Hijab on agenda for world soccer group

[Fweebles]

The repercussions of a red card issued at an indoor soccer tournament in suburban Montreal are extending all the way to the sport's world governing body.

On Sunday, Asmahan Mansour, 11, was sent off by a referee for wearing a hijab on the field at an indoor soccer tourney in Laval, north of Montreal.

The referee, himself a Muslim, ruled that wearing the garment constituted a breach of soccer's equipment rules, and that the headscarf posed a risk of accidental strangulation – a position supported by tournament organizers and the Quebec Soccer Federation.

But Canada's soccer governing body maintains its rules contain no such provision, nor does the international soccer rulebook from which the Canadian Soccer Association draws its guidelines.

(Story continues) (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/186477)


Two things I thought while reading:

1) I like how the CSA says there is no rule about headscarves. Not explicitly, but still, the referee gets to decide what is dangerous and what is not, so it appears as if they're trying to dodge the issue by not supporting the referee but not condemning him either.

2) I doubt there was actually a red card issued, as the player shouldn't be allowed onto the field in the first place if the equipment is deemed unsafe. I can't tell if there actually was a sending-off, or if that was reporter trying to "use the vernacular" to describe the result but ending up being inaccurate.

[MassachusettsRef]

I think there's a bigger thing wrong with the premise of this story. The IFAB agenda has been published for months, and has included the provision that bans masks, which most people thought was a response to the Ecuador incident at WC06.

Even if the discussion is about the hijab, to say that it's in response to what happened in Quebec this past Sunday is just completely incorrect (unless something is being added to the agenda at this late stage, but somehow I doubt that the CSA has the requisite pull to make such an extraordinary change happen).

[dadman]

Please note that there is a "typos/corrections" link in the article Fweebles links to. The the way the article is written is quite misleading to a casual reader, so much so that I emailed a "factual error" report to the paper:Two things:

First, please check about the "red card" that leads off the article. It is very unlikely that a card of any color was shown in this instance. A red card is issued for specific infractions of the Laws of the Game during game play (and immediately after a game). It is much more likely that in the game you cite, the referee did not allow the player to start the game because of the uniform infraction. For example, players are not allowed on the field without shinguards (proper equipment) or while wearing jewlery/piercings (non-uniform apparel) that may cause injury to themselves or others. As stated by the referee, he did not allow this player on for danger of self-strangulation. As referee, he is leagally liable for any subsequent injuries that may occur.

The second point is that the FIFA conference already had the hijab issue on it's agenda; it was not "added" due to this incident, as the article implies. Reasonable accommodation of religious practice is a long-standing issue in the "world's game," and not just Muslim traditions.

Thank you.Now all you real referees can point out what I got wrong in my "correction." :)

[Alberto]

Please note that there is a "typos/corrections" link in the article Fweebles links to. The the way the article is written is quite misleading to a casual reader, so much so that I emailed a "factual error" report to the paper:Now all you real referees can point out what I got wrong in my "correction." :)


Thank you for posting your request for clarification. Many thanks.

[propes]

There's a very nice article that covers both the cultural and soccer implications - links to bunches of other places that cover this as well: http://www.theglobalgame.com/blog/?p=241

[Wreave]

We discussed this on my local board, and I posted the USSF doc:

To: State Referee Administrators
State Youth Administrators
State Directors of Instruction
State Directors of Assessment
National Instructors
National Assessors

From: Alfred P. Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education

Subject: Player Dress

According to Law 4, The Players¹ Equipment, a player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player. The basic compulsory equipment of a player is a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, and footwear. There is no provision for a player to wear a skirt or similar clothing.

However, in an analogous situation, in respect of certain religions that require members to wear headcoverings, the Secretary General of the United States Soccer Federation has given permission to those bound by religious law to wear those headcoverings, usually a turban or yarmulke, provided the referee finds that the headgear does not pose a danger to the player wearing it, or to the other players. This principle could be extended to other clothing required of members by their religion.

Since the referee may not know all the various religious rules, players must request the variance well enough ahead of game time by notifying the league. The league will notify the state association, which will pass the information on to the state referee committee. The state referee committee will make sure that the referees working that league¹s matches are informed.

The referee is still bound by the requirements of Law 4 that no player use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player, or use this equipment or clothing to circumvent the Laws of the Game. An example would be the use of the equipment or garment to trap the ball or to distract an opponent.

[Wreave]

It's worth noting that:

1. The player was not red carded/sent off. She came on as a sub, and was sent back to the technical area to remove her headgear. She refused, and the team refused to play.

2. The issue, and it's a legitimate one, is the difference between a hijab and a turban (specifically mentioned in the USSF memo). A turban is on top of the head only. A hijab wraps around the neck. If someone grabs a turban, it comes off in their hand. If someone grabs a hijab, it could be very unpleasant.

The referee ruled that the headgear was dangerous. Had this been a USSF game, that referee would have been within the bounds of this memo. Not sure what FIFA can/will do beyond what USSF has done - to say that a referee may permit religious headgear, but still has the on-field authority to determine if that headgear is dangerous and not allow it.

[MassachusettsRef]

Interestingly, this article also says that the matter was taken up by the IFAB because of the incident in Montreal:

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/6525402

Perhaps this item was in addition to the other agenda item? Either way, the IFAB says no head scarves.

[Gary V]

Interestingly, this article also says that the matter was taken up by the IFAB because of the incident in Montreal:

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/6525402

Perhaps this item was in addition to the other agenda item? Either way, the IFAB says no head scarves.

Actually, IFAB reaffirmed Law 4, which says the referee cannot allow something he deems dangerous. It's just the same as before, as quoted in the USSF memo - the ref decides.

Edit: It's my understanding that IFAB can talk all they want. But to make a change in the Laws it has to come as a proposal before them from one of their members, the 4 FA's or FIFA, and put on the official agenda. Correct?

[refmike]

The memos that came out about non-required equipment focused on head padding but apply to anything else. Most referees had disallowed such gear because it could give the player an advantage in a clash with another player but the IFAB and USSF were very clear that if it did not pose a direct threat it must be allowed. If the player then abused it by playing more dangerously than the opponents, that would be dealt with on the field. Therefore a scarf or Hajab must be allowed unless the referee feels it is hiding something sharp or hard. If it is pulled by an opponent, that must be delt with as it happens. This is the existing rulling.

[Wreave]

Therefore a scarf or Hajab must be allowed unless the referee feels it is hiding something sharp or hard. If it is pulled by an opponent, that must be delt with as it happens. This is the existing rulling.

There is a big difference between MUST be allowed and MAY be allowed.

The soccer headgear (e.g. Full 90) MUST be allowed.

Religious headgear MAY be allowed if it is not determined to be dangerous by the referee. See my previous post with the USSF memo.

[macheath]

There is a big difference between MUST be allowed and MAY be allowed.

The soccer headgear (e.g. Full 90) MUST be allowed.

Religious headgear MAY be allowed if it is not determined to be dangerous by the referee. See my previous post with the USSF memo.

That's right--you can't require it, if the ref really thinks it is dangerous. This is another illustration that the LOTG embody principles used with the referee's discretion. Although that sometimes leads to variations in decisions, it beats the alternative. The alternative in this case is to start making lists of types of headgear (hats, hijabs, turbans, yamulkes, Amish hats, etc.) which could rapidly become endless, and lead to all sorts of procedures about whether a particular headgear goes on some approved list, who makes the decisions about the list, then appeals of the list, etc. (If this seems implausible, I simply refer you to the NFHS actions on shinguards, and what that will lead to.) Discretion with principles is the better way to go.

For me, if it comes up, I'll need it to be clearly dangerous before disallowing a hijab. I feel we should make every reasonable accomodation for religious reasons.

[refmike]

Actually, I am much more concerned with a scarf of gang colors than any Hijab or turban. Still the only valid reason to disallow either is a referee's concern for safety.

[NHRef]

Actually, I am much more concerned with a scarf of gang colors than any Hijab or turban. Still the only valid reason to disallow either is a referee's concern for safety.

Actually it goes teh other way:

- Is it part of the defined soccer uniform?
- If not, is it medical or religious?
- If not, then it can't be worn.

scarf of gang colors fails and can't be worn.

[refmike]

Memo to all US referees dated Sept. 3, 2003:

On Aug 25, 2003 FIFA issued Circular #863, regarding the legality of players wearing non-compulsory equipment.

FIFA notes that, under the "Powers and Duties" of the referee in Law 5 -- The Referee, he or she has the authority to ensure that the players' equipment meets the requirements of Law 4, which states that a player must not wear anything that is dangerous.

Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight, padded material are not considered dangerous and are therefore permitted.

FIFA also wishes to strongly endorse the statement on the use of sports spectacles made by the International FA Board on March 10, 2001, and subsequently in FIFA Circular #750, dated April 10, 2001. New technology has made sports spectacles much safer, both for the player himself or herself and for other players. This applies particulary to younger players.

Referees are expected to take full account of this fact and it would be considered extremely unusual for a referee to prevent a player taking part in a match because he or she was wearing modern sports spectacles.

Referees are reminded of the following points which can assist in guiding their decisions on this matter:

- Look to the applicable rules of the competition authority.
- Inspect the equipment.
- Focus on the equipment itself - not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player.
- Remember that the referee is the final word on whether equipment is dangerous.


This memo focuses on padded headgear and glasses but the underlying message is that anything which is not dangerous (or specifically prohibited, such as advertising) must be allowed untill it is misused. By my reading, this requires us to allow scarfs or other headgear, protective or religious.

[Wreave]

I disagree with your interpretation that this memo means a hijab (or other religious headgear) should be allowed. In fact, this memo focuses ENTIRELY on safety and protective equipment - the padded headgear, sports glasses, etc. Roping religious headgear into this is a stretch. If USSF intended to cover religious headgear - something extraneous to the purpose of the game - they would have mentioned it, as the rest of the equipment is integral to the purpose of the game.

While the memo I posted is dated 1999, it is referenced by Jim Allen on his site in three more recent places that are still considered to be current. Note that on Jim's site, there are two different possible headings for the Q&As: "NOTE: ANSWERS POSTED HERE BEAR THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION" or "NOTE: ANSWERS POSTED HERE AND IN EARLIER POSTINGS DO NOT NECESSARILY BEAR THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES SOCCER FEDERATION". The three pages referenced are all current, the most recent being 2004 (postdating the memo on safety equipment you posted). In this one, the memo is dated 2002, but it appears to be the same memo as the 1999 version.

http://www.drix.net/jim/past043.html

The word from USSF on religious headcoverings is still that the referee MAY allow them, so long as they're not considered dangerous.

Finally, I'd note an important point. You said "anything which is not dangerous (or specifically prohibited, such as advertising) must be allowed untill it is misused." That's not part of this memo at all. If the referee believes the equipment is dangerous, he can disallow it. The point of the memo is to NOT allow a ref to disallow a Full 90 headgear because he believes it will lead a player into harder/more dangerous challenges... it's not to require a ref to allow a piece of non-soccer equipment onto the field and have to wait until it creates a dangerous situation.

[refmike]

The point of the memo is to NOT allow a ref to disallow a Full 90 headgear because he believes it will lead a player into harder/more dangerous challenges... it's not to require a ref to allow a piece of non-soccer equipment onto the field and have to wait until it creates a dangerous situation.

Wreave, For the most part, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the breath of coverage of this memo but I really do not understand what you mean in the above quote. Can you clarify? I fully agree that the referee must not allow anything on the field that he believes is dangerous to any player. I futher submit that the point of this memo (wherever we feel it should be applied) is that we cannot disallow something with the statement that it is safe now but may be abused. That is exactly what the third bullet is saying. If you think otherwise, can you describe your position and reasoning?

I was one of the referees who would not allow any padding because it is unfair for some but not all players to have it but when this memo came out I had to throw that out and wait for a misuse of otherwise safe padding. I am still expecting our beloved game to become more like American Football, in which players become human cannonballs. But this is the instruction from IFAB/FIFA/USSF so we must obey and inforce it.

[Wreave]

Wreave, For the most part, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the breath of coverage of this memo but I really do not understand what you mean in the above quote. Can you clarify? I fully agree that the referee must not allow anything on the field that he believes is dangerous to any player. I futher submit that the point of this memo (wherever we feel it should be applied) is that we cannot disallow something with the statement that it is safe now but may be abused. That is exactly what the third bullet is saying. If you think otherwise, can you describe your position and reasoning?

I was one of the referees who would not allow any padding because it is unfair for some but not all players to have it but when this memo came out I had to throw that out and wait for a misuse of otherwise safe padding. I am still expecting our beloved game to become more like American Football, in which players become human cannonballs. But this is the instruction from IFAB/FIFA/USSF so we must obey and inforce it.

Mike if you're one of the refs who disallowed padding (e.g. Full 90), the memo you quoted was written expressly for you. :D

"Focus on the equipment itself - not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player."

This bullet specifically is written for you. It says not to theorycraft on how players will play more dangerously or turn into human cannonballs, but to look at the equipment and say, "Is this equipment dangerous?" If not, you must allow it.

Look at the hijab vs. the Full 90.
-Hijab: religious headgear, not designed for soccer, no soccer-related use.
-Full 90: soccer-designed protective equipment.

The memo is written about protective equipment, such as the Full 90, and says that you MUST allow it. You can't look into your crystal ball and see its dire implications for the game at hand and the future of the sport. You just have to ask, "Is this equipment dangerous?"

In fact, it doesn't even say anything about waiting to see how it's used in the game (something you've said twice). If a player wearing a Full 90 goes in for a flying header and takes out an opponent, is your response going to be to make him remove the padding since he "obviously" used it in a dangerous manner? I hope not. If you allow equipment that is safe, you punish the actions on the field, not the equipment. Misuse on the field would be taking it off and smacking an opponent with it, and even then, you don't remove the equipment. Either the equipment is safe or it's not - if it's safe, "misuse" is a foul or misconduct, not an equipment issue. But that's kind of a further tangent I hope we don't get too deeply into - at least until you buy in to the main point.

My point remains that there are two USSF memos on the (expanded) subject at hand:

1. A memo on religious headgear which has been refreshed and quoted by Jim Allen multiple times in response to questions on religious headgear.

2. A memo on soccer-related protective equipment.

Soccer-related protective equipment is not relevant to the hijab issue, because a hijab is not soccer-related protective equipment.

You MUST allow soccer-related protective equipment, according to the memo you posted. You MAY NOT use your referee discretion to find the equipment dangerous.

You MAY allow a hijab or other religious headgear, if you believe it is not dangerous. However, if you believe the equipment to be dangerous, you MAY use your referee discretion to disallow it.

[refmike]

You MUST allow soccer-related protective equipment, according to the memo you posted. You MAY NOT use your referee discretion to find the equipment dangerous.

You MAY allow a hijab or other religious headgear, if you believe it is not dangerous. However, if you believe the equipment to be dangerous, you MAY use your referee discretion to disallow it.

Wreave, I said I WAS one of those referees but changed my position when the memo came out.

No arguement with the above quote. Our difference (aside from one or two misunderstood statements) is in the idea that some refs may choose to disallow articles that are safe but not necessary to the game. That may come up in the IFAB decision on the spiderman mask that came out after a goal and I will wait to hear about that one. For now, I would alllow safe religious headgear so I have no conflict with your statements. Perhaps the thing that makes your position better is that I would like to disallow a gang scarf but thought I could not.

[Wreave]

Disallow that gang scarf buddy! It's adornment. Gotta believe that applies to the spiderman mask as well.

The hijab is up to you, the Full 90 is not. Sounds like we're in agreement there.

Play on!