So what would have happened if she was allowed to play and in previous games it seems she has and due to wearing the headress causes someone to get injured. From the reports I have seen it's fairly loose fitting and we all know strange things can happen on the field. From the article If she has been in the league for 2 years wouldn't this had to have been discussed some where before now?
I think that the USSF and other sanctioning bodies are at fault here. They tell referees not to allow stuff that is dangerous, but then fail to give specific guidance in situations such as this that come up all the time. With however many thousands of referees in this country, is there any surprise that some would bar religious headress, glasses, and soft helmets (until guidance was finally given). The USSF guidance on religious headress basically says nothing. When coaches and players complain about the lack of consistency in this area, or about a referee using his/her discretion, it is the fault of the USSF and Co.
When this came up 5 years ago and the memo was issued, there was a picture of a tight-fitting head covering that would not pose a problem of being snagged. I'm not sure I would have allowed the scarf shown in the TV News to be worn, flapping around as it was. I respect the player's religious beliefs, but note that any religious item must be as safe as possible to be worn. We wouldn't allow players to wear a ski scarf in cold weather because of the loose ends. Why is a religious scarf any different? I also find it interesting that the league believes they have the right to ban a referee. Would that not be the perogative of the state referee committee?
O.K., Let's carry this logic a little further, if you will. Let's change the venue to, say swimming. If a truely religious Muslim swimmer wanted to participate they would need to wear a burkini! http://www.ahiida.com/index.php?a=subcats&cat=20
Petr Cech is allowed wear protective headgear when playing. While I can see the differences between his situation and hers, perhaps they are more similar than unalike?
O.K. Enough about the burkini. The real question is, Where do you draw the line between sports and religion? Think about this: [Daniel A.] Lorenz, 20, ignored requests to shed the shirt and collar — the main bones of contention — claiming they reflect his unique spiritual beliefs. "I told them that would be like turning my back on God, and I couldn't do that," said the Pipe Creek man whose religious fervor was fueled by a 2001 trip to Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. There, Lorenz first donned a kaffiyeh, an Arab headdress of folded cloth that's held on by a cord. Rounding out his unorthodox look are patches on his hip pack bearing the anarchy symbol and the words "vampire" and "ninja." Could a person dressed as described above play a[ny] sport? Have no muslims played in the NBA? NFL? NHL? .... What did those associations do w/ regard to religious symbols? How far will a sport's governing body go to accomodate religion? Could the fact that religious symbols are worn dictate that the wearer is trying to convert others? Maybe a non-religious player is offended by the wearing of religious symbols; what do you do at that juncture? This is not a black and white issue and once you cross the line, as FIFA has, you are headed down a slippery slope! dlb .
No exceptions should be made because of religion. I had to take off my crucifix every time I played, even accidently leaving it with a teammate's father once. If they determine that anyone can wear whatever they want on their head and neck, and it doesn't interfere with the game, then fine. If they're jeopardizing the health of the players or the spirit of the game, no way. I don't see why she doesn't tuck it in or just wear a bandana instead, it seems to cause the same problem a chain would, neck injury, despite how unlikely it is at that level.
USSF and FIFA need to come out with a criteria for issues like this. This whole "ITOOTR" regarding safe clothing needs to be reformed. Inconsistancies like that create the margin for error that ended up to finish in situations like these.
So on a corner, before the ball is played, if I pulled on a shirt it typically would not be a foul. If I pull her headscarf down, is it always a foul?
Campton nailed the issue right on the head. USSF fears giving us specific examples. They can give us pictures and diagrams of when a ball in in/out or a player offside or not. Why can we not be given pictures/diagram of examples of religious items that are allowed, and how they are to be worn in a safe manner (read should the head scarf be tucked in, or is it ok for it not to be...). I would guess there is a lawyer telling them not to get into this level of detail for some reason. Banning the referee? I assume this would be based on the memo from his league or SRA informing him/her of this players exception per the memo. If there was no memo, then the ban is based on what exactly?
If this referee is punished i am going to be outraged. THE USSF MADE HIM MAKE THIS ERROR! There is no guidance to anyone regarding things of this nature. ITOOTR, he is correct. The head-dress didnt match her uniform (i guess ). He followed the laws of the game to the letter.
There will soon be a family from Africa that is moving to our area. There is a traditional religious and cultural piece of clothing called a koteka that the male soccer players from this family should be allowed to wear when they play. A koteka, also known as a "penis sheath" (look it up), is to be worn covering the penis without additional clothing. It is a religious custom. And, due to the hardness and composition of the koteka, it certainly is not a danger to the player or any other player.
I once reffed a game a number of years ago with something similar to the headress. There was this kid named Linus. His coach told me that he needed to keep his blanket with him at all times. Not so much as a religious article; rather, he needed it just to keep his sanity. We tested this. Linus's parents took the blanket away; Linus started shaking and sweating. When they gave him back the blanket, all such activity stopped and he became again a most intelligent remarkable child. I decided to let him play with the blanket. During the game, Linus took a throw-in. In order to free his hands, he tied the blanket around his neck (he really wanted to put the ball in his blanket and sling it like a Biblical sling - you know David and Goliath); I would not let this happen. After the throw-in, Linus sprinted down the line for the give-n-go. He had not untied the blanket - kid looked like Superman flying. As he ran by a defender on the opposing team, who just happened to be his sister, she grabbed the blanket and held on tight. I heard a snap, in an instant, Linus was flat on the pitch, dead. Lucy's action had broken his neck. I was sued, the league was sued, the youth soccer associations were sued, Linus's parents sued Lucy, etc. etc. etc. Moral of the story - gee ----- I dunno.
You have a point in that in some respects guidance from USSF can be vague or poorly disseminated, but I would be careful about wanting detailed instructions. In the world of NFHS soccer, referees are given very detailed instructions as to what kind of equipment is legal. I find some of it confusing, and it still doesn't cover every eventuality (e.g., the case under discussion). Rather than protect the ref, it probably gives lawyers more ammunition to use should matters end up in court.
I don't quite understand the comments that are hitting USSF for not providing guidance. The ATR, 4.3, a little hidden under "Jewelry" says: ...referees should carefully consider any item of clothing or jewelry that is clearly religious or medical in nature and permit it to be worn if it is not dangerous and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage. Then, the 1999 memo, entitled pretty clearly, "Player Dress," which states: ...the Secretary General of the United States Soccer Federation has given permission to those bound by religious law to wear such head coverings, usually a turban or a yarmulke, provided that 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. What is unclear about that? How much clearer could it be? Either the ref in question made the judgement that the headscarf was dangerous, or he made a mistake. The only reason this is so blown up is that the media (sorry) is looking for any story that might indicate religious bias, especially in regard to Muslims, so that a simple story about a mistake by a recreational referee can be blown up into some big thing about religious discrimination, terrorism, and who knows what else. (For the record, I do believe such bias exists, but no evidence that this incident is part of it.) The example of unsafe religous garb I used to hear all the time was the small knife/dirk that some very religious Sikhs wear. Don't think anyone would allow even a ceremonial knife to be worn during play...
United Features Syndicate sued him for copyright infringement and the estate of a Charley Schultz was endowed by several million more dollars.... like he needed anymore money after selling out to Metlife.
thanks stpaul for the levity, but this will not catch on in the US thankfully because the vast majority of boys are circumsized.
Happiness is a warm puppy. At least a dog didn't grab the blanket in its teeth and race down the field, with Linus holding on for dear life...
She should have just taken it off. It's a hazard to herself during the game. (Yes, players can pull on it) Why make such a BIG deal. Move on. Also, if a player can't wear a Cross as a bracelet/necklace, why should she be treated special? Same thing.
Dearest Alex, please try to keep up. The referee did not ban the head covering because it was dangerous; he forbade it because it was "not part of the uniform". His action may have been correct, however his reasoning was wrong. Hence, the decision is wrong. A player may wear a religious medallion if it is deemed safe or if it is secured in a safe manner. The bracelet may be taped over; the necklace may be taped to the chest or back to prevent it from bouncing loose. Problem solved.
Does everything have to be analyzed word for word on here? Sure the head scarf is not part of the uniform. Neither is a neck chain. Both should stay off the field for the reason of safety. Once one is allowed because of religious or political correctness purposes, it allows anything else to be worn by anyone, which would create a huge problem. It doesn't matter if he did not explain it with the zest of a politician.