A&H

Bobby Madley is back

A

alexv

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Bobby Madley is returning to England. I'll let you read his blog post but to cut a long story short, he has to attend a discrimination workshop and will begin to officiate in League One and Two.

This makes total sense and I'm surprised this wasn't the original punishment. It's good that he has been punished for an offensive joke, but I think most people agreed that the original punishment was far too harsh.

Here's his blog post;
therefereesword.blogspo…
 
The Referee Store
I’m curious as to when offending someone became so serious, that a suitable punishment was to effectively ruin their career? Verbally abusing people under one of the various ‘isms’, fine, throw the book at them.

I’m offended by idiots on a daily basis but you just get on with it. Who put the self-entitled snowflakes in charge?
 
Grayson said:
Great news for him (and the EFL), sad news for his twitter followers :(

Chuffed for him, seems a bloody decent colleague to watch and learn from on a match day.
Click to expand...
I am a follower and think it is excellent news. There is one Twitter user who is not happy at all, he feels the original punishment was too lenient.
 
Eddie said:
I’m curious as to when offending someone became so serious, that a suitable punishment was to effectively ruin their career? Verbally abusing people under one of the various ‘isms’, fine, throw the book at them.

I’m offended by idiots on a daily basis but you just get on with it. Who put the self-entitled snowflakes in charge?
Click to expand...
Picking someone out based on their disability has always been serious for as long as I can remember.

Bobby himself has acknowledged that he shouldn't have done it and has rightly shown remorse for his actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
Mr Dean said:
Picking someone out based on their disability has always been serious for as long as I can remember.

Bobby himself has acknowledged that he shouldn't have done it and has rightly shown remorse for his actions.
Click to expand...
Have you ever acted inappropriately in private? It's the person who out'ed him who should be vilified because that act was targeted & meant something
 
Mr Dean said:
Picking someone out based on their disability has always been serious for as long as I can remember.

Bobby himself has acknowledged that he shouldn't have done it and has rightly shown remorse for his actions.
Click to expand...
You haven't lived long enough, with comedians and schoolyards of the 70s / 80s everything was fair game! Time to move on I think!!!
 
Mr Dean said:
Picking someone out based on their disability has always been serious for as long as I can remember.

Bobby himself has acknowledged that he shouldn't have done it and has rightly shown remorse for his actions.
Click to expand...
Did he really "pick someone out" though? The phrase suggests (to me at least) some kind of public and/or direct targeting of a person in a manner intended to ridicule them. This was a private comment to a supposed friend where he made an oblique reference to a disabled person, in an almost self-deprecating manner. He's right to say he shouldn't have done it but it was hardly the most egregious example of the kind. I agree with the earlier comment that the punishment seemed a tad harsh and the current ruling that he can return to refereeing but must attend an FA discrimination workshop, is more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
You haven't lived long enough, with comedians and schoolyards of the 70s / 80s everything was fair game! Time to move on I think!!!
Click to expand...
Yes but this isn't the 70s or 80s. And just because things were "fair game" back then doesn't mean it was right.

That's not to say I think the punishment Bobby received was proportional to the crime. To me it looks like a knee jerk reaction by PGMOL, possibly there was a threat that the person who shopped him in would go public if it wasn't dealt with. But I suspect that his contract had something about not bringing the PGMOL into disrepute that can be used as a catch all.
 
Big Cat said:
Have you ever acted inappropriately in private? It's the person who out'ed him who should be vilified because that act was targeted & meant something
Click to expand...
Inappropriately? Oh, for sure.
Discriminatory? No. I think most people haven't.
 
zarathustra said:
Yes but this isn't the 70s or 80s. And just because things were "fair game" back then doesn't mean it was right.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was right, I said he needed to accept that at points in the past such things weren't as frowned upon as they are today.
Just look at some of Boris's quotes or Prince Phillip!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I didn't say it was right, I said he needed to accept that at points in the past such things weren't as frowned upon as they are today.
Just look at some of Boris's quotes or Prince Phillip!!!
Click to expand...

But what was and wasn't frowned upon in the 70s and 80s is really relevant, because what Bobby did didn't happen in the 70s or 80s.

And as Bobby is nearly a year younger than me he wasn't brought up in a time when these things weren't frowned upon, so it isn't a generation thing either.
 
Peter Grove said:
Did he really "pick someone out" though? The phrase suggests (to me at least) some kind of public and/or direct targeting of a person in a manner intended to ridicule them. This was a private comment to a supposed friend where he made an oblique reference to a disabled person, in an almost self-deprecating manner. He's right to say he shouldn't have done it but it was hardly the most egregious example of the kind. I agree with the earlier comment that the punishment seemed a tad harsh and the current ruling that he can return to refereeing but must attend an FA discrimination workshop, is more appropriate.
Click to expand...
You're probably thinking of the phrase 'picking on someone' which sounds similar but has a different meaning.

I must politely rebuke you when you say the incident is not the most "egregious example". Are you saying that it's only a little bit discriminatory? It's important to tackle all types of discrimination without trivialising perceived 'minor' incidents. However, saying that, I agree that education is better than dismissal which is why it is great news that Bobby is taking a discrimination course.
 
Mr Dean said:
You're probably thinking of the phrase 'picking on someone' which sounds similar but has a different meaning.

I must politely rebuke you when you say the incident is not the most "egregious example". Are you saying that it's only a little bit discriminatory? It's important to tackle all types of discrimination without trivialising perceived 'minor' incidents. However, saying that, I agree that education is better than dismissal which is why it is great news that Bobby is taking a discrimination course.
Click to expand...

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?’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top