And that's why telling them that it's wrong and they won't be able to play matches if they don't change that behavior is a good thing. If their brain isn't fully developed, let's aid that development.
Homophobic language
- Thread starter Pezza
- Start date
- Status
It could very well be. As a society, and so as referees we have to be mindful that, people have never been persecuted for being heterosexual, at least not to the extent of being gay.
You don't come out as heterosexual, it's assumed unless you say otherwise.
It's that historic persecution that makes 'gay' a red, because it harbours a lingering persecution of homosexuality, which, as with being heterosexual is a protected characteristic.
Does a 10 Yr old know this, no, most likely not. But it's not our job to teach them and let them away with it. It's a red card, because it's used in an offensive way as others have described.
Of course, gay can mean happy, and if used in that context we move on. Use it as derogatory term to describe something as lame or useless, or as an insult, or any other way that persecutes "gays" that's offinabus, clear as day.
Exactly. This is actually a lot easier that we're making it. Did the player intend it to be insulting? Then red is the correct answer.
for what its worth, i don't think at 10 the kid actually knows what homophobia is. he also probably doesn't fully understand the word "gay." My course of action would have been to stop the game, bring both players in, explain what you heard and that the language isn't acceptable. ask the offending player to apologise to the other, and tell him if he does it again its a red card offence, as you cannot insult your opponent like that, we are all here to play football and enjoy the game. if he refuses to apologise, i would go and speak to a coach and explain what you have heard and have the offending player subbed off for the rest of the game. i think a red card at u10s is a very hard sell. whilst you aren't there to parent them and it is potentially abusive language, there's a responsibility to teach them the rules of the game to some extent make your decisions whilst considering context.
i think a red card for a 10 year old for calling someone "gay" is very harsh. would you have done the same if he called him an "idiot" or "stupid" or "rubbish"? because i think that might be what, in his 10 year old brain, his words actually meant.
There is a lot of people above quoting the IFAB rules, which is fine, but lets remember that IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the spirit of the game and the laws. occurrences like this will always have a hint of subjectivity.
i think a red card for a 10 year old for calling someone "gay" is very harsh. would you have done the same if he called him an "idiot" or "stupid" or "rubbish"? because i think that might be what, in his 10 year old brain, his words actually meant.
There is a lot of people above quoting the IFAB rules, which is fine, but lets remember that IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the spirit of the game and the laws. occurrences like this will always have a hint of subjectivity.
Last edited:
Anubis
RefChat Addict
When you tyoe up your report " he callled him a straight",
it be good to see what an appeal board said
P, f, insults
Gay, just a normal descriptive term..imo
Thats is not what individuals on the thread have suggested. Red cards for nine year olds. Threatening punitive measures are not a good form of development for children.
Tell them its wrong but do not expect deep understanding. A nine year old kid will almost certainly have no idea about sexuality. A nine year old kid will not understand som eindividuals hyper sensitivity to a descriptive term.
It is not an if. Its physiological and psychological fact. A nine/ten year old kid will not be able to understand complex issues regarding linguistics and sexuality.
Many adults see nothing wrong with this facetted descriptive term.
And it really is normal for many individuals.
Clueless.
I'm sorry but I have to weigh in here. I am not sure how many of you remember being that age, or indeed being a closeted LGBT boy at that age. I do. One of the prime reasons I didn't come out sooner was because of the use of the term "gay" as a negative descriptor, it means I thought for years that what I felt was wrong and disgusting. "uuuurgh that's so gay" "You're gay" "don't be gay" may just be a negative word to a straight child but to an LGBT child it's an attack.
We wouldn't tolerate racist language if only white people were on the pitch, we shouldn't tolerate it here. The fact it's used to mean lame or bad is WHY it is homophobic and is WHY we should dismiss the player and explain why it is unacceptable to use that word as a way to attack other people. You can use a moment to teach and give consequences for their actions.
We wouldn't tolerate racist language if only white people were on the pitch, we shouldn't tolerate it here. The fact it's used to mean lame or bad is WHY it is homophobic and is WHY we should dismiss the player and explain why it is unacceptable to use that word as a way to attack other people. You can use a moment to teach and give consequences for their actions.
Ask most gay adults when they knew, you'd be surprised. In the same way most straight nine year olds get crushes.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Great constructive insightful response. Just a personal dig, with nothing constructive to add.
I do remember bullying re; "Gays" being extremely common place particularly from the ages of 12 through 17. I suffered through it, as did many of the unpopular, quieter kids of that age group, presumably as they were easy targets.
A nine/ten year old kid will be able to understand right and wrong, and that's the core of the issue imo.
Gay formerly meant 'carefree, cheerful', not 'lame or rubbish'. Any, that's irrelevant
My 10 year old boy would not know the meaning of the word, full stop
Therefore, WRT to the OP, just engage one's common sense... warn (optionally caution for USB) the player that the term is not acceptable, speak to the coach (or whoever else) and turn the incident into an educational exercise. Dismissing a 'baby' from the FOP for repeating a term without any understanding, is OTT and is a totally unnecessary headache for everyone involved
If any R chooses a different markedly different course of action, all I can say is, 'rather you than me'
My 10 year old boy would not know the meaning of the word, full stop
Therefore, WRT to the OP, just engage one's common sense... warn (optionally caution for USB) the player that the term is not acceptable, speak to the coach (or whoever else) and turn the incident into an educational exercise. Dismissing a 'baby' from the FOP for repeating a term without any understanding, is OTT and is a totally unnecessary headache for everyone involved
If any R chooses a different markedly different course of action, all I can say is, 'rather you than me'
The whole they don't understand doesn't wash for me.
If you commit a crime a valid defence is not I did not realise it was illegal.
Granted u10 so below the age of prosecution, but 9/10 year old absolutely know the rights and wrongs of what they are doing and saying even if they don't actually understand it.
"that's gay!" / "you're gay". They know the word. They know the context in which it is being used.
In my day my Dad would have took a slipper to my backside, well it was probably made illegal by then, but I'd of got more than sent off...
I'd of had pocket money withdrawn, items taken off me (like my game boy) and I would have been grounded.
This was even before woke culture. Just dont believe in today's society of the offnede that kids don't know this is an offensive term.
Those advocating no red - at what age do we change the 'rules' and become this weeks ref?
If you commit a crime a valid defence is not I did not realise it was illegal.
Granted u10 so below the age of prosecution, but 9/10 year old absolutely know the rights and wrongs of what they are doing and saying even if they don't actually understand it.
"that's gay!" / "you're gay". They know the word. They know the context in which it is being used.
In my day my Dad would have took a slipper to my backside, well it was probably made illegal by then, but I'd of got more than sent off...
I'd of had pocket money withdrawn, items taken off me (like my game boy) and I would have been grounded.
This was even before woke culture. Just dont believe in today's society of the offnede that kids don't know this is an offensive term.
Those advocating no red - at what age do we change the 'rules' and become this weeks ref?
Macca
Active Member
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Lots of sanctimony going around
As referees, we are folk with generally an overbearing interest in football coupled with an in depth knowledge of the lotg.
Thats our role. Lets not elevate ourselves to guardians of ethics and morality.
Having sat the course ( obv), as well as many years teaching it, again, regional variations may apply, but, I know I dont recall any part where we take it upon ourselves to educate or highlight social inequality
As referees, we are folk with generally an overbearing interest in football coupled with an in depth knowledge of the lotg.
Thats our role. Lets not elevate ourselves to guardians of ethics and morality.
Having sat the course ( obv), as well as many years teaching it, again, regional variations may apply, but, I know I dont recall any part where we take it upon ourselves to educate or highlight social inequality
What on Earth are you talking about?
football doesn’t exist in a bubble and the LOTG, the FA and FIFA are all very clear on what isn’t acceptable re: discrimination.
I hope to god I never play under a ref like yourself that would allow me to face homophobic language and laugh it off as “just a word”.
Yes and my in depth knowledge of law, and my associations rules and regulations mean this is offensive language and is going to carry an aggravated charge as well.
think this a pretty poor take in the context of this thread
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Yes and my in depth knowledge of law, and my associations rules and regulations mean this is offensive language and is going to carry an aggravated charge as well.
of course you are free to show a red, for, offensive etc.
Thats nothing to do with pretending we are some superior force charged with changing society. We might take that role upon ourselves but, its self designated. If we wish to change societys views on something, campaigner, MP, etc is a more suited role, not, sporting match offficisl
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Having been in a civil partnership for 7 years pre where I am right now, you would be well protected, dont worry.
- Status