Nature of OIA

Interesting topic

I think that the passion of the moment needs to be considered as well as the volume at which the expletive is uttered. Unnecessarily gratuitous foul languge directed at no one may still be grounds for send-off in my book. Also, the momentary "sh!t" when miskicking or giving up a goal is forgiveable unless shouted loud enough to be heard by residents in a four-county radius.

This is quicksand. What is "anti-religious"? Are we denying the non-beliefs of an athiest here? I think that religious slander falls under the category of RACIALLY/ETHNICALLY MOTIVATED LANGUAGE.

Also, a referee in a B19 match sent off a player and terminated a match when a player on a team playing with seven shouted at some teammates in the parking lot that were late, "G-D it, get your a$$ over here!" This language is rather tame for B19 (and perhaps warranted in this instance), yet the player was sent off for breaking one of the Ten Commandments (yes, I read the match report) and the match was terminated because the team was down to six.

 

Tame,

In my opinion, you've hit the nail RIGHT on the head.

I just love having it quantified in such a way.

The problem is that there are referees who have a different standard -- and justifiably so according to their background, etc.

There are referees who come from fundamental backgrounds where ANY swearing is insulting to them -- and, in particular, any swearing involving taking the Lord's name in vain. So regardless of who it's directed at, they find it offensive and they are insulted by it -- so to their criteria, they have every reason to send that player off -- just like in the example nsa gave.

Now, I have several referees that I work with like this and some will state right up front in their pregame -- gentlemen/ladies, I come from a background where any form of cursing is not allowed and I find it offensive and will not tolerate it at all. They rarely have problems.

Is it right that there is such discrepancy in the way these things are handled? I'd say no.

But at least some of the guys realize they have different standards and they make it plain to everyone right up front.

The guys that are hardest for the players to deal with are those that don't make things like that known right up front -- and then toss a guy for a minor expletive.

 

here's how i would react (this is my first time in my year on the board replying to a multi-situational thing):

1)i do'nt think it's B&W. he's getting a card regarless. depending on a)what the blank is, and b)how loudly it's said. if he's not too loud of abusive, dissent. screaming WTF would get him a red.

2A)again, to me, words and volume affect it. if he's just mad about right then, and the other player looks like he's just about to roll his eyes, quick warning. but if the pitiful fouled one shows blatant contempt, red.

2B)again, depends. you don't have a noun of direct address, or an object for the verb, so whether he's showing direct contempt is debatable...look at him. read the player.

more experienced guys, don't gut me, just correct where i'm wrong...i'm on here to learn as much as be opinionated

 

In my book, for #1, the volume doesn't much matter. If he uses the F*** in that sort of statement, it's going to be a red for OIA. Anything else is going to be yellow for dissent.

In Situations 2A & B, I say that A is contempt for the other player (he said "you") whereas B is an expression of anger. In this case, however, what the word is and how loudly it's said will definitely affect the card.

For 2A, F*** you, if I or an assistant hears it, will earn him a red for OIA. Most other words there will get him a yellow for USB.

For 2B, if it's not yelled real loud (more said to himself but outloud), then I'd let it go with nothing or perhaps a stern look / verbal warning. If it's overly loud, it's yellow for USB.

My definition for being overly loud generally is loud enough for BOTH sidelines to hear it. I tend to be more sensitive to things that the spectators hear because in my opinion, that's when they bring the game into disrepute. But I realize that occasionally things happen right along the spectator's touchline and it's not fair to punish for someone on one side of the field that you didn't punish on the other side. So that's why I use the "both sides" guideline.

 

I'd tend to agree, but a lot has to do with the level of play/age of players. I'd find it mighty offensive if a U12 used that language, whether or not it's directed at somebody. A U19 might get a verbal warning once. I'm not particularly a prude, but I don't much like cursing on the field, as it tends to lead to other disciplinary issues.

 

90% of the language issues I see are in the 14 to 17 age range (mostly boys).

 

!&*!!+=&**!!#@"[~`!!/?##!

OIAL has been one of the reveiw and discussion topics at our Massachusetts recert clinics this year, I have had the chance to sit in on several of these discussions by referees of varying levels of experinece, along with instructors of comparable diversity of experinece ranging from national to local. What I have noticed is that of all the topics covered, it is one of the most polarizing.

One one extreme we have those who, if certain words are said, irrespective of how quietly or context, such as the infamous "F-Bomb" they will send-off the player, slam-bam-thank-you'M'am and on the other extreme we have those who permit amost anything to be said, as long as it is not directed at an opponent in a manner so as to inflame/abuse/insult them.

One of the common threads is who is being offended, abused or insulted here?

If the language is not directed at the referee or an opponent, where is the foul or misconduct if directed at no-one, even if heard by all? If the language, even if directed at an opponet, has no effect, is the offense trifling? What if no-one but you the referee, considers the language to be anything unusual at all? Whose rights and values are we responsible for upholding.

Or, to put it another way, do we have the right to force the players to ascribe to our personal moral standards or do we not have a greater obligation to make certain that we respect theirs?

Remember the Laws do not say which words are OK and which are not, or is it how it is said, not what? Anyone remember Geroge Carlin's "Words that could not be said on TV?"

Maybe this is not objectve, nor subjective, but siturational. We must adapt and judge effect, irrespecteive of our own personal standards, and this way we all have a lot more fun out there.

 

We also discussed this very topic at the recert clinic I attended last week. The consensus seemed to be that "it depends" on a lot of things including age of the players, volume, tone, at whom their language is directed, as well as cultural norms. Our instructor seemed to be of the opinion that the game is for the players, and if the players don't seem to be bothered by it, then it shouldn't bother you too much either. Of course if the language is directed at some one in particular that's a different matter.

I think it comes down to whether what has been said is meant to try and draw a reaction from the "victim". Often this is done by sexual types of language and insults.

 

Re: !&*!!+=&**!!#@"[~`!!/?##!

One of the things that further complicates the issue for high school age boys is the fact that NFHS has taken a very strong stand against the use of any profanity, in any context. The AD's in our local chapter have demanded that we show zero tolerance for an f-bomb and, as they put it, "similarly offensive words". We actually tried to come up with a list of "similarly offensive words" at a chapter meeting last season and it degenerated into a parity of Carlin's comedy routine. My point is that when these same players then take to the pitch with their club teams, they see a much more subjective standard. On Thursday a player gets ejected from a high school game for an f-bomb directed at himself for having misplayed a ball .... on Saturday he sees the same referee issue only a verbal warning to another player for doing the exact same thing in a U-19 match. We may understand the different standards, but many times for the players it appears to be nothing more than inconsistency at best, and bias at worse.

 

Re: Re: !&*!!+=&**!!#@"[~`!!/?##!

I would like to have a copy of that list, so I could hang it next to my NF signals chart, currently displayed below a copy of the MIAA infraction code.

Ironically in MA, for all of its other shortcomings, the language policy specifically address actions towards opponents and is quite general which allows us to use common sense and judgment (assuming any of us posess such traits in spite of our lemming like efforts to demonstrate the opposite).

The specific language is:

"There will be no tolerance for negative statements or actions between opposing players or coaches. This includes taunting, baiting, berating opponents, "trash-talking" or actions which ridicule or cause embarrassment to them. If such comments are hears, a penalty will be assessed immediately by expulstion of the player of players. We have been instructed not to issue warnings. It is your responsibility to remind yur team of this policy."

The MIAA sends us a little card with this printed on it, with every newsletter and mailing we get. I carry one in my data-wallet and often have a player read it to their teammates when I check them in. For an organization who insists on so many silly rules, this one is actually workable (unlike their mouthguard policy which makes no sense to me, but does cut down on dissent).

 

With the mouthguards in, everything they try to say sounds foul.

You haven't done any adult games, eh, Kev?

Check your ego at the gate. Be prepared for criticism of your calls, right or wrong. You don't have to accept their criticism; just smile, point a direction, and and get the ball back in play. If they still want to jaw at you, then you might consider a caution, but usually one of their teammates will kick their butt and tell them to forget the call and get their head out of their a$$ and back into the game. Keep smiling like you know something they don't 'cause most of the time, you do.

And I won't even mention Irish Village.

 

Re: !&*!!+=&**!!#@"[~`!!/?##!

it's ma'am...i'm from the south, which makes me an expert on things of THAT nature

 

Re: Re: Re: !&*!!+=&**!!#@"[~`!!/?##!

Actually, some of the words make perfect captions for some of the signal diagrams, especially striking and obstruction!

 

You're right -- just now getting up to that level in our association. I'll be getting those assignments this summer. I'll take this as a "warning".

 

Although I don't like it, I don't see that there is really any choice to be made. If neither the CR nor an AR heard anything inappropriate, there is no basis to take any action against red. Your gut (and probably the blue player and his team mates) will be screaming at you that you know that the red player must have said something pretty outrageous, but you can't base a caution or sendoff on that level of evidence. Although I'm sure some will suggest that a "game management" caution to the red player is the way to go, that's a pretty big anchor to hang around the neck of a player for the entire second half. It is possible (not likely, but possible) that he didn't say anything inappropriate and the blue player is just a loose cannon. I think you're limited to a verbal admonishment loud enough for both teams to hear. Something along the lines of "I don't know for a fact just exactly what either of you said to the other, but I'm not an idiot either. My AR's and I will be watching and listening to everyone to make sure that this crap ends here and now. Everyone understand?" In the game report I would just indicate the exact facts as you described them.

 

Agree with PK.

If you don't hear it, you can't punish it. No card, nothing to red player.

There's talking going on all the time.

When my son was U15, he was playing a game in the Detroit area. He was a marking back on a division 1 premier team (highest state team). About 10 minutes into the second half, the kid he'd been marking the whole game literally started crying and walked off the field. My son had been taking the ball from him left and right totally preventing him from doing ANYthing. The kid walks off the field and says "I just can't play out there any more. That kid won't quit TALKING to me." Notice he didn't say I can't beat that kid, he said talking.

Their parents and coaches started riding my son then. The coach creates enough of a ruckus that the referee stops the game to find out what's going on and after talking to the coach he goes over and talks to my son.

Our team and parents are on the opposite sideline from where this happens so all we saw was the kid walking off the field (found out later what he said). We're totally clueless what's going on.

After the game, I asked what was going on and he told me that he had been telling the kid that he was toast and every time he got near the ball and my son promptly took it from him or prevent him from even getting to the ball, he'd make a little dig like "you just can't beat me, you just as well quit playing." Eventually he did.

Ok, so what's the situation here -- my son was using gamesmanship to get inside the head of his opponent and it worked big time. What if this kid had finally had enough and turned and pushed my son down telling him to "get away from me" or some such thing rather than just walking off the field. That would be exactly the same situation posed by Tame_Lion. You just can't give a red in that situation just because of the reaction of the opponent.

 

No actually it does not. Your definition is limiting and unnecssary when you have a referee on the field in a USSF/FIFA sanctioned match. We are not there to enforce someone elses' standards or rules, but just to make sure the game is played, fairly, and its resolution is determined by the actions of the players, and we have fun, the players have fun.

Under NF Rules (formerly "schoolboy soccer" a similar but separate sport from soccer), where we are referees in name only, and officating at a school activity, there may be a place for a guideline or rule such as you suggest, to provide uniformity of applicatation across all schools at all levels for intershcholastic contests. This however, is not the case with soccer.

Not necessarily. Where do you get the idea that we "have" to send off the blue player? Pushing is a simple foul, but it might still be cautionable, could be a send off, ... Maybe, but the maybe not. Was this, in fact, misconduct?

Until I get there, we don't know, for example, whether the red player realzed that his shorts were on fire, and the blue player was simply assisting him by pushing him to the ground to extinguish the flames. The kid deserves a medal, not a card.

What I do is stop play, assess the situation, make eye contact with the AR at that end, go straight to the scene keeping both the players and my AR in view, defuse, determine if, in fact, it was misconduct, and then decide how I am going to deal with the blue player.

As for the red, a lot depends on what has gone on before, what is the tone of the game. In your description you stated that I, the referee, saw an action which might be interpreted as inciting the opponents behavior. Maybe, even thought I did not hear exactly what was said, I know that he player is a troublemaker. Remember it is act or deed, not just what is said, but the manner in which it may have been communicated.

Therefore I have many choices. I could caution them both. If necessary, I could send them both off. It all depends on what is necessary to ensure fair play. Most likely, if this was just a minor flare-up and the game had been going well, I would give them both a few choice words, have them verbalize their understanding, possibly a handshake, and restart play, if in this case having stopped for the push, as a DFK for red.

 

Heuristic is good

Let's not define it ourselves, but let the game deifine it for us.

In the FIFA/USSF game, where we must use the Laws for every level from WC, EPL, MLS, Amateur, USYSA, Over the Hill Rec, down to U-11 players on Saturday mornings, we must avoid over specifying the Laws., or bieng too officious, as Keith would put it.

Rather we as referee must learn to adapt and apply our judgement and standards based upon the laws to the particular game we are assigned, on the particualr field, on the particular day, and demanded by the specific players/teams involved, at the moment we are called upon to make a decision. Futher, we might have specific rules of competition covering language, gestures or other conduct.

What is offensive, insulting or abusive? To whom? Is it the same for everyone? Do we care what the spectators think? Coaches? An assessor, maybe, but the only ones who count are the players. What happens if every player agrees before the match that any language is acceptable, and they find nothing insulting, abusive or offensive? Don't laugh, this is very close to what we have in some of my adult games.

The point is that the Laws already give us the authority to control almost any situation when required. This how we serve the game and not only show respect, but earn it. We already have the tools we need, and all that is missing is the experience, wisdom and judgment to use them properly. Adding more language is not necessary.

As I mentioned previously, in high school soccer (NFHSS) the basic premis of the sport is different. This is not the players game, but a school activity, and we are hired as independent contractors to officiate these activities, not techically as referees applying laws, but as officals enforcing a set of rules adopted from NFHSS as well as those made specifically by the school or state atheletic association.

In this case not only do we need very specific interpretations or definitions, as you suggest, but it is imperative that we are provided such detail. This is why I have no problem with the MIAA Taunting Rule, and even the others, as stupid as they may be. This is because it is their game and they have every right to set the standards. If I don't like it, I don't have to take the assignments. Hey, as long as they do not endanger the players, for $3-4,000 of Christmas money every Fall, I can give my best effort to enforce stupid rules as easily as I can enforce intelligent ones.

 

Mapping Bad Language.....

Tame Lion – I love your ‘model’. I have recently been trying to formulate an easy way to depict that it is not so much the language itself that warrants a Red or Yellow card - it is the extra baggage that they carry when delivered. For example, were the words directed at the Referee or one of his Assistants, and did they question the Referees’ decision? Or were they said in frustration? Etc. etc………

I have created a Bad Language Mapping page with the aim to help Referees decide what words may constitute a Red card offence or a Yellow card offence. This is not an easy thing to demonstrate visually, so any comments from your side of the pond would be most welcome friends.
http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/wordmap.htm

www.corshamref.net

 

Praise for Julian's site

Julian,

Just a note to let you know how pleased I am that you have elected to participate in this discussion board. I have, for quite some time, been a fan of your Corsham site: http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/

As webmaster for http://www.MassRef.net the official site for the Massachusetts State Referee Committee, I know just how much effort goes into building and maintaining referee resources on the web. You have done a magnificent job particularly with the level of content you provide to help referees improve their skills, knowledge and understanding of the game.

I have, in fact, cited your site on this board previously as well as privately refererred many other referees to papers you have posted for additional perspectives on issues they face.

Good stuff.

Sherman