Foul language

[pastyman]

Referees seem to be reluctant to control swearing by players and team officials. Some clubs are far worse than others - they know who they are - and as long as they think that they are benefiting by this, then they will continue to do so. Once referees are seen to being trying to control this and are backed up by the relevant FAs they will, I'm sure, receive support from most people in the game.

Referees at lower levels seem to use cards to control 'foul & abusive' more than those at this level.

Only my opinion, but I'm fed up seeing and hearing clubs constantly abusing officials, and I'm no great fan of the way referees perform in this league!

Ok, so we as the "paying public" are, in the majority, unhappy hearing the "foul and abusive" language, so what are we going to do about it?

[Mauler]

Could someone tell me if foul language is no longer an offence in soccer. Last night I watched a very entertaining game between Bodmin and Camelford in the Throgmorton Cup which Bodmin won 3 1. In the first half there was a 50 50 challenge after which the Bodmin player was injured, after receiving treatment his words to the referee were so bad that I can't print it in full but I will do my best. At the time the ref was about 2 meters away." You F***ing t**t you aren't giving us f**k all you t**t". When I was a ref this would have been a standard red card. In this instance the ref just gave the player a warning could someone explain this to me please. Also there was constant bad language coming from the Bodmin dugout where the "F" word was used at regular intervals in a loud and aggressive manner directly at the match officials, the only outcome was a ticking off in about the 88th minute. Also 2 tackles from behind and a punch thrown all went unpunished. How things have changed since I stopped reffing 6 years ago.

1. What would Bill Pearce do in this situation?

2. I would like to see the player say this to George Pattison.

[Bruegel the Elder]

The paying public have spoken, just no-one listening. Compare the average gate today to that in the equivalent league five, ten or twenty years ago. Few families or youngsters attending. Spectators have voted with their feet!

[The Villains]

Referees seem to be reluctant to control swearing by players and team officials. Some clubs are far worse than others - they know who they are - and as long as they think that they are benefiting by this, then they will continue to do so. Once referees are seen to being trying to control this and are backed up by the relevant FAs they will, I'm sure, receive support from most people in the game.

Referees at lower levels seem to use cards to control 'foul & abusive' more than those at this level.

Only my opinion, but I'm fed up seeing and hearing clubs constantly abusing officials, and I'm no great fan of the way referees perform in this league!

Ok, so we as the "paying public" are, in the majority, unhappy hearing the "foul and abusive" language, so what are we going to do about it?

Write a letter to the County FA & that Clubs chairman and complaine that the use of foul language from players, is the reason that has stopped you and your family from attending games. Every Club SHOULD have a code of conduct that players agree to and SIGN before the league season starts. Its also down to clubs to enforce the C of C.

[Home Waters]

The strange part in all of this is that Mangers at a Senior Pro level, who operate under the same rules as us, only have to criticize a Match Official in a perfectly straight manner, no swearing, which is broadcast on tv at post match interviews and they are fined and banned. What's the logic in that, come on Match Officials get your act together, same rules for all, allegedly.

[B Manning]

Home Waters, the same rules do apply as several players and managers have found out by airing their views on this public forum.

[Lafs]

Whilst the rules and powers of officials should of course be the same from top pro level to lower level, you simply cannot compare the pro level officials to lower level, just as you cant compare the players either. Mistakes are bound to be more frequent at this level by both officials and players. What we don't do very well in this country is remain realistic about our expectations of amateurs. What we unfortunately do well is blame and point fingers! This is purely how I have now evaluated my own previous actions, reactions and behaviour as both a player and a manager. HOWEVER, when you are in the heat of the moment and the desire to win is running through your veins, the temptation to abuse, complain and even insult officials and opposition takes over rational thinking! Not condoning anything here just how I see it based on my own actions in the past.

[Lafs]

Here's one for you. Phil Dowd had a fantastic game for 91 mins last night and then awarded a free kick to Chelsea against Vermalen as the last man. No cover was available. So, referees out there, can you explain why he didn't see a yellow card. If it was deemed a free kick, as last man, by the letter of the law, he should've been booked surely?

This is what causes some managers/players to be angry enough to let rip at officials. Of course it Doesn't make it right, but decisions such as these confuse me! And he is a PROFESSIONAL referee!!

[B Manning]

Lafs, this is what you and others do not understand, any decision a referee makes, provided it `s an honest decision then that decision is correct, even if a referee does nothing then he has made a decision to do nothing.

[Lafs]

Just to be clear then, based on my example from last nights game on the TV, even when a referee is wrong, he is right providing he makes an honest decision? No credibility in that if so.

[B Manning]

Sorry Lafs that is correct, provided he makes an honest decision then he is right, regardless of anyone else`s opinion or video replays etc , the Laws of the Game make the statement "in the referee`s opinion" it has been this way since the Law`s were decided upon. everyone is entitled to their opinion but in the game it is the referee`s opinion which is correct. i bet this opens a can of replies.

[green&whitebarmyarmy]

So you are saying that if a player deliberately handles on the goal line, the ref gives a penalty but no card that is the right decision?

[B Manning]

If he decides that is what he will do then you have no argument against it, but he could be in deep water with the FA/CCFA etc for failing to apply the LOAF correctly, referee`s are answerable to the FA/CCFA

[Lafs]

Then the credibility of the official/referee is surely in question as he can never be wrong! Whilst id love to always be right even when I'm wrong, I have to admit id still not want to do their job and I'm also glad I'm neither on the receiving end of their decisions or handing out abuse to them either.

[Dave Deacon]

If he is failing to apply the LOAF correctly, surely irrespective of his opinion, he is wrong!

[The Villains]

Here's one for you. Phil Dowd had a fantastic game for 91 mins last night and then awarded a free kick to Chelsea against Vermalen as the last man. No cover was available. So, referees out there, can you explain why he didn't see a yellow card. If it was deemed a free kick, as last man, by the letter of the law, he should've been booked surely?

This is what causes some managers/players to be angry enough to let rip at officials. Of course it Doesn't make it right, but decisions such as these confuse me! And he is a PROFESSIONAL referee!!

Don't know about a yellow card, last man, no cover......... Red card

[Lafs]

Apparently not Dave, providing he made an honest decision!!! I don't want to fall out with anyone on this forum but I honestly don't think its only players/coaches/managers who need to change their attitudes. Foul language is in-excusable end of, but so is the attitude of 'we're right when we're wrong'. No wonder both parties have so many problems!!

[The Villains]

Lafs, this is what you and others do not understand, any decision a referee makes, provided it `s an honest decision then that decision is correct, even if a referee does nothing then he has made a decision to do nothing.

But does an honest decision mean its the RIGHT decision?

If managers are interviewed at the end of games, with their feeling still running high, why aren't referees asked for their comments on decisions made during the game. Might make things clearer to everyone!

[B Manning]

Yes it means that at the time it was the right decision, if he acted on what he saw or thought he saw, no as referee`s we are not permitted to talk to the press to express any comments. If after any game a manager or player asks me for clarification on any point or decision I may have made I will answer truthfully, but I always tell them that the moment the conversation turns into a disagreement then I will end the conversation . To Dave, of course we can be wrong but in the context of the game nothing changes, have you ever seen a result altered even if the referee made a blatant error, no !.

[The Villains]

Yes it means that at the time it was the right decision, if he acted on what he saw or thought he saw, no as referee`s we are not permitted to talk to the press to express any comments. If after any game a manager or player asks me for clarification on any point or decision I may have made I will answer truthfully, but I always tell them that the moment the conversation turns into a disagreement then I will end the conversation . To Dave, of course we can be wrong but in the context of the game nothing changes, have you ever seen a result altered even if the referee made a blatant error, no !.

He can't give a decision on what he thought he saw!! The ref either sees it or not, if not, he can't make a decision and play contuines.... or is that the get out clause of I made the wrong decision?

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Sorry Lafs that is correct, provided he makes an honest decision then he is right, regardless of anyone else`s opinion or video replays etc , the Laws of the Game make the statement "in the referee`s opinion" it has been this way since the Law`s were decided upon. everyone is entitled to their opinion but in the game it is the referee`s opinion which is correct. i bet this opens a can of replies.

Totally agree with that. All the ones debating various scenarios - have a go - come on - didn't think so.

The referee can be wrong, but he has the whistle and the authority, and that's good enough for me. Well done to all refs from me.

[The Villains]

Sorry Lafs that is correct, provided he makes an honest decision then he is right, regardless of anyone else`s opinion or video replays etc , the Laws of the Game make the statement "in the referee`s opinion" it has been this way since the Law`s were decided upon. everyone is entitled to their opinion but in the game it is the referee`s opinion which is correct. i bet this opens a can of replies.

Totally agree with that. All the ones debating various scenarios - have a go - come on - didn't think so.

The referee can be wrong, but he has the whistle and the authority, and that's good enough for me. Well done to all refs from me. Been there got the badge, whistle and shirt.

[B Manning]

You do not make a decision on what you think you saw, a decision is made on your interpretation of what you do see, A classic from a game of mine a couple of seasons ago attacker punches a defender and puts him on the floor, I knew and was told what had happened, but I did not witness it. therefore I took no action,, I did let the offender know in no uncertain terms what would have happened if I had seen it, luckily for me his manager substituted him.so there you go if the referee does not see it, it has not happened, and I can only hope that no referee deviates from that, anything other is called guesswork.

[Lafs]

Like players, there are good refs and there are bad refs. I find the ones who apply the laws of the game along with common sense avoid being abused. Much like George Pattison does. He commands respect and exerts authority by applying the laws along with common sense.

[B Manning]

Lafs, not a cat in hells chance of avoiding abuse with those qualities, the only sure way is to pack it in.

[Brianmooreshead]

Mr Manning

Sorry if it's been asked previously, but what level do you officiate at ?

[B Manning]

Brianmooreshead, these days just Duchy and Trelawny, although in past years I stopped just short of Football League (age) so I am well experienced, not wanting to name drop but I have referee`d Wycombe Wanderers, Oxford United, Dunstable Town, Barton Rovers, Forest Green, to name but a few. i hope that helps you in assessing my comments.

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

Brianmooreshead, these days just Duchy and Trelawny, although in past years I stopped just short of Football League (age) so I am well experienced, not wanting to name drop but I have referee`d Wycombe Wanderers, Oxford United, Dunstable Town, Barton Rovers, Forest Green, to name but a few. i hope that helps you in assessing my comments.

Well done.

[mrlaw18]

I agree with what Mr Manning is saying. We make decision based on the facts presented to us either by what we see or information from the assistant ref or players reactions. We are not saying we are right or wrong we are saying based on the facts that is what we generally believe to be correct. In the absence of key info because of what ever reason (positioning, distraction, players getting in way at the material moment, etc...) it is possible not to make a decision in which case we don't know and guessing is just going to make things worse. Its frustrating for us when we make mistakes just as it frustrating for players. ALSO a ref has NO excuse to make mistakes in LAW.

[Lafs]

Ok I'm beginning to understand where you are coming from now. But can I just go back to last nights game between Arsenal and Chelsea and ask WHY the last defender in the 92nd minute was adjudged to have fouled Demba Ba, a free kick was given by the Referee, there was NO cover, the ball was travelling towards goal, Ba was only just outside the penalty box yet not a caution, let alone a red card was shown?

I'm not saying I want to see more cards dished out, but I would like to see the LAWS of the game applied as consistently as they possibly can. And before anyone suggests it, Phil Dowd's view of the foul was clear. And interpretation wont wash with me either.

[mrlaw18]

I did not see the game. From what you have described it sounds like a red for DOGSO. However if there is any doubt then at least a yellow. Do him for something rather than for nothing. Also he may be refereeing the occasion and so may be asking if its worth sending off the player in the 92nd minute for a technical red card. Arsenal are not in the next round anyway. If it was for serious foul play then that's a different story. If it was a Chelsea player who should have been sent off then that is what should happen because it effects the next match. These are only my thoughts.

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

I agree with what Mr Manning is saying. We make decision based on the facts presented to us either by what we see or information from the assistant ref or players reactions. We are not saying we are right or wrong we are saying based on the facts that is what we generally believe to be correct. In the absence of key info because of what ever reason (positioning, distraction, players getting in way at the material moment, etc...) it is possible not to make a decision in which case we don't know and guessing is just going to make things worse. Its frustrating for us when we make mistakes just as it frustrating for players. ALSO a ref has NO excuse to make mistakes in LAW.

And OF COURSE the LAW never makes mistakes - YEAH !!!!

[isaac rosenberg]

Too many laws altogether, in football and out of it. Nothing wrong with a good old game of murderball, like in the old days. Never many undeserved deaths resulting from it, not really. All the best of friends afterwards and swear as much as you liked, it was like Valhalla in the pub.

[baldy]

If the Arsenal player had been sent off he would have been unavailable for the next 1 or 3 matches in whatever competition. I'm sure CFC would have liked him banned for PL games.

[Premier Sixes]

When I was at university in London in the 90's we had a player sent off for swearing in one of our first games of the season. A Danish and a French player taught the rest of the team expletives in their native tongue. A surreal rest of the season followed as the entire South Bank University team vexed their frustration at bemused referees with a tirade of Danish and French expletives. No cards where ever issued. True story. Our resident Swede at P6 has been known to let loose in his own native tongue when he is close to loosing it. Definitely a solution for those prone to continual tirades at refs......

[The Villains]

I did not see the game. From what you have described it sounds like a red for DOGSO. However if there is any doubt then at least a yellow. Do him for something rather than for nothing. Also he may be refereeing the occasion and so may be asking if its worth sending off the player in the 92nd minute for a technical red card. Arsenal are not in the next round anyway. If it was for serious foul play then that's a different story. If it was a Chelsea player who should have been sent off then that is what should happen because it effects the next match. These are only my thoughts.

Regardless of what time is on the clock or the occasion, a foul is a foul and SHOULD be dealt with accordingly...... This is why players, managers and fans get annoyed...... Not applying the correct punishment for the infringement! Consistency is all they want.

[Lafs]

My point here is that if the professional officials such as Dowd can make mistakes then so can amateur officials at local level football. But this example demonstrates that an officials interpretation is NOT always based on the LAWS of the game but on his own choice to not carry out the law in this instance. This is what gets managers, players and paying supporters backs up.

You take Demba Ba for example. Say he gets his chance to start in the next game on Saturday and in the 92nd he gets sent off for similar offence to the one Dowd just chose to ignore in the last game. Ba then gets frustrated gives an outburst and gets hit by FA for refusing to accept the decision and leave field of play.

Hypothetically speaking of course, but this is what causes anger and animosity towards officials. And all because Dowd decided to take the law in to his own hands! And the punishment for Dowd for taking the law into his own hands from the FA = nothing = Inconsistency breeding!

[TheolderIgetthebetterIwas]

This thread itself shows why the ref hasn't a cat in hells chance ( of getting it right)

[Lafs]

He also doesn't have a chance now that his assistants are instructed to NOT assist the referee as they once used to have the power to do. The game has moved on so much and is far quicker, yet now the assistants credibility is in question as he often responds to managers and players alike with "I'm under orders NOT to give decisions" and "it didn't happen in my half so I cant comment or put up my flag".

Yet if you stand on the half way line, just inside the opposite half to the assistants half and question a decision, then the assistant raises his flag and reports you to the referee! Making the directive a joke and another LAW inconsistent. I'm not splitting hairs, this is a current stupidly introduced directive that gets managers, coaches and players backs up!

So you're quite right, he hasn't got a chance in the middle for many a reason.

[CornishCanary]

Bravado and sportsman ship aside, would the language from players and team officials decrease if they actually read and understand (the understanding being the most important aspect) the rules of the game AND HOW the referee will interpert and apply them?.

This thread has inspired me to get my head back into the book "The Laws of The Game 2013/14" and shows that one mans

"offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures" (sending off offence) may not be another mans "dissent by word or action"(Cautionable offence)

[bighairydave]

Lads I also agree with Monty.

It is also much more credible for an assistant to give such decision where a player abuses him just inside the opposite half as they are instructed to do that. Give decisions 15-20 yards from where they are. That is no different to what you expect the referee to be (ie 10-15 yards from any incident).

Also on to the topic if a player says 'for **** sake ref' I will manage or caution as it is more dissent where as if a player says 'referee your a ******* disgrace' I am more likely to send off as that is directed at me and is more offensive and abusive.

At the end of the day though unfortunately offensive, insulting or abusive language is down to each individual referee as each one has different tolerance levels.

[CornishCanary]

honestly i dont think the rules are clear enough, and leave too much ambiguity, hence why this thread is so long. If you take a literal interperetation of the rules, dissent is a "difference of opinion, think differently or disagree". A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee’s decision must be cautioned.

"offensive, insulting or abusive language" must be more defined, or the dissent rule should be removed and put into "dissent, offensive, insulting or abusive language" as a (sending off offence).

Thats the only way you will quash foul language.

[isaac rosenberg]

Surrounded as we are by corruption, veniality and arbitrary authoritarianism, dissent is heroic and should be respected.

Far from "quashing" expressive language because it is misinterpreted by self-important tyrants, we should celebrate the liberating power of that language.

Given that Cornish identity has become synonymous with economic and cultural victimhood, the restraint and acceptance of those conditions is extraordinary.

Swearing more rather than less would be quite understandable. The only wonder, to me, is the quiescence of the young people who have been utterly sold out by a government that unapologetically condemns them to a lifetime of poverty.

Anybody see Question Time from St Austell ? Where were the Cornish ?

Swearing in their sleep, no doubt.

[CornishCanary]

honestly i dont think the rules are clear enough, and leave too much ambiguity, hence why this thread is so long. If you take a literal interperetation of the rules, dissent is a "difference of opinion, think differently or disagree". A player who is guilty of dissent by protesting (verbally or non-verbally) against a referee’s decision must be cautioned.

But if you think about it and take the rulling litterally; if the referee makes NO decision over a matter, then dissent MAY then turn into "offensive, insulting or abusive" assuming the referee interperets players/ team officals remarks as one of those, which is a straight red...

rules still need refining and defining more clearly...

[PUGWASH]

Isaac , you talk an absolute load of TOSH !!!!!!!!!

At the end of the day discuss this till the cows come home , but foul and abusive language particulary in an aggressive manner towards an official is a red card. Should not matter what level. Just because the Premier league do not comply , does not mean our level of football shouldn't.

[Goldeneye]

The increasing amount of swearing at games over the last 20 years has put a lot of people off watching. Soon it won't matter how much swearing there is, as no spectators will be there to hear it!!

[Home Waters]

Perhaps a match official on this site can give an answer - Steve Bruce, Hull Manager, reported to the FA for saying " It's a Joke" , when asked on TV interview his view on the penalty award.

If one of our Managers said that on Radio Cornwall or it was written as quotes in a newspaper - would they be done.

How can verbal abuse at our level, which is aimed at Match Officials not be reported - don't get it.

[B Manning]

Home waters, He would not have been reported the FA themselves would have charged him under a disrepute charge, and yes our local managers/players etc could also be charged as several players/club officials have found out when posting on this site.

[PUGWASH]

Are you still a club official HomeWaters ?

[Home Waters]

Home waters, He would not have been reported the FA themselves would have charged him under a disrepute charge, and yes our local managers/players etc could also be charged as several players/club officials have found out when posting on this site.

I realise that, so why no action when foul language and abuse from the dugout. - don't say sometimes action is taken , of course it is - it is the lack of even handedness by some officials - its almost as if they are afraid to deal with some people - allegedly.