A&H

Persistent swearing in a non-abusive context

Hi
OFFINABUS is in the opinion of the referee. Swearing might be OFFINABUS and it might not depending on the words, tone, context etc.
If I am cautioning here it is for USB or dissent. For example if a player say F%#^ off to an opponent the referee would be rightly entitled to caution for USB as that what it is unsporting. If he F%#^ off You Stupid C%£T then red card for OFFINABUS is required. Now if a player uses foul language loudly to himself or a team mate the referee could have a word to ask him to desist. If he ignores the referee's request then that can be dissent which is a caution.
 
The Referee Store
Goldfish said:
Hi
OFFINABUS is in the opinion of the referee. Swearing might be OFFINABUS and it might not depending on the words, tone, context etc.
If I am cautioning here it is for USB or dissent. For example if a player say F%#^ off to an opponent the referee would be rightly entitled to caution for USB as that what it is unsporting. If he F%#^ off You Stupid C%£T then red card for OFFINABUS is required. Now if a player uses foul language loudly to himself or a team mate the referee could have a word to ask him to desist. If he ignores the referee's request then that can be dissent which is a caution.
Click to expand...

Please highlight where in the LOTG it states that it is 'in the opinion of the referee'?
 
What is absolutely clear is that you cannot caution if the word is clearly offensive, insulting or abusive. You either do nothing or you send off.

I received a formal written warning from the FA a few years ago for advising the referee to caution a player who had swore. The opposing team complained to the FA, the referee was charged with failing to proficiently apply the laws of the game and subsequently suspended for three weeks. Their argument was that even though I had advised a caution he was in charge and should have sent the player off.

So it is definitely nothing or off, there is no middle ground.
 
Padfoot said:
Please highlight where in the LOTG it states that it is 'in the opinion of the referee'?
Click to expand...
All the decisions of the referee (which includes deciding whether something is offensive, insulting or abusive) are subject to the opinion of the referee. This is stated on Page 45, LotG 2016/17 (pdf edition):
Decisions of the referee
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability [...] and will be based on the opinion of the referee
Click to expand...
Padfoot said:
Been done to death.....only referees seeking to excuse their weaknesses hide behind "but no one was offended......".
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you realise the utter illogicality of your statement. Of course somebody has to be offended (or insulted, or abused). If they were not, you have a situation where language was used that was offensive to nobody, insulting to nobody and abusive to nobody. So if a player says something that was not offensive to anyone, not insulting to anyone and not abusive to anyone then how can you possibly say that you could dismiss the player anyway?

You can't have something being offensive in a vacuum, it has to be offensive in context and judged by the referee to be so, since there is no universal definition of what is or is not offensive (just as there is no universal definition of what constitutes swearing).

Incidentally, in response to the issue raised by someone on a previous thread, yes the somebody that is offended includes the referee - especially since the referee is probably the person that is most often the target of OFFINABUS.
 
Peter Grove said:
All the decisions of the referee (which includes deciding whether something is offensive, insulting or abusive) are subject to the opinion of the referee. This is stated on Page 45, LotG 2016/17 (pdf edition):


I'm not sure if you realise the utter illogicality of your statement. Of course somebody has to be offended (or insulted, or abused). If they were not, you have a situation where language was used that was offensive to nobody, insulting to nobody and abusive to nobody. So if a player says something that was not offensive to anyone, not insulting to anyone and not abusive to anyone then how can you possibly say that you could dismiss the player anyway?

You can't have something being offensive in a vacuum, it has to be offensive in context and judged by the referee to be so, since there is no universal definition of what is or is not offensive (just as there is no universal definition of what constitutes swearing).

Incidentally, in response to the issue raised by someone on a previous thread, yes the somebody that is offended includes the referee - especially since the referee is probably the person that is most often the target of OFFINABUS.
Click to expand...

Absolute tripe.

You are sanctioning for the use of offensive, insulting or abusive words or gestures....not the end result of that use.

Or are you really suggesting that if a player says to another participant "you n*gger" or "you p*ki b*stard", the other participant laughs and walks away you are going to do nothing?
 
Padfoot said:
Please highlight where in the LOTG it states that it is 'in the opinion of the referee'?
Click to expand...
Hi
P43 Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.
P 163. Verbal or physical behaviour which is rude, hurtful, disrespectful; punishable by a sending-off (red card).
I suspect my interpretation as a referee of rude is different from another's. If i do not deem it rude, hurtful or disrespectful then it is not a sending off. Another referee can opine differently.
Btw no one is suggesting that the phrases you mention would not result in a sending off. Clearly they would.
 
So we have some new words to consider.....rude, hurtful, disrespectful.......

The scope of OFFINABUS is now even wider than ever.......and is even greater reinforcement of the position taken by the FA in Rusty's incident......
 
Padfoot said:
Please highlight where in the LOTG it states that it is 'in the opinion of the referee'?
Click to expand...
Law 5 (Referee's responsibilities) section 2 - new text
Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.Decisions of the referee
Click to expand...

So if, say, profanity is used and in the opinion of the referee it is not "rude, hurtful, disrespectful" then it is not OffInAbus. Its not just possible, it happens every game. Mary Whitehouse would disagree. If you can find a player or referee on the pitch who has never themselves casually used a profanity, then they might find such language in any context rude; the other 99.99% don't.

Of course the referee is free to take whatever opinion he is inclined to...and the above law will back him/her whether he/she has the tolerance of a prep school matron, or the manners of a street dog. The golden rule is the "opinion of the referee" - not Roget
 
Last edited:
TomThompson said:
Law 5 (Referee's responsibilities) section 2 - new text

How did you miss that?
Click to expand...

Didn't miss it at all.....wanted to see where people went with the responses......

And it has nicely opened another door.....'spirit of the game'......persistent loud swearing is obviously against the 'spirit of the game'.....
 
Padfoot said:
And it has nicely opened another door.....'spirit of the game'......persistent loud swearing is obviously against the 'spirit of the game'.....
Click to expand...
(In the opinion of this referee) I would agree that persistent swearing can be considered to breach the “spirit of the game”, but is it really OffInAbus? “Lack of respect for the game” is actually quoted under UB infringements. Surely a breach of “spirit” is closer to “lack of respect”.

“Persistent” implies that no single incident merits sanction; this is certainly not the case with OffInAbus which requires only a single incident to breach the threshold.

As my first posting asked what is the sanction: “Red for OffInAbus? Yellow for UB under “lack of respect for the game”, or even “verbally distracting”?

Subsequent posts seemed to have focused on the minutia of what defines OffInAbus when such a measure actually comes down to the subjective “opinion of the referee”. I was looking for a course of action for when in the “opinion of the referee” such actions did not quite qualify as OffInAbus.
 
Your real problem is justifying any action other than offinabus. Either it is or it isn't, your standards, your choice.
Forget this spirit of the game or lack of respect rubbish (with regard to language), deal with it or live with it.
 
Mintyref said:
Your real problem is justifying any action other than offinabus. Either it is or it isn't, your standards, your choice.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. You can certainly caution someone for something that involves swearing - "Are you ****ing blind ref," can be a yellow for dissent if you don't find it offensive, insulting or abusive just as "Are you blind ref" can be a red for OFFINABUS. Depends on the context, delivery, etc etc.

In the OP, if you feel that the player is distracting opponents then you can book him for USB but only in the same way that you would book him if he constantly said "cabbages" or "Basingstoke". If it is annoying you because you don't like constant swearing then it has become offensive and so OFFINABUS and so red card. I would warn the player that you are close to finding the continual swearing offensive and so he should stop or be sent off.

There is an argument that you then leave yourself open to demands to send off every player who swears thereafter but I think there is a difference between the occasional outburst and a continuous stream of obscenities. A referee is well within his or her rights to find one offensive but not the other.
 
Last edited:
OFFINABUS is something that is not often dealt with well enough (in my opinion) especially when it is towards the match official. I sent someone off for saying something once (I cant remember what it was now apart from it was not nice at all, anyone would dismiss them for it) and they then said, 'I said this last week to a different ref and he just ignored it!'. Stuff like 'for f***'s sake' is something that we all hear regularly when a player's shot is nearer the corner flag than the goal so after a shot like that, it doesn't particularly bother me. If it is directed at me then it's a yellow card for dissent and the 'watch your language' warning. Much more than that language and it is bye-bye!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top