It was a shocking decision. So inconclusive it should never been seen as clear and obvious.
Oh dear. I’m devastated.
I know but I wondered who was responsible for it. I assume the FA are if so they are delivering an inferior product.
Perhaps it would be better that it was phrased better.
"Bald prick" according to amateur lipreaders. There may have been a "bellend" involved somewhere in the discussion too.
Maupay's was after the final whistle.
Starlizard Integrity has contracts with La Liga and several other leagues but not the EPL. Maybe another algorithm-driven integrity business is working with the EPL but I suspect not because, well, it's the EPL.
and if her first response was" I have done this many times before when walking to school with and you have never told me off, so why are you only doing it this one time? Are you a bald prick in disguise"?
It looks like the rule has been arbitrarily tightened by Taylor on a one-off basis, because it wasn't tightened in the Everton or Villa matches this weekend.. If PGMOL or IFAB is going to change the accepted standard for punishing foul and abusive language (after 15 years of precedence where they ignored it) then, as with their changes to offside and their short-lived crackdown on delaying free-kicks, they should announce it publicly and enforce it rigorously.
Hopefully it is happening even as a precaution. Given the amount of previous soccer has in terms of match fixing it would be a good idea to do. Just like having a smoke alarm or CO alarm. It doesn't mean the house is on fire, but it gives you an early warning IF something bad happens and you can correct it before it gets too bad. It also acts as a deterrent.
Think this is it, whatever was said. A non-directed ‘FFS’ as you walk away or similar is very common, but actually directing a personal (abusive) comment at the ref much less so.Not sure I should be making any comment on what ‘amateur lip readers’ say he said but if true I would think that constitutes personal abusive remarks directed at the ref which is completely unacceptable imo and deserved an instant sending off.
Is this a subjective thing? I happen to think ‘fcuk off!’ is far less offensive than calling someone something that reflects a characteristic of their physical appearance or a private body part - that’s a big ‘NO’ for me but I am a little embarrassed to say in front of any snowflakes that might be hovering around here, ‘oh FCUK!‘ is my go to when something bad happens ( from spilling a cup of coffee to accidentally deleting something on the computer) - ‘Oh fcuk off’ is what I say to mates sometimes in a joking way - I scream ‘FCUK OFF!! ‘ at customer service chatbots that have me going round in circles or when going through endless options to speak to the right department on the phone - I say ‘fcuk’ far too often
(‘Bellend’ doesn’t bother me either)
Most of the discussion on this thread is about the (lack of) consistency. Using foul or abusive language directly to a ref is a red card offence. Fine, no problem. If what Dunk said is foul and abusive language then the red card is justified. Apply the rule consistently. I absolutely refuse to accept that only one player in the EPL has used foul and sbusive language towards a referee during a match in the last 15 years.Not sure I should be making any comment on what ‘amateur lip readers’ say he said but if true I would think that constitutes personal abusive remarks directed at the ref which is completely unacceptable imo and deserved an instant sending off.
Is this a subjective thing? I happen to think ‘fcuk off!’ is far less offensive than calling someone something that reflects a characteristic of their physical appearance or a private body part - that’s a big ‘NO’ for me but I am a little embarrassed to say in front of any snowflakes that might be hovering around here, ‘oh FCUK!‘ is my go to when something bad happens ( from spilling a cup of coffee to accidentally deleting something on the computer) - ‘Oh fcuk off’ is what I say to mates sometimes in a joking way - I scream ‘FCUK OFF!! ‘ at customer service chatbots that have me going round in circles or when going through endless options to speak to the right department on the phone - I say ‘fcuk’ far too often
(‘Bellend’ doesn’t bother me either)
I think you're just going to have to accept that there isn't consistency in this one. Cards for dissent and foul and abusive language are completely subjective and context-dependent, and maybe that's just fine. Dunks timing, words, manner of delivery and the match context all conspired against him in Taylors mind in that moment. Its not just the words - everyone is getting hung up on 'swearing being a red card' but there's way more nuance to it than just the words.
Yes, exactly my point.
Yes
There is a difference between foul language and abusive language. ‘Foul’ language is more related to the actual words per se and the subjective response of the recipient - that’s where the lines can get blurred as what constitutes an OFFINABUS- ‘Abusive’ language, on the other hand (for which Dunk was apparently guilty) is directional and done to intentionally harm the recipient and is often relating to personal characteristics - you can be abusive without using foul language.
Well to do so would be a little ridiculous as nearly all of us have pointed out - clearly times have changed
It is foul language but it may not be abusive - it would depend on how it was said and the intention behind the words BUT this is actually not what was said anyway by all accounts so it is a moot point
No probably not but it might result in a YC and an IFK - the same if it was between two players
No - it is the opinion of the referee that matters - as to whether he deems language is abusive, insulting or offensive and whether he wants to enforce the rules - the OFFINABUS rules are already in place - they are not an ‘opinion’
The standard is set in the rules - but clearly it has not been enforced and players have got away with it for years - I can only imagine either Taylor was particularly sensitised to being insulted or Dunk said something pretty shocking. It is unfortunate that Dunk has been made an early example of how the FA have initiated a crackdown this season on criticism of referees although they have been ‘cracking down on it for years’ - this season, perhaps with more fervour?
