Booing the Ramadan drinks break

[BobendBert]

I'm answering the points that are raised. If that is clutching at straws then so is raising those points as a reason to have the break in the first place.

If we have to change the rules to not have players missing, and that affects the result, why do we then deserve to lose? It works both ways.

If it didn't make a difference then why would the break be required?

Not sure they’re points I’ve raised. I don’t think I’ve argued that it has a material impact on results. All I’ve argued is that it’s inclusive and decent.

The only daft comments come from you and your constant hounding of posters you dont agree with. In this case, Boromart.

hounding. You need to get out more mate.

Just out of curiosity what happened in all the 3pm kick offs where teams had Muslim players? Did they not play or did they just go without fluids?

It's not really a big issue (unless anyone was booing it for racist reasons, I think, on balance that's unlikely as most won't have known what it was for) but there is the question of consistency.

There won't have been a drinks break in the 3pm matches, so why the need for one in the evening game?

Players have plenty of chances to get fluids on board during a half anyway without a pre-ordained break in play.

As said above, feels like a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

I have a feeling (not being an expert in Islam) that it’s as symbolic as it is physiological. Could be wrong though.

But there was definitely some racist booing. That’s not even debatable. Read some of the comments that accompanied it.

 

[TeaCider]

I suppose we could ask the Devil themselves, SKY, not to schedule evening games during the month of Ramadan.

Or just do what they're doing now?

Inconveniences nobody and helps observant players with a brief break.

Just out of curiosity what happened in all the 3pm kick offs where teams had Muslim players? Did they not play or did they just go without fluids?

It's not really a big issue (unless anyone was booing it for racist reasons, I think, on balance that's unlikely as most won't have known what it was for) but there is the question of consistency.

There won't have been a drinks break in the 3pm matches, so why the need for one in the evening game?

Players have plenty of chances to get fluids on board during a half anyway without a pre-ordained break in play.

As said above, feels like a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Because an observant Muslim can't break the fast at 3pm, they can in the evening matches.

It's something that's being adopted in leagues across the world with the growing proportion of Muslim players.

It's not mandatory, it only takes place if both teams agree and there has been a request from Muslim players for it to happen.

Presumably the Muslim players in the Burnley team wanted the break.

 

[Archiestephens_elbow]

Has anyone ever had nowt to eat all day?

Makes you feel like ****

 

[festa5]

Or just do what they're doing now?

Inconveniences nobody and helps observant players with a brief break.



Because an observant Muslim can't break the fast at 3pm, they can in the evening matches.

It's something that's being adopted in leagues across the world with the growing proportion of Muslim players.

It's not mandatory, it only takes place if both teams agree and there has been a request from Muslim players for it to happen.

Presumably the Muslim players in the Burnley team wanted the break.

I know they can't at 3pm, that's why I asked the question.

If they can get through 90 mins at 3pm without a drink, why can't they get through 45 (and in reality it wouldn't even be that because they'd get a chance through natural stoppages) at 8pm?

They can either manage without fluids or they can't. I'm sure lots of sides wouldn't mind a break in play after 20 mins Muslim or otherwise. But is it really needed?

That's the question I'm asking. I have no problem making reasonable allowances to accommodate religious beliefs, but I'm just not convinced this is one. A nice to have I'm sure, but essential? I don't think it is.

 

[TeaCider]

I know they can't at 3pm, that's why I asked the question.

If they can get through 90 mins at 3pm without a drink, why can't they get through 45 (and in reality it wouldn't even be that because they'd get a chance through natural stoppages) at 8pm?

They can either manage without fluids or they can't. I'm sure lots of sides wouldn't mind a break in play after 20 mins Muslim or otherwise. But is it really needed?

That's the question I'm asking. I have no problem making reasonable allowances to accommodate religious beliefs, but I'm just not convinced this is one. A nice to have I'm sure, but essential? I don't think it is.

They'll presumably have had a drink/food at 6am or before, before sunrise, and 3pm is a lot closer to that period than 8pm.

It's another 5 hours without food or water, and they can break the fast in the second instance.

 

[Greaseman]

hounding. You need to get out more mate

Says the poster who has been up arguing for the last 2 days wiyh anyone who doesnt agree with him

 

[The_Tiler]

Or just do what they're doing now?

Or just continue what football has been doing for the 100 odd years?

Inconveniences nobody and helps observant players with a brief break.

Breaks up the play, managers will use to talk to players about tactics etc. We have enough stoppages in play already.

If players want a break, as I said earlier, they can go off the pitch but their team plays on without them. The same as when a player receives treatment, then has to go off the pitch and wait for the ref to wave them back on.
Such a simple solution, which inconvenience nobody.

 

[TeaCider]

"Breaks up the play, managers will use to talk to players about tactics etc. We have enough stoppages in play already.

If players want a break, as I said earlier, they can go off the pitch but their team plays on without them. The same as when a player receives treatment, then has to go off the pitch and wait for the ref to wave them back on.
Such a simple solution, which inconvenience nobody."


Both sides have to agree to it, both sides benefit from the break, and the referee deliberately blows for the break in play when nothing of note is happening.

Your "solution" means that teams have to play on without multiple players, so it clearly inconveniences somebody.

Burnley would have had to play with 8 men on Friday under your rule if they'd wanted to break their fast at the earliest opportunity.

Or they'd have had to stagger it and have multiple instances of playing a man down, including their goalkeeper.

 

[festa5]

They'll presumably have had a drink/food at 6am or before, before sunrise, and 3pm is a lot closer to that period than 8pm.

It's another 5 hours without food or water, and they can break the fast in the second instance.

While that's true they'll be losing a lot of fluids during the game. I'm guessing they'll be more dehydrated at half time in a 3pm match than they will be at 8pm ahead of an evening kick off.

Plus they'll have had the chance to get water on board just before kick off given the time of sunset.

 

[TeaCider]

While that's true they'll be losing a lot of fluids during the game. I'm guessing they'll be more dehydrated at half time in a 3pm match than they will be at 8pm ahead of an evening kick off.

Plus they'll have had the chance to get water on board just before kick off given the time of sunset.

It's a voluntary measure introduced through the whole month of Ramadan, and sunset gets later and later as the month goes on.

For instance, sunset will be at 20:19 on the last day of Ramadan in Middlesbrough.

Many of the night matches will kick off at 19:45 throughout this month.

I suppose on Friday the players could have had a drink whilst waiting in the tunnel just before kick-off, if they're going off the Google definition of sunset and the exact minute it happens.
But that's only because we kicked off at 8pm and clearly both sides were happy for the break to occur.

 

[Keelo]

Skipped most posts and it was only when I looked on here just now that I've found out what the break was for.....no one round me had a clue and I never heard any booing either....but thanks for clearing another mystery up

 

[The_Tiler]

"Breaks up the play, managers will use to talk to players about tactics etc. We have enough stoppages in play already.

If players want a break, as I said earlier, they can go off the pitch but their team plays on without them. The same as when a player receives treatment, then has to go off the pitch and wait for the ref to wave them back on.
Such a simple solution, which inconvenience nobody."


Both sides have to agree to it, both sides benefit from the break, and the referee deliberately blows for the break in play when nothing of note is happening.

Your "solution" means that teams have to play on without multiple players, so it clearly inconveniences somebody.

Burnley would have had to play with 8 men on Friday under your rule if they'd wanted to break their fast at the earliest opportunity.

Or they'd have had to stagger it and have multiple instances of playing a man down, including their goalkeeper.

Yes, that is what they would have to do. The goalkeeper situation will be different, he could have a bottle of water behind the goal, erm, just like now.

I still think its a simple solution.

Im going to watch the Liverpool game today and see how Mo Salah gets on, if he plays.

 

[BoroMart]

And hence how are we so sure the drinks break was for fast breaking purposes?

It already been confirmed that it was an organised break to help with people fasting for Ramadan.

What we now see with full facts in view is the fasting player could have refuelled prior to kick off so there was no need to do so.

On top of that any player fasting should take the consequences of that fast on his shoulders alone.

 

[Greaseman]

Skipped most posts and it was only when I looked on here just now that I've found out what the break was for.....no one round me had a clue and I never heard any booing either....but thanks for clearing another mystery up

The fmttm saints have already deemed Boro fans as racist. Myself, I should get out more

 

[BoroMart]

I think you’re clutching at straws. I really do. A mountain out of a mole hill. I doubt it made the blindest bit of difference to the result. But even if it did I’d still be saying the same thing. If we have to have players missing to win then maybe we don’t deserve to win.

That’s your opinion and you should show respect that in my opinion and scrote’s opinion and I’m assuming others, that you are simply underplaying the problem which is multi-faceted and complex. That break may have allowed Konpany to pass information to certain players that tactically tweaked and nullified our getting the ball into dangerous positions. Without this break and tactical change we would have continued to cause them problems and possibly score. Who knows it isn’t beyond possibilities.

To conclude this discussion you want to give small concessions to minorities in a professional sport, to help inclusivity.

My view is that, although I’m supportive of inclusivity, I don’t want to make concessions in professional sport for any minority group. It’s the professional game and allowing one minority group influence will allow other minorities to start pushing for change and it’ll be chaos. On top of that the break on this case was not necessary anyway. And furthermore a religious fasting is for the individuals shoulders alone, any outside support to make fasting easier is lessoning the act itself.

That’s where we are Bob, neither of us are going to move from that position, that doesn’t make either of us lessor people.

 

[BoroMart]

They'll presumably have had a drink/food at 6am or before, before sunrise, and 3pm is a lot closer to that period than 8pm.

It's another 5 hours without food or water, and they can break the fast in the second instance.

Sunset was 7:52. They had 8mins prior to kick off for water and an energy bar. So there was no need for a break. They could then refuel again at 8:45ish

 

[BobendBert]

The fmttm saints have already deemed Boro fans as racist. Myself, I should get out more

No, just the ones booing and using racist slurs. So not everyone.

That’s your opinion and you should show respect that in my opinion and Scrooge’s opinion and I’m assuming others, that you are simply underplaying the problem which is multi-faceted and complex. That break may have allowed Konpany to pass information to certain players that tactically tweaked and nullified our getting the ball into dangerous positions. Without this break and tactical change we would have continued to cause them problems and possibly score. Who knows it isn’t beyond possibilities.

I think I’ve been respectful throughout. I’ve enjoyed the debate. It’s not behind possibilities but it’s also very very fanciful. Do you not think that Kompany could get those instructions on to field without a drinks break? They do it constantly both in breaks of play and when in play. They don’t need a drinks break to do it.

To conclude this discussion you want to give small concessions to minorities in a professional sport, to help inclusivity.

Yes, I do.

My view is that, although I’m supportive of inclusivity, I don’t want to make concessions in professional sport for any minority group. It’s the professional game and allowing one minority group influence will allow other minorities to start pushing for change and it’ll be chaos. On top of that the break on this case was not necessary anyway. And furthermore a religious fasting is for the individuals shoulders alone, any outside support to make fasting easier is lessoning the act itself.

So you think that one month of the year giving 2 mins so that players can have a drink is a slippery slope to chaos?

You’re open to inclusivity as long as (a) it doesn’t interfere with the game, (b) doesn’t give away a remote possibility of advantage to a team and (c) doesn’t give way to a tidal wave of other interferences in the name of religion?

I don’t agree that it wasn’t necessary. It’s possible that the precise time of sunset was before 8pm but in advance a prediction isn’t 100% accurate and it is a major sin. Typically in this country 8pm is taken as the cut off, which is when the match kicked off. To be safe the break is 25 mins later. For certainty.

What about if it were for asthma? What if that was the reason for the break ie so that a few players could have their inhaler? any objection then?

That’s where we are Bob, neither of us are going to move from that position, that doesn’t make either of us lessor people.

I don’t think I’ve suggested it does have I?

 

[Scrote]

To conclude this discussion you want to give small concessions to minorities in a professional sport, to help inclusivity.

Yes, I do.

Where would you draw the line or do you think it should it be a free-for-all?




Cutural tolerance gone mad

 

[BobendBert]

Where would you draw the line or do you think it should it be a free-for-all?



View attachment 55864
Cutural tolerance gone mad

I’d draw it where it goes beyond something simple like a 2 minute drinks break.

 

[TeaCider]

Sunset was 7:52. They had 8mins prior to kick off for water and an energy bar. So there was no need for a break. They could then refuel again at 8:45ish

8 minutes prior if they break it immediately on the internet definition of sunset, whilst the team are preparing for the match and/or waiting in the tunnel.

And that's on the 7th of April at an 8pm kick-off.

Ramadan runs till the 21st of April this year, and most evening matches will be ongoing already at the exact moment of sunset.

It's something that's been requested by many players in many leagues this year, it hurts nobody.

It will have been requested by the Burnley players impacted.

I suppose they could include the clause "If sunset is a minute before kick-off, you're not allowed to break your fast during play", or they could just have a harmless break during the match and show inclusivity.