PSG v IB abandoned

Isn’t this precisely the same as the incident for which Suarez got a nine match ban from the FA for using the same/similar word to Patrice Evra?

That was back in 2011, so I can’t quite understand people who are saying the 4th official has done nothing wrong. I agree he should be educated rather than punished though.
 
I can't understand how europeans with a word for black that is a derivative from the latin 'nigreos' are not aware that it is a dangerous word to use. I mean a UEFA official ref must be fairly worldly wise, and know this. I barely speak any spanish but I am acutely uncomfortable using the spanish word for black even in innocuous circumstances like talking about a black car or horse or anything. Surely anyone from these countries that travels knows not to call anyone black.
 
I am bald, if someone had to point me out in a group of men with hair then they would say the bald one, fair enough, it is what describes the difference between me and the others in the quickest way. If there was one white man in a group of black man, likewise describing that man as the white man would be the obvious thing to do. Same with a single black man in a group of white men? If he said that baldy b*st*rd then that would be offensive to me and would be baldist. Likewise if he said that f*ck*n black b*st&rd then that would be racist. But describing someone as black, how is that racist?
 
bigbob said:
I am bald, if someone had to point me out in a group of men with hair then they would say the bald one, fair enough, it is what describes the difference between me and the others in the quickest way. If there was one white man in a group of black man, likewise describing that man as the white man would be the obvious thing to do. Same with a single black man in a group of white men? If he said that baldy b*st*rd then that would be offensive to me and would be baldist. Likewise if he said that f*ck*n black b*st&rd then that would be racist. But describing someone as black, how is that racist?
Click to expand...
Thing is though mate, your hairstyle is your decision, a black person doesn't chose to be black. How do you want to be defined in your life? By your character and life choices, or by an accident of birth?
 
BoroMart said:
exactly, he could easily have said 'the bald coach', but he didn't
Click to expand...
He wasn't singling someone out because of his skin colour, that would be to suggest that he wanted him booking because of his skin colour. He was merely describing the person in the quickest and most obvious way and there is nothing wrong with that.
If you see an incident on the street involving one of a group of kids who's thrown a brick through a window, how would you describe him?
The one in the dark hoodie? That's all of them.
The one in jeans? That's all of them
Levis? Five of them.
Adidas trainers? Four of them.
The black lad? Yeah that's him.
Conversely what if it was the only white lad in the group? You certainly wouldn't refrain from referring to him as the white lad, and you wouldn't be singling him out simply for his colour, but as the one who threw the brick through the window.

When you look at a photograph of the incident they are all dressed the same. Black quilted jackets, black tracksuit bottoms etc. There is absolutely no need to skirt around the fact that one of them is black by calling him the bald one.
 
Being bald is my decision, I don't think so. How do you figure that one out? Lost my hair in my twenties, wasn't happy about it at all and felt self conscious about it for years. So you making that assumption of me is a bit strange. But I am bald so being described as bald is just fact. If you are black then you are black, same as white, hispanic, asian, ginger, small, tall, small whatever. Its if that word is used in a negative sense then that is discriminatory but as a a description to describe someone, I just don't get it.
 
American_Mary said:
My first impression was that it was a mishearing of the Romanian word for black that caused the incident, players on both benches reacted and walked off, I think both teams accepted that explanation hence they were willing to continue the match with a replacement 4th official, I abhor racism and prejudice of any kind but using ethnicity as an identifier to me is not racist and my feeling is that in this instance the 4th official was not being racist, perhaps my view is naive and because I carry no prejudice myself I don’t see the negative connotations that these words may carry and I’m happy to be educated if I have this wrong.
Click to expand...
It’s very difficult I have no doubt the linesman had no racist intent. I think in these times he would be better advised to use another identifying factor like the players number or name if he is aware of it. The other week when the FA chairman used coloured to describe black players was widely condemned. We were told that black players is correct Language, however that is when describing as a group. In this instance to identify someone this way is not acceptable and I think amplified by language differences - the Romanian for black negru is akin to negro and the negative connotations associated with that. Probably need further work in this area as to what is and is not correct terminology because as we saw last night it is easy to make a mistake and the fact we have five pages of debate in this thread just highlights how confusing this are can be. My view of this incident is in no way apologising for racist behaviour.
 
Just watching the BBC news it seems like an open and shut case in that it is racism. Full investigation to be held so I expect the guy may lose his job.
 
FatCat said:
Just watching the BBC news it seems like an open and shut case in that it is racism. Full investigation to be held so I expect the guy may lose his job.
Click to expand...
Out of interest
How do you conclude 'I have no doubt the linesman had no racist intent'?
What do you know about him and his views?
 
"Being bald is a lifestyle choice"

Ive read some stupid things on this board but that tops the lot!
 
1finny said:
Out of interest
How do you conclude 'I have no doubt the linesman had no racist intent'?
What do you know about him and his views?
Click to expand...
It’s a reasonable challenge - I guess because I assume he’s not stupid enough to have trained to be a linesman only to throw it all away in front of a televised audience of millions. I would expect there is a wealth of training and guidelines on racism that is drummed into officials. He also looks very shocked.If he was purposely racist and as you point out he could be then he is very stupid. However my comments are based on the balance of probabilities and I genuinely believe he was not purposely being racist.
 
FatCat said:
It’s a reasonable challenge - I guess because I assume he’s not stupid enough to have trained to be a linesman only to throw it all away in front of a televised audience of millions. I would expect there is a wealth of training and guidelines on racism that is drummed into officials. He also looks very shocked.If he was purposely racist and as you point out he could be then he is very stupid. However my comments are based on the balance of probabilities and I genuinely believe he was not purposely being racist.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response - I get where you are coming from and ‘balance of probabilities’ is a lovely phrase.
I’m going to hang on to that one.....
 
BoroMart said:
I can't understand how europeans with a word for black that is a derivative from the latin 'nigreos' are not aware that it is a dangerous word to use. I mean a UEFA official ref must be fairly worldly wise, and know this. I barely speak any spanish but I am acutely uncomfortable using the spanish word for black even in innocuous circumstances like talking about a black car or horse or anything. Surely anyone from these countries that travels knows not to call anyone black.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this why would they have to adapt their own language? I understand where the confusion comes from but its basically because in any of the romance languages the word Black SOUNDS like the n word. Not that it is the n word or a synonym for it. That's where I think the confusion has arisen. I'm aware there is a bigger debate of whether you can call a person of colour "black". For my part I don't see anything wrong with it. Nor do I see anything wrong with calling a pale skinned person "white " although it has to be said, calling someone form the Indian subcontinent "brown" or from the far East "yellow" does sound racist to me. For that reason I can understand why people think using the word black has racist undertones but I just don't see it that way. Neither do any of the persons of colour that I know .
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
He wasn't singling someone out because of his skin colour, that would be to suggest that he wanted him booking because of his skin colour. He was merely describing the person in the quickest and most obvious way and there is nothing wrong with that.
If you see an incident on the street involving one of a group of kids who's thrown a brick through a window, how would you describe him?
The one in the dark hoodie? That's all of them.
The one in jeans? That's all of them
Levis? Five of them.
Adidas trainers? Four of them.
The black lad? Yeah that's him.
Conversely what if it was the only white lad in the group? You certainly wouldn't refrain from referring to him as the white lad, and you wouldn't be singling him out simply for his colour, but as the one who threw the brick through the window.

When you look at a photograph of the incident they are all dressed the same. Black quilted jackets, black tracksuit bottoms etc. There is absolutely no need to skirt around the fact that one of them is black by calling him the bald one.
Click to expand...

He already singled him out in the simplest and fastest way by pointing at him, the added reference to the colour of his skin was completely redundant and did nothing to aid finding his identity.

This is a football match we are talking about here, not some kind of time critical scenario.

The fourth official is in his place of work and should be more than up to speed with professional standards. Using the colour of someone's skin as a first identifying feature shows a level of prejudice, intentional or not.

If someone came into an office for a meeting and the receptionist said the same thing, it would be equally unacceptable and racially prejudice in nature.

Educating the fourth official on the appropriate way of dealing with this scenario implies that some kind of training is not taking place to avoid UEFA in breaching its own zero tolerance stance. I doubt this is case.
 
I'm now hearing conflicting reports apparently he didn't say 'n' word and John Barnes has actually backed the 4th official.

I guess if nothing else it highlights the importance of having open dialogue about these issues.
 
Chris_Boro said:
If someone came into an office for a meeting and the receptionist said the same thing, it would be equally unacceptable and racially prejudice in nature.
Click to expand...

Its not an office though is it? Its on a football pitch where tensions are high and the adrenaline is pumping.

Its in front of millions on the TV so the pressure is on to make the right decision. With all due respect I don't think anyone on here knows what was going through the officials mind. That hasnt stopped the guilty until proven innocent crowd though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top