A&H

Junior/Youth "Surely that's only a yellow at this level ref"

Status
Not open for further replies.

KieranG1505

New Member
Level 4 Referee
An incident occurred in my fixture today and my decision was met with despair from coaches of the team which have been punished. Approximately 10 minutes into the second half there was a foul committed on the goalkeeper. Both the striker and the keeper were having words and shouting at each other, nothing I could clearly heard and as I am jogging in to prevent any further altercation the striker then says within earshot of myself, the goalkeeper and the club assistant, "You f*cking f*ggot" to which I called him over and dismissed him from the field of play. The player was in shock saying that he didn't do anything wrong and that all he did was swear. The coaches remained quiet until the final whistle where I was approached and asked why I didn't give a yellow card instead and that surely at U14s it should be managed better with either a word or a yellow card and that my decision to send off was to be the "centre of attention". For me, a red card cannot be managed in any other way than a red card.

For me this is a dismissal in every case, youth or open age, however, they were insistent that this did not offend the goalkeeper and was not insulting. My query is that at U14s is anyone opting to go with a different sanction than what I did? If one at all.
 
The Referee Store
Kieran, rest assured that this was absolutely the correct decision.

The game owes a lot to referees who are prepared to stand up to homophobic language when it is easy to ignore. Some bizarrely seem to think it is fine, when to me it is one of the worst kinds of language that can be used. Come to think of it, I have had three dismissals for use of exactly the same language in my 9 years officiating and on every occasion I have had people question whether use of that f-word is offensive. And that is at open age, not youth level.

In terms of helping to manage the dismissal, I found that reminding people of the following tends to end protests:
1. Such language is actually likely to land them with more than the normal 3 game ban (highlighting the severity); and
2. Statistically, there is likely to be at least one player (probably more like 2 or 3) who identify as LGBTQ+ on the FOP.
 
Homophbic remarks, especially said in aggression, is a clear red card. No questions asked.

A couple of years ago in a game there was a tackle (no foul) in my U18 game where a player fell to the ground on his stomach and the opponent on top of him facing down. A sub from the TA (behind my back) shouted "hey no.20 is gay". I let play continue and at next stoppage went to TA where it came from and sternly siad. "That's not on" or something similar. To this day I am kicking myself for not doing more to find out who it was to send him off. I won't make that mistake again. I I did report it though. And full credit to coaching staff who got the offender to personally apologise to the opponent team for the remark after the game.

As a side note, Australia's (arguably) best rugby player is loosing his $4mil contract for makeing homophobic social media posts (repeat offender).
 
I think shouting someone is gay compared to you effing faggot is two very different matters.

By the way spot on with the red card for the comment.
 
As a coach (not qualified as a ref yet) I would have completely supported your decision, which is absolutely the correct one.

This says so much more about the coaches and is really disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Sadly its due to what a lot of refs allow players to get away with, players on a Sunday league see players in the Premier League in refs faces giving mouthfuls of abuse but very little is done so players lower down the playing level think its acceptable.
 
I think shouting someone is gay compared to you effing faggot is two very different matters.

By the way spot on with the red card for the comment.
How is it any different? Both homophobic comments said in a derogatory way. Just because one is not known as a dealer word doesn't make it any less offensive.

I agree if the words used in isolation then the word "gay" can be non-offensive while the word "f@ggot" almost always is. But in above context they are just as offensive as eachother.
 
Well one has had the F bomb thrown into it and sounds like its been said in an aggressive manor (although obviously had to be there)
 
Correct decision.

When reporting on Whole Game be sure to include the words used in the text box as well as just the drop-down for OFFINABUS, as it refers to sexual orientation
 
Homophbic remarks, especially said in aggression, is a clear red card. No questions asked.

A couple of years ago in a game there was a tackle (no foul) in my U18 game where a player fell to the ground on his stomach and the opponent on top of him facing down. A sub from the TA (behind my back) shouted "hey no.20 is gay". I let play continue and at next stoppage went to TA where it came from and sternly siad. "That's not on" or something similar. To this day I am kicking myself for not doing more to find out who it was to send him off. I won't make that mistake again. I I did report it though. And full credit to coaching staff who got the offender to personally apologise to the opponent team for the remark after the game.

As a side note, Australia's (arguably) best rugby player is loosing his $4mil contract for makeing homophobic social media posts (repeat offender).

I wouldn't have brandished a red for that. Based on what you've described, it's just somebody poking fun at at momentarily embarrassing physical position for both players.

As for the Israel Folau thing - he didn't single out homosexuals or post anything distinctly homophobic. He (stupidly) posted "Hell awaits you" followed by a list of "transgressors" including thieves, liars, adulterers, drunks etc. The bloke is a devout christian and his religion supports that view - as do many others. The PC brigade simply jumped on the fact that he happened to mention homosexuals in it and now the bloke has lost his contract and living.

Yet another example of people falling over themselves to be "offended" and mainstream society pandering to it. :rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't have brandished a red for that. Based on what you've described, it's just somebody poking fun at at momentarily embarrassing physical position for both players.

As for the Israel Folau thing - he didn't single out homosexuals or post anything distinctly homophobic. He (stupidly) posted "Hell awaits you" followed by a list of "transgressors" including thieves, liars, adulterers, drunks etc. The bloke is a devout christian and his religion supports that view - as do many others. The PC brigade simply jumped on the fact that he happened to mention homosexuals in it and now the bloke has lost his contract and living.

Yet another example of people falling over themselves to be "offended" and mainstream society pandering to it. :rolleyes:
100% agreed with your first paragraph. The way it was said was also derogatory to gay people. I am still regretting not dealing with it better.

About Folau, disagree. Look up definition of homophobic. Being a member of a group of a belief (allbeit a religion) doesn't make it okay. What if he included, say, black people to that list? Would it still be PC to punish it?
 
About Folau, disagree. Look up definition of homophobic. Being a member of a group of a belief (allbeit a religion) doesn't make it okay. What if he included, say, black people to that list? Would it still be PC to punish it?

Dunno. He didn't though and I'd imagine that any religion that lauded that sort of idea would quickly be dubbed an "illegal" one.

My point was, rightly or wrongly, that he was simply touting his religious beliefs and it's not his own "homophobic" views that were jumped on. The ridiculous fact is, that there are several faiths, both Christian and Muslim for example, that believe that rubbish but they're not "outlawed" for having those beliefs are they? So Folau simply posts up an instagram (not his own words) that is in keeping with his chosen faith's beliefs and he is the bad guy. I'll agree, a stupid thing to do in today's climate, but his post harmed nobody. The permanently offended and officious individuals who brought about his professional demise should go off and find something better to do in my opinion. The Rugby World Cup this year has been deprived of one of it's stars and entertainers owing to nothing but pompous Political Correctness mate.
 
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
By Sam Allberry (Thats not me BTW) :)

It is a surprise to many people to discover that there are only a handful of passages in the Bible that directly mention homosexuality. Yet despite its infrequent mention, where the subject does come up, the Bible has some very important things to say about it. We need to understand them if we’re to avoid the twin mistakes of homophobia and thinking God is indifferent about how we use our sexuality.
The first two passages that directly mention homosexuality come from the Old Testament, the other three are from the New Testament.
1. Genesis 19
Sodom has become so associated with homosexual conduct that its name was for many ears a byword for it. But is 'sodomy' really what Sodom is about?
The account describes the men of the city attempting to forcibly have sex with two angelic visitors to the city, who have appeared in the form of men. Later parts of the Old Testament accuse Sodom of a range of sins: oppression, adultery, lying, abetting criminals, arrogance, complacency and indifference to the poor. None of these even mentions homosexual conduct. This has led some people to wonder if we have read homosexuality into the Genesis narrative, when in fact the real issue was social oppression and injustice. But a close look at the text makes it clear that homosexuality was in fact involved.
Although the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) can just mean to “get to know” someone (rather than to “know” them sexually), it is clear from the crowd’s aggression (and Lot’s dreadful attempt at offering them his daughters as an alternative) that they are looking for much more than social acquaintance. Hence what happens next: the angels warn Lot that judgment is imminent (v.13).
In the New Testament, Jude adds an important insight:
...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)
What happened at Sodom is clearly meant to be something of a cautionary tale. Jude makes it clear that their ungodliness involved sexual immorality. They were punished for sexual sin along with the other sins of which they were guilty.
Jude also highlights the nature of their sexual desires: they pursued “unnatural desire” (literally, unnatural “flesh”). Some have suggested that this relates to the fact that the visitors to the city were angelic; Jude references angelic sin earlier in his letter. But these angels appeared as men, and the baying crowd outside Lot’s house showed no evidence of knowing they were angelic. Their desire was to have sex with the men staying with Lot. In other words, it was the homosexual nature of their desires, and not just the violent expression of them, that is highlighted in the New Testament.
2. Leviticus 18 & 20
Leviticus contains two well known statements about homosexual activity:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
“An abomination” is often used to describe idolatry, and some suggest these verses are not condemning homosexual behaviour in general, but only the cultic prostitution connected to pagan temples. It is also often claimed that the fact that these prohibitions appear in a book full of other laws which no Christians think they are expected to follow today suggests that they should not be taken as having abiding moral relevance. But to take the first objection, the language used is not that specific; it refers to lying with a man “as with a woman,” - that is, in very general terms. Secondly, the surrounding verses in each instance describe other forms of sexual sin (such as incest, adultery and bestiality), none of which is anything to do with pagan temples or idolatry, and which we would take as being applicable to Christians today. It is moral, rather than just pagan religious behaviour that’s in view. Furthermore, Leviticus 20:13 highlights both male parties equally, again suggesting general, consensual homosexual activity (as opposed to gay rape or a forced relationship).

1 of 2
 
4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Paul writes:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
In these verses Paul is describing different kinds of people who (unless they repent) will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Four kinds relate to sexual sin, and two of those specifically to homosexual behaviour. The ESV takes the latter and puts them together as “men who practice homosexuality”, while the NIV translates them as “male prostitutes and homosexual offenders”.
The first of the two terms relating to homosexuality is malakoi, which translated literally means “soft ones.” In classical literature it could be used as a pejorative term for men who were effeminate; for the younger, passive partner in a pederastic (man-boy) relationship; and to refer to male prostitutes (hence the NIV’s translation). In 1 Corinthians 6 malakoi comes in a list describing general forms of sexual sin, and the context suggests Paul is most likely using it in a broad way to refer to the passive partners in homosexual intercourse, as we are about to see.
The second term he Paul uses. is arsenokoitai. This is a compound of “male” (arsen) and “intercourse” (koites, literally “bed”). These are the two words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, suggesting that Paul is linking back to those two passages. (Paul has already just made a connection with Leviticus in 1 Corinthians 5, where he condemns the church’s acceptance of a man living with his father’s wife using language that echoes Leviticus 18:7-8. For Paul, the sexual sins which Leviticus prohibits remain forbidden for New Testament Christians.) Arsenokoitai, then, is a general term for male same-sex sex, and its pairing with malakoiindicates that Paul is addressing both the active and passive partners in homosexual sex.
So what does all this mean for our understanding of homosexuality?
1. Homosexual sin is serious. Paul says the active and unrepentant homosexual, as with all active, unrepentant sinners, will not enter God’s kingdom. Paul urges his readers not to be deceived on this point. He assumes there will be those who deny this teaching, and argue that some forms of homosexual conduct are acceptable to God. But Paul is clear: homosexual conduct leads people to destruction. This is a serious issue.
2. Homosexual sin is not unique. Paul’s list includes other forms of sexual sin (sexual immorality and adultery), and it includes non-sexual forms of sin (drunkenness and theft, for example). Homosexual sin is incredibly serious, but it is not alone in being so. It is wicked, but so is, say, greed. We must not imply that homosexual sex is the sin of our age. If we are to be faithful to Scripture, we must also preach against theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and defrauding others, many of which are also trivialised in our society, and all of which also characterize the unrighteous.
3. Homosexual sin is not inescapable. Paul continues in verse 11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
These forms of behaviour are not appropriate for the Corinthian church precisely because it is not who they are any more. Some of them clearly had been active homosexuals. They did once live in these ways. But no more. They have been washed, sanctified and justified; forgiven, cleansed from their sins, and set apart for God. They have a new standing and identity before him.
However ingrained it may be in someone’s behaviour, homosexual conduct is not inescapable. It is possible for someone living a practicing gay lifestyle to be made new by God. Temptations and feelings may well linger. That Paul is warning his readers not to revert to their former way of life suggests there is still some desire to do so. But in Christ we are no longer who we were. Those who have come out of an active gay lifestyle need to understand how to see themselves. What defined us then no longer defines us now.

Conclusion
Attempts to read these texts as anything other than prohibitions of homosexual behaviour do not ultimately work. The plain reading of each passage is the right one. It is homosexual practice in general, rather than only certain expressions of it, which are forbidden in Scripture. To attempt to demonstrate otherwise is to violate the passages themselves. Yet these very same texts list homosexuality alongside many other forms of behaviour that are also against God’s will. The very passages that show us that homosexual activity is a sin, make it very clear that it is not a unique sin. It is one example of what is wrong with all of us.
 
Dunno. He didn't though and I'd imagine that any religion that lauded that sort of idea would quickly be dubbed an "illegal" one.

My point was, rightly or wrongly, that he was simply touting his religious beliefs and it's not his own "homophobic" views that were jumped on. The ridiculous fact is, that there are several faiths, both Christian and Muslim for example, that believe that rubbish but they're not "outlawed" for having those beliefs are they? So Folau simply posts up an instagram (not his own words) that is in keeping with his chosen faith's beliefs and he is the bad guy. I'll agree, a stupid thing to do in today's climate, but his post harmed nobody. The permanently offended and officious individuals who brought about his professional demise should go off and find something better to do in my opinion. The Rugby World Cup this year has been deprived of one of it's stars and entertainers owing to nothing but pompous Political Correctness mate.

If, on account of your religious beliefs or otherwise, you say that gay people are going to Hell, that is an inherently homophobic comment. Nothing to do with political correctness, it’s just basic human decency. I can’t believe I’m even having to say that
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
If, on account of your religious beliefs or otherwise, you say that gay people are going to Hell, that is an inherently homophobic comment. Nothing to do with political correctness, it’s just basic human decency. I can’t believe I’m even having to say that

Think what you like fella.

I don't believe in Hell.

Nobody was hurt, nobody died, the world still kept turning. Yet somebody complained about it and the bloke was "sacked". That's PC.

I wouldn't expect somebody your age to understand ....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top