Guest Ed Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Referee's decision causes Nepean Hotspurs to withdraw team from inoddor tourney. Similar to an outdoor tournament incident in BC a couple of years ago when a young Calgary Sikh showed up with some non-standard head gear and caused a bit of a kerfuffle. See story at Canoe.ca http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02/26/3668019-sun.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Yeah, seen that on the CBC last night. Tough one. Curious to know the CSA's "official" policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The CSA policy? You're serious here? http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070226/CPACTUALITES0203/70226156/6488/CPACTUALITES Quebec Prime Minister gave his opinion on the story, saying he understands the ref decision and that it's in harmony with the FIFA rules. He also mentionned that he played soccer when he was younger. I don't think Charest would've normaly gave his opinion on this but with the Herouxville stuff and "accomodements raisonnables" debate, he had to do it to mark a few points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by loyola The CSA policy? You're serious here? http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070226/CPACTUALITES0203/70226156/6488/CPACTUALITES Quebec Prime Minister gave his opinion on the story, saying he understands the ref decision and that it's in harmony with the FIFA rules. He also mentionned that he played soccer when he was younger. I don't think Charest would've normaly gave his opinion on this but with the Herouxville stuff and "accomodements raisonnables" debate, he had to do it to mark a few points. Stupid decision by the local authorities. How in hell can a hijab potentially injure someone? There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law. Two difft things. She had already played two games in the tournament with no apparent issues. Did some some opposition coach looking for an 'edge' get the ref to pursue action? A similar incident in BC (2 years ago?) had a Calgary team withdraw as a ref would not allow a young Sikh to play with his headwrap. BTW, Charest's 'faux' perm is more offensive than any cloth covering I've seen, so he is in no position to make a statement like that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowsoccer Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I agree 100% with the refs. Its Nepean's loss. <mod>Please keep posts related to soccer in some way</mod> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Sounds like Jacques Parizeau has a 'comrade in arms' here. Who is 'THEY' and who is 'US'? I'm a WASP but I'm afraid I don't share your spectacularily ignorant views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks fan Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 That's absolutely ridiculous. If you look at the picture in the article, how could that possibly hurt anyone? If anything, I think it would offer more protection (padding) in a head on head collision. I've seen players wear casts on their arms, and those rugby helmets (because of previous head injuries) and those could cause way more harm to someone else. And let's not forget, we're talking about an 11 year old girl here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The referee and tournament coordinators simply made a technical equipment decision, and applied the rules they have been licensed to enforce. Licensed, as in legally and contractually. If it was a too-large shinpad, no one would care. There is a right and wrong way to deal with issues like this. This would be the latter. p.s. the withdrawing teams had been eliminated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The Quebec Soccer Federation's technical co-ordinator, Valmie Ouellet, said referees were following Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) law number four. "There's a rule about headgear, where you're not to wear anything on your head," she said, adding a scarf could get caught on another player and choke the scarf-wearer's neck. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2007/02/26/hijab.html Certainly special dispensation is required for the wearing of any headgear but it usually applies to protective gear. I think the coach, who was obviously aware this player wore her hijab to play, would have been wise to have sought a ruling in advance from the tournament organisers or the Quebec federation. Not doing so simply invites difficulty or might even have been deliberately provocative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Perfect Richard. 10 out of 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Richard The Quebec Soccer Federation's technical co-ordinator, Valmie Ouellet, said referees were following Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) law number four. "There's a rule about headgear, where you're not to wear anything on your head," she said, adding a scarf could get caught on another player and choke the scarf-wearer's neck. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2007/02/26/hijab.html Certainly special dispensation is required for the wearing of any headgear but it usually applies to protective gear. I think the coach, who was obviously aware this player wore her hijab to play, would have been wise to have sought a ruling in advance from the tournament organisers or the Quebec federation. Not doing so simply invites difficulty or might even have been deliberately provocative. Deliberately provocative? LOL Richard, you are a soccer bureaucrat's wet dream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I said 'might even have been deliberately provocative', it might equally have been pure negligence. Gordon, do you know for a fact that it was not deliberately provocative or are you too blowing hot air like so many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I think the decision is correct. My question is: we're in late February and this girl only got her first warning this weekend, was she allowed to play with it in Ottawa? That might've been the problem for her and her coach. If she's never received a warning for it, the team and familly surprise can be understandable. Maybe the fact that she's playing U-11 or U-12 and that she always had younger inexeperienced refs helped her slipping under the rules. Too bad this situation blew out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 So now the coach of 11 YEAR OLD GIRLS might have been 'deliberately provocative'? This type of over administration kills the game here in Canada. Telling 11 yr olds they can't play because they are wearing head covering cannot be explained to me as justifiable by any means. Did the QSF miss the boat when the controversy of the young Sikh hit the news a couple of years ago. It just makes the soccer authorities look like bureaucratic twats. There's not a damn thing that is for the good of the game about this action. As for the potential injuries, Valmie Ouellet's statement is ludricrous. She would be just as technically correct in banning any girl with longer than shoulder length hair from the field, for exactly the same BS logic. A hijab is far from a weapon of mass distruction when wielded by a 11 year old girl. The only thing out of proportion about this incident is the lack of common sense on the part of the referee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Richard I said 'might even have been deliberately provocative', it might equally have been pure negligence. Gordon, do you know for a fact that it was not deliberately provocative or are you too blowing hot air like so many others. I know that on the balance of probabilities a 12 year old girl playing soccer all season and sliding through the first day of the tournament wearing a hajib is almost certainly just a 12 year old girl playing soccer and not making a political statement. I wouldn't use the word "negligence" either Richard. Words that Jump to mind for me in describing this are "petty" and "officious". We see this sort of bull**** in all sports as dumbasses such as the ref in question take themselves way to seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Richard I said 'might even have been deliberately provocative', it might equally have been pure negligence. Gordon, do you know for a fact that it was not deliberately provocative or are you too blowing hot air like so many others. Suggesting the young girl or her coach 'might have been deliberately provocative' is the only comment in this thread that I personally would label 'blowing hot air'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 The referee is simply applying the rules he has been given. And if you don't like FIFA's rules, or take personal, religious or moral offense, don't shoot the messenger, write a letter to Sepp Blatter. (i.e. the ref is the lowest official in the foodchain). I applaud his fastidiousness. If any change comes of this, it's not because of the team that pulled out, it's because he had the guts to stick to the rules, as he's paid to do. And had he not been Muslim, he probably would have been shamed into never doing another game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Would anyone mind posting the exact wording of the FIFA law that was applied in this case. It couldn't have been a blanket ban on all headgear. We've seen various headgears worn in games before: Clarence Seedorf's headband, Edgar Davids' goggles, Jason DeVos' bandages . And what about those Full 90 things the women were wearing in the 2003 WWC? I'm curious what kind of wording FIFA might have used that would permit all of that but exclude a hijab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 You can read Law 4 on the FIFA website, it is even quoted word for word as a sidebar in the CBC article linked above. Any headgear, bandages, spectacles, arm and leg braces - anything that might pose a risk of injury to the wearer or other players - can only be worn on the field by explicit consent, first of the referee and then up through the normal channels. If the referee consents without confirmation from his superiors on the day then he shares in the liability for any injuries that might result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan68 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 No racism here, not with a Muslim referee, but let's show a little common sense. Two Sikh players who played on a youth team with my son for five years in Winnipeg always wore their patka at practices and games and to my knowledge there was never any question about there right to do so. The refs also allowed toques in cold weather. Let's just face it, the ref blew the call, just like they sometimes don't get the offside call right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 If the ref blew the call, I doubt very much the Premier of Quebec would have been advised to support the decision. It is clearly a very contentious issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Vic If the ref blew the call, I doubt very much the Premier of Quebec would have been advised to support the decision. It is clearly a very contentious issue. Charest supported the decision because the population thought he was soft in the "accomodements raisonnables" debate. So he took that opportunity to react quickly. As for players wearing toque when it's cold, the permission is given to all players it's not an exception, I don't think it was the right analogy. The unfair thing in this story is that a young ref (doesn't really matter how old he is) had to take a decision base on FIFA rules and some principles like freedom of religion. I'm not even sure what a court of law would say about this one since the rules are from FIFA and not the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Keeper Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Its an odd call to me. Most of the Arab womens national teams play in exactly the same head dresses. These are in FIFA sanctioned tournaments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Did you find proof of that? I went looking the other day and couldn't find anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.