectively and subjectively with a bit of common sense thrown in?

Erm.... yep! One of those.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Equality Act 2010
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

• age
• disability;
  
• gender reassignment;
  
• marriage and civil partnership;
  
• pregnancy and maternity;
  
• race;
  
• religion or belief;
  
• sex;
  
• sexual orientation.

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.

 

[Kes]

Equality Act 2010
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—

• age
• disability;
  
• gender reassignment;
  
• marriage and civil partnership;
  
• pregnancy and maternity;
  
• race;
  
• religion or belief;
  
• sex;
  
• sexual orientation.

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.

Like I said, thought control.
I'm not going to get into a debate with you over the semantics of it Brian. Lets just say I don't agree. Legal systems and courts have no real place on a football field except for something serious like assault etc. A ref who feels he can send a player from the field for saying something like "Jesus Christ - switch on Dave will you!!" is nothing more than a pious and sanctimonious pratt.

 

[Padfoot]

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]

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?

Correct.
But in true PC fashion, people like to claim, that it's how the poor "victim" feels rather than the intent of the other individual that counts.
Stephen Fry had it about right.

 

[zarathustra]

@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).

 

[Kes]

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

@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).

Absolutely mate, done the same thing myself in open age when reffing on a pitch that was 30 yards away from married quarters. No harm in that.
I refuse to subscribe to the hysteria and paranoia that prevails whenever somebody suggests that something might be "offensive" though. Modern society is now obsessed with it and it needn't be. I truly believe that a hundred years from now when things like food water and shelter are once again the important things in life (don't ask ), our ancestors will look back at us and be amazed that we were once so preoccupied with people's "feelings".

 

[Tealeaf]