Red Card for verbal abuse - SA Ref video

[talbazar]

Hi All,

Saw the below video on our Society FB page:

I'm a bit surprised here and I think I'm missing a few things.
I'd love your understanding of what actually happened...

Here are the points I'd particularly like clarification about:
1. What did the player actually say, literally?
All I can hear is the AR saying "he call you a P" :chin:

2. Did the player insult the referee or did he express an opinion?
"This ref is sh*t!" opposed to "You're absolutely sh*t sir!

I'm not sure I'd support that RC decision... depending on the answers to the questions above...

Can anyone help clarify the points I'm missing?
Feel free to comment too...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[menace]

Too hard to make out what was or wasn't said so can't comment on RC or not. Guess you'd need to read the report to know what "P" is..as AR didn't want to say it on the 'family show'

BUT I'm more worried about this tube thingy! After the clip played this is what comes up on my screen

View attachment 3050

:wow:
What have you been watching Talbazar??

 

[talbazar]

What have you been watching Talbazar??

You're missing something here Menace... Youtube remembers what YOU have been watching a proposes you something you may like...
So I return you the question:
What have you been watching? :nono:

 

[talbazar]

To add, it looks like the disciplinary committee cleared Barnes from the Red Card record...
But the SA refs website doesn't explain anything on what exactly happened...

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830693/

 

[Drift]

Too hard to make out what was or wasn't said so can't comment on RC or not. Guess you'd need to read the report to know what "P" is..as AR didn't want to say it on the 'family show'

BUT I'm more worried about this tube thingy! After the clip played this is what comes up on my screen

View attachment 3050

:wow:
What have you been watching Talbazar??

The P word is 'poes', translated roughly to c*nt.

 

[menace]

You're missing something here Menace... Youtube remembers what YOU have been watching a proposes you something you may like...
So I return you the question:
What have you been watching? :nono:

Yikes! It's all those links Dickie E has been posting!

 

[Pegleg]

I think the AR and ref got the right call from the evidence, It would be interesting to see the reasoning behind the removal of the card.

 

[Daftmedic]

It served its purpose by removing him from the game. Showed everybody watching that it's not exceptable. On the removal there may not have been concrete evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

It served its purpose by removing him from the game. Showed everybody watching that it's not exceptable. On the removal there may not have been concrete evidence.

 

[rugbyslave]

I believe he used the referee's nick name plus the part of the swear word, now no recording of the incident, and the players now have legal representation at theses hearings.

 

[talbazar]

From my understanding, I honestly have a problem for any card on this incident...

The player got carded for "verbal abuse" towards the referee... But the referee didn't hear a thing, it had to be reported by the AR.
Where's the abuse then?

We are all referees, it's unfortunate, but it comes with the job to be called named in our back...

Furthermore, it would have to be really really bad for me card someone I'd overhear saying something in my back. I'd definitely have a chat with the player but I might not even ping him...
Example:
Ref: "Peeeeeep! 7 Black, hands in a ruck"
Black 7 walking away: "What a _______!" (replace by what you want)
Ref: "7 Black!, If you have something to say, say it to my face so I can put my hand in my pocket. If not, keep your opinion for yourself. Clear?"

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[FlipFlop]

Sorry Pierre - Strongly Disagree with you on all points.

Verbal abuse was directed at the referee by a player. The AR reported this. This is foul play, and should be treated as such. Otherwise it is the thin edge of teh wedge. Same if a player verbally abuses the AR/4th in the hearing of the referee. Match Officials are NOT to be verbally (or physically) abused.

And in your example: If the referee hears it, then there is no giving the player a chance to retract. It needs to be acted on. Our jobs are hard enough, with enough critics, without letting the players chime in when they want to.

 

[Ronald]

As a referee in South Africa, we have also been trying to get clarification as to why the red card was rescinded at the hearing, but no luck so far. Drift is correct, the word apparently uttered was "poes", very derogatory way of calling somebody a "c*nt".

 

[Pegleg]

Can't agree Pierre.

If the ref does not hear the abuse but other players / supporters/ officials etc do the image of the referee is undermined.

Other players can "join in" or even "defend" the ref. Result chaos.

Officials too can become embroiled in the issue.

Supporters may be age grade players who see no action and decide that it's OK for them to do it next time out.

A bit like a punch / lick / strike that does not land, the intent is there and, if picked up by an AR, it should be dealt with. Verbal abuse that does not land is no different.

For me your warning, though I understand your intentions, is misguided. The guy next week has to put up with what you tolerate. Accept it and the rot begins.

 

[Taff]

... Drift is correct, the word apparently uttered was "poes", very derogatory way of calling somebody a "c*nt".

Is there a polite way of calling somebody a c*nt?

 

[OB..]

talbazar - I disagree. The ARs and referee are a team of three. If you insult one you insult the team. We could do without that attitude because it winds people up instead of calming them down.

 

[Daftmedic]

Can't agree Pierre.

If the ref does not hear the abuse but other players / supporters/ officials etc do the image of the referee is undermined.

Other players can "join in" or even "defend" the ref. Result chaos.

Officials too can become embroiled in the issue.

Supporters may be age grade players who see no action and decide that it's OK for them to do it next time out.

A bit like a punch / lick / strike that does not land, the intent is there and, if picked up by an AR, it should be dealt with. Verbal abuse that does not land is no different.

For me your warning, though I understand your intentions, is misguided. The guy next week has to put up with what you tolerate. Accept it and the rot begins.

I beleive sir, that you a hitherto know as a ****!
Was that a nice way?

 

[4eyesbetter]

From my understanding, I honestly have a problem for any card on this incident...

The player got carded for "verbal abuse" towards the referee... But the referee didn't hear a thing, it had to be reported by the AR.
Where's the abuse then?

Furthermore, it would have to be really really bad for me card someone I'd overhear saying something in my back. I'd definitely have a chat with the player but I might not even ping him...
Example:
Ref: "Peeeeeep! 7 Black, hands in a ruck"
Black 7 walking away: "What a _______!" (replace by what you want)
Ref: "7 Black!, If you have something to say, say it to my face so I can put my hand in my pocket. If not, keep your opinion for yourself. Clear?"

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

This sounds like a soccer tolerance level to me. This is not a rugby tolerance level.

We are all referees, it's unfortunate, but it comes with the job to be called named in our back...

You should not have to put up with that. And, even if you don't mind, the referee next week should not have to put up with it either. Stand up for them, at least.

 

[Pegleg]

Can't agree Pierre.

If the ref does not hear the abuse but other players / supporters/ officials etc do the image of the referee is undermined.

Other players can "join in" or even "defend" the ref. Result chaos.

Officials too can become embroiled in the issue.

Supporters may be age grade players who see no action and decide that it's OK for them to do it next time out.

A bit like a punch / Kick / strike that does not land, the intent is there and, if picked up by an AR, it should be dealt with. Verbal abuse that does not land is no different.

For me your warning, though I understand your intentions, is misguided. The guy next week has to put up with what you tolerate. Accept it and the rot begins.

I beleive sir, that you a hitherto know as a ****!
Was that a nice way?

Sorry Don't get it.

 

[talbazar]

talbazar - I disagree. The ARs and referee are a team of three. If you insult one you insult the team. We could do without that attitude because it winds people up instead of calming them down.

OB.. totally agree with the team of 3 aspect. And I would card (Y or R) a player who abuse verbally an AR directly. Without hesitation.

This sounds like a soccer tolerance level to me. This is not a rugby tolerance level.

Come on, a player saying in your back that your decision was rubbish is far away from a soccer player calling you a cheat with his face about half an inch from yours... No comparison there, sorry!

You should not have to put up with that. And, even if you don't mind, the referee next week should not have to put up with it either. Stand up for them, at least.

I agree again that we shouldn't have to put up with that. But again, the player in that case didn't say anything to the ref directly. The Ref didn't even hear it...
As far as we know, the player might have talking to himself, about himself...

So, yes, I agree, I definitely need to review my tolerance level on certain things as I'm probably capable of taking a bit too much...
But I'm very curious on how you guys would deal with the following then. You see something, you blow and you hear the player saying whatever is in the quote. The player's indeed agitated but is not shouting, rather talking loudly to himself.

1. Red 7 knock on, you blow:
Red 7: "What a c*nt!"

2. Red 7 hands in a ruck, you blow:
Red 7: "What a c*nt!"

3. Red 6 hands in a ruck, you blow:
Red 6: "Ka Ni Na!" (1)

4. Red 8 hand in a ruck, you blow:
Red 8: "Kana again lor. Can't tahan oredy!" (1)

(1): Welcome to Singapore!

 

[Daftmedic]

Sorry Don't get it.

One belowe your comment. I was on my iPhone and it got messed up