Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Although Referees in general are not comfortable with the more demonstrative expressions and moaning that have always been part of nearly every football match, Referees are expected to tolerate it to a certain degree, provided that it keeps within the bounds of decency, and does no violence to fundamental norms. However, this attitude does not satisfy the purists, whose aim is to rid the game completely of all forms of dissent, or at least, to understandably rein it back to a more acceptable level. Whilst these sentiments are laudable, the attraction of football has (and always will have) an element of feistiness' that makes it such an exciting sport. To tolerate something, is to approve it. Therefore, it is only when the conduct offends the Referee, that he needs exercise his toleration, by taking some form of disciplinary action.
On the whole, society has accepted that dissent and bad language is part of the game of football, and a single Referee attempting to start a crusade all on his own to rid the game of bad language, will fail dismally unless he has the full backing of the Football Association and all other Referees. Every now and then, however, we wake up to the fact that although bad language and dissent has been normalised, it is not normal in other forms of society and sport. Whilst our tolerance acceptance does not eliminate our sense that there must be alternatives to controlling bad language, it would require a mutual commitment by all the participants of the game, to increase levels of behaviour, particularly the players and managers. It is interesting to note, that the more polite that Referees have become, the worse the level of behaviour becomes. Hence there is a conflict for some Referees, on how best they can balance the Laws as they are written, against the need to officiate using a level of tolerance. Punishment for specifically using bad (foul) language was taken out of the Laws of Association Football in season 1997/1998, following a complete rewrite of the Laws. The wording of the sending-off offence was changed from 'uses foul or abusive language', to 'uses offensive, insulting or abusive language'.
Due to the accepted increase and tolerance of foul language in general society, it was deemed by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) that foul language alone, was no longer to be automatically punished with a sending off, but that it now expected Referees to judge when the words actually constituted (or contributed to) an offence or not. In other words, it is not the words alone that create an offence in this more tolerant society, but both the words used AND the ambience in which they are delivered and meant.
This stance was not unexpected, as Referees had for many years previous to 1997/1998 season, already applied their own understanding of the (foul language) Law. In other words, it was generally only when foul language was delivered in an abusive, insulting or offensive manner, that the red card was used.
Anyone who watches a game of football at any level, appreciates that it would be impossible for a Referee to play 90 minutes, if he was mandated to send off every player who used foul language. Hence, the change in the Laws brought in a level of realism to reflect the changes in society. The Referee is now expected to interpret what is required of him in respect of foul language, without actually being given any guidelines from the authority that changed the Law! This is not unusual in the world of Refereeing, as the Laws are written in such a way that it allows the Referee a huge amount of leeway in how to interpret them - rather than applying them as they are written in black and white. The Law change from 'uses foul or abusive language', to 'uses offensive, insulting or abusive language', has generally been a success in Refereeing terms, as the sport of football continues to expand its following. But there is a danger that as the tolerance of bad language in society increases, at what level will the Laws have to be changed once again? Only time will tell - in the meantime, the Referee will continue to be judge and jury, in terms of what is acceptable and what is not at the level in which he officiates.
It must be emphasised here, that whilst Referees are expected to strive towards consistency in terms of the level of foul language they allow, they do not actually condone its use. Referees are placed in an awkward position. They are criticised by those who want players to be "Saints" on the field of play, and criticised by others when they send off players for offensive, insulting or abusive language'. It is a no win situation for Referees. The difficulty is more prevalent in youth football, where the Referee is expected to also educate young players by sensible application of the Laws. Yet, very often, it's the managers, coaches and parents who are the instigators of bad language and exhibitors of bad habits as far as their protégées are concerned. But one thing is for certain, it is the Referee (and the Football Association) that is at the forefront of trying to bring respect back into the game. It is a very difficult balance to achieve for the men in black, who are governed by the Laws on one side, and a changing (and a more tolerant) society on the other side. The only reasonable guideline that a Referee can use, is to adhere to the level of tolerance used in his locality, or in the league in which he officiates. There is little point in an individual Referee embarking on a crusade to curb bad language by overly strict application of the Laws, as this will ostracise him from the footballing community. A Referee who feels strongly about the slipping standards of bad language usage, can achieve better results by being proactive rather than reactive. In other words, as soon as bad language materialises, the Referee can use strong man-management skills to curb it at the onset. This is particularly a very useful method to use in Youth football, where nobody wants to see the Referee continuously stopping play to admonish players for bad language every minute or so! In short, a Referee who is proactive in attempting to deal with bad language, is more accepted, than the Referee who reacts by sending off perpetrators, without attempting to make any effort to curb it on the first place!
One of the greatest problems to beset Referees, is the popularity and coverage of football on television, where bad language is sensationalised by television companies who zoom in and virtually translate the lip movements of irate players. The difficulty that Referees have at the lower levels, is how to enforce the Laws that seem to be ignored at the top levels. This is a subject that will be aired for many years to come. But a Referee at the lower levels should take his steer from the Law book, and the interpretations and methods used at his level, and not what is seen (and supposedly accepted) in televised games. To do otherwise, will only create more problems for him, in his sphere of practise at the lower levels.
From season 1997/1998 onwards, it is important for Referees to distinguish 'bad language' (e.g. foul language), from 'offensive, insulting or abusive language'. Foul language is no longer banned in the modern Laws.
The reasoning behind this, is the fact that swear words (foul language) are unfortunately part of the common vocabulary of many people. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect players who use such language in their day-to-day lives, when speaking to their friends and families, to be expected to clean up their language when they are in the fierce intensity of a game of football. It is the language that is intended to insult or offend, or to provoke, that referees are now asked to punish in accordance with the Laws. It is not the Referees' job to try and covert society to become monks! The Referees job is to apply the Laws, and punish the language that is intended to insult or offend, or to provoke. Standards of behaviour in public have been falling steadily and good manners and common decency are less evident. This is a fact that cannot be ignored. For example: A Player who says, "that was not a f***ing penalty Ref.," , is likely to receive a less severe reaction from the Referee, compared to a player who says, "Ref., you are a f***ing c***!"