UK: linguistic hygiene on the football field

[Harold Schiffman]

Hard to impose football rules you can swear by
By Jim White
Last Updated: 1:04am GMT 13/03/2008


Mike Amos is not happy. The news he has just received might well have
reduced a lesser man to spout a torrent of industrial language. "I
don't know about swearing," says Mr Amos. "But I could literally
weep." Turning the air blue, however, would not have been the most
appropriate response from a man who is leading a campaign against the
rising tide of expletives currently washing through football. As
chairman of the Arngrove Northern League, Amos decided that from next
season his organisation would institute a policy of zero tolerance on
swearing. He instructed his referees to flourish a red card at the
first hint of effing, blinding, or any other variety of cussing by
players. From then on, he insisted, the only colourful language in the
league was to be that enshrined in the names of participating clubs
such as West Allotment Celtic, Billingham Synthonia and Newcastle
Benfield Bay Plastics. This was not a campaign. For Mr Amos it was a
crusade. "A lot of families have stopped coming to games in the
non-League because of the foul and abusive language they hear from the
players," he says.

Everything was in place for his experiment, clubs had been alerted,
players warned. And then the Football Association intervened. The
organisation told the Northern League not to proceed with their
unilateral clean-up. The FA was in the midst of a pilot study on
behavioural issues in the game and "in the interests of uniformity"
did not want anyone breaking ranks before the best way of proceeding
had been worked through. Mr Amos was incandescent. "It's yet another
kick in the teeth to the game at our level from the very people who
are supposed to promote and safeguard it," he says. It makes for an
arresting headline: FA gives red card to anti-swearing initiative. But
it isn't quite as simple as Mr Amos maintains. It is not as if the FA
is ignoring the many problems of behaviour that stalk the game. At
Soho Square they are acutely aware of the corrosive effect of
everything from abusive parents in junior matches to abusive
millionaires in the Premier League. In fact, the organisation is doing
something about it. Right now, it is six weeks into a 10-week pilot
project that is testing several measures which it hopes will make a
difference. One of them is borrowed - unashamedly - from rugby union.

The idea is that, during a game, only the team captain will be able to
address the referee. Other players cannot speak to him. If the ref
feels a player is getting too opinionated, he'll ask the captain to
deal with it and if he doesn't, the official will have the power to
flourish cards. After evaluating the results of the exercise, the FA
could introduce such a rule at every level of the game in the next
couple of seasons.

And such a measure would be much more workable than a blanket ban on
swearing. The trouble with Mr Amos's idea is not in the theory. We can
all agree the game would be better for a thorough deletion of its
expletives, even those nostalgic folk who argue that ripe language has
been there throughout football history (back in the Sixties the
sainted Bill Shankly, for instance, used swear words as the linguistic
glue to bind his every sentence). The difficulty is in the
enforcement. Does a player who swears involuntarily after being fouled
get sent off while the player who kicks him - but keeps his lip
buttoned - remains on the pitch?

Plus, in the Premiership, would it not militate unfairly against the
English players? They would be the ones getting the cards while the
filthy French, revolting Russian and potty-mouthed Portuguese
continued cussing. Besides, referees do have the power already to
dismiss players for foul and abusive language if it is directed at
them. The pity is they don't enforce it often enough. A few
judiciously shown reds might well be deprive us of the sight of John
Terry in action. But it would encourage everyone else to start
expanding their somewhat limited vocabulary.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2008/03/13/sfnjim113.xml

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************