A&H

General bad language

Kes said:
I've always been unsure whenever I hear players berating their own team mates in what some people (depending on your background) would consider an OFFINABUS way.
I know that the LOTG stipulates that anything OFFINABUS is a straight red - but again, that is up to the ref to interpret what qualifies as such isn't it?
As alluded to above, swearing has evolved as part of the game these days (rightly or wrongly) and so I feel it's a very big (potentially match-changing) call to send someone from the field of play for something he/she may have said many times before in a match without penalty.
I generally blow my whistle very loudly, call the offender over to me, and loudly and publically point out that his language is unacceptable and another outburst will result in his marching orders.
Having said all that, were it to happen during an assessment - then he'd have to go - no warnings or excuses. :(
Click to expand...

So you know that your approach is incorrect because you admit you would change it if being assessed......so why do it in the first place?

Certain words and phrases can be offensive, insulting and/or abusive by their very nature....regardless of whether the intended recipient actually feels any of the three emotions.......
 
The Referee Store
Padfoot said:
Certain words and phrases can be offensive, insulting and/or abusive by their very nature....regardless of whether the intended recipient actually feels any of the three emotions.......
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate on the types of words or phrases which you believe should always be a Red card regardless of context or recipient reaction? :)
 
Padfoot said:
So you know that your approach is incorrect because you admit you would change it if being assessed......so why do it in the first place?

Certain words and phrases can be offensive, insulting and/or abusive by their very nature....regardless of whether the intended recipient actually feels any of the three emotions.......
Click to expand...

Good question, well presented.
I suppose it's because I'm a human being and not a robot. ;)

As I said before, if players are continually allowed to swear during matches, (which presumably they are or else they wouldn't do it) then it's reasonable to assume that they do it thinking it's acceptable. I genuinely believe that not that many players (certainly at Sunday league level)actually know that "OFFINABUS" is a straight red card offence. I therefore consider it my obligation (for future education) and in the interests of the match itself to remind them that it is a sending off offence first, before I reach for the red on a repeat offence.
I know your argument will be that a sudden and unexpected red card would "educate for the future" better than anything else - and you may be right, but as already discussed, it's the ref's call.
I find berating a team mate publically a most unsavoury thing to do personally, irrespective of the language used, but some players consider it part of their job and the match to do so.
It's a part of football, certainly at the lowest level. If you find it bordering on or within the remit of OFFINABUS, do what your gut tells you. For me, I warn people first. The LOTG can't control a football match. The referee has to do that.
 
About 15 or so years ago my supply league had a no foul language policy. We were told that all foul language must be sanctioned as OFFINABUS, whatever the circumstances. If we heard it, the player had to go, no excuses and anyone who did not would be marked down by the assessor.
We had players badly fouled, who swore and were sent off, while the player who fouled them was cautioned. There were a lot of dismissals immediately, but after a few weeks the foul language all stopped.
However, some of the teams complained to the FA and the league were told in no uncertain manner that this was not what the Law meant and must be stopped straight away, so we went back to how it was before. They quickly forgot all about keeping their language down.
A couple of years later I was doing a game at a ground that is surrounded by houses. After about ten minutes the home GK was taking a lot of time getting the ball out from a goal kick, at which his centre forward shouted very loudly at him to get rid of the ball, using language that shocked the crowd ( he used one of the C words). I blew to stop the kick and cautioned the player for unsporting behaviour. Before the kick was taken I heard his manager ask him what he was booked for! When he shouted across at him the manager said "oh, ok!"
After that there was some language but nothing like that instance, and nothing at any sort of volume, so I did not have to repeat this action.
At the end of the game, the assessor said that he was particularly pleased to see strong action taken to deal with foul language which stopped it dead, and the mark reflected this.
I regularly caution for USB where a player's language oversteps the mark but I don't consider it to be worth dismissal in the context of the game. When we had to write reports for cautions I would put "the player made a comment that I considered to be unsporting behaviour, and I therefore cautioned him for this" Now we don't even have to do this.
I will usually call a player to me if he is getting close, or else issue a general "keep the language down please lads" statement. If there is a general amount of bad language from everyone that needs to be clamped down on then I will often tell them " keep the language down lads. The next one to swear will be cautioned" This shows them where the boundary is, or should - not all teams learn, but if they then have players cautioned and then dismissed then it's their problem.
This is unfortunately a part of everyday language, but we don't have to accept it without response.
 
However you are totally incorrect in law to use cautions in this manner.

It's a cop out and weak refereeing.
 
Wish I had a FA/FIFA approved list of what is and isn't a 'mandatory' red for OFFINABUS or yellow for dissent, like you obviously have Padfoot.

Unless you do, then your argument that it's incorrect in law is seriously lacking. I'd say a caution for USB (under 'acting in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game') fits a number of situations rather well where any reasonable human being would deem it overly officious or just plain wrong to send a player off.
 
Padfoot said:
It's a cop out and weak refereeing.
Click to expand...
That's the first time I've ever been accused of that! Usually teams ask not to have me any more because they think I'm too strict! I must let them know that there's someone even stricter!

As Alex says, I consider unacceptable language - which does not necessarily mean foul language, but also is not so bad as to require immediate dismissal - to be 'acting in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game' as listed in the USB offences at the back of the LOTG, and this is the opinion of the referee. When I caution a player for this it is rarely a shock because I've usually spoken to him before. I belong to the "no surprises" school of refereeing.
Round here, if I sent off everyone who used bad language every time I would struggle to finish games, simply because no one else would be doing it and so it would come as a surprise to the players. I would therefore be sending off several other players after the initial one simply because they didn't accept that what he said was so bad. I send off enough without resorting to that - it would be like shooting fish in a barrel!
At our branch we tell newly qualified referees that even though they don't always have to dismiss players for language they should never ignore it. We also tell them that most cautions will be for USB, which covers just about everything when they can't decide what other category it's in.
As I said before, my supply league was specifically told by the FA that we must not dismiss players every time they used foul language regardless of the circumstances. When we had that interpretation on our league we had problems because when our teams played in FA competitions against teams from other leagues the outsiders were swearing as normal, so our players either got fed up with the inconsistency or else joined in. Then next week when they were back in the league they had issues with discipline again. This was obviously unfair, and so could not be continued.

Unfortunately, with the best will in the world this will not change. There are too many who do not see an issue with bad language and will therefore do nothing. This includes a lot of "serious" referees, never mind those of us who fit into the category of LWRs. Accusing someone of copping out and being weak for offering a potential way to deal with bad language without spoiling the game is pointless. When assessing I suggest Referees set themselves manageable targets, and when they achieve that one, then set another.
Setting a target that every referee dismisses every player who swears is not achievable. There is more likely to be a consensus that we can caution players for language than that we must dismiss every one who does. This should therefore be the target for now. Maybe if everyone does this then we will be able to enforce the Law even more rigidly. However, we all know that won't happen.
I know that as an assessor I should enforce the Laws rigidly when I am refereeing, and I honestly do. I have had comments from people I've assessed who've subsequently watched / lined for me that I referee exactly as I suggest they do in my report, which I consider high praise. However, industrial language is a fact of life these days and a one man crusade will not stop it. I would rather offer an easier and more acceptable option to a) ignoring it, or b) instant dismissal. The game is not about me, no matter how much I would like it to be!
 
Or just....Red Card.

As per the LOTG instead some made up fantasy interpretation designed to preserve club marks.
 
Markt said:
That's the first time I've ever been accused of that! Usually teams ask not to have me any more because they think I'm too strict! I must let them know that there's someone even stricter!

As Alex says, I consider unacceptable language - which does not necessarily mean foul language, but also is not so bad as to require immediate dismissal - to be 'acting in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game' as listed in the USB offences at the back of the LOTG, and this is the opinion of the referee. When I caution a player for this it is rarely a shock because I've usually spoken to him before. I belong to the "no surprises" school of refereeing.
Round here, if I sent off everyone who used bad language every time I would struggle to finish games, simply because no one else would be doing it and so it would come as a surprise to the players. I would therefore be sending off several other players after the initial one simply because they didn't accept that what he said was so bad. I send off enough without resorting to that - it would be like shooting fish in a barrel!
At our branch we tell newly qualified referees that even though they don't always have to dismiss players for language they should never ignore it. We also tell them that most cautions will be for USB, which covers just about everything when they can't decide what other category it's in.
As I said before, my supply league was specifically told by the FA that we must not dismiss players every time they used foul language regardless of the circumstances. When we had that interpretation on our league we had problems because when our teams played in FA competitions against teams from other leagues the outsiders were swearing as normal, so our players either got fed up with the inconsistency or else joined in. Then next week when they were back in the league they had issues with discipline again. This was obviously unfair, and so could not be continued.

Unfortunately, with the best will in the world this will not change. There are too many who do not see an issue with bad language and will therefore do nothing. This includes a lot of "serious" referees, never mind those of us who fit into the category of LWRs. Accusing someone of copping out and being weak for offering a potential way to deal with bad language without spoiling the game is pointless. When assessing I suggest Referees set themselves manageable targets, and when they achieve that one, then set another.
Setting a target that every referee dismisses every player who swears is not achievable. There is more likely to be a consensus that we can caution players for language than that we must dismiss every one who does. This should therefore be the target for now. Maybe if everyone does this then we will be able to enforce the Law even more rigidly. However, we all know that won't happen.
I know that as an assessor I should enforce the Laws rigidly when I am refereeing, and I honestly do. I have had comments from people I've assessed who've subsequently watched / lined for me that I referee exactly as I suggest they do in my report, which I consider high praise. However, industrial language is a fact of life these days and a one man crusade will not stop it. I would rather offer an easier and more acceptable option to a) ignoring it, or b) instant dismissal. The game is not about me, no matter how much I would like it to be!
Click to expand...

A lot of words that have little meaning other than to justify not applying the LOTG correctly.

If you have to sanction a player over language there is only one option available under the LOTG.

To suggest that you would caution a player for USB for lack of respect, but that the offending word/phrase isn't offensive, insulting or abusive is naive at best, and just plain stupid at worst.
If it wasn't one of those three it wouldn't have caught your attention in the first place......

If you don't want them to be surprised, warn them once that a repetition of such language will be met with a firm stance.....then walk them if they repeat. I can go with that approach......

Believe it or not.....they will soon modify their behaviour when you turn up for their games.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top