• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

O/T Let's kick racism out of football...?

I

Icelander

Nico Claesen
So, we had an ugly incident the other day in a youth match(Approx. 15 & 16 year olds) here in Iceland. A player from Team A called a black player from Team B a "fu**ing ni**er sh*t". Naturally, player B lost it and attacked player A, repeatedly punching him in the face and head, also landing punches and kicks once player A had fallen to the ground before the red and other players finally managed to separate them.

The ref filed a report and our federation's disciplinary committee reviewed the incident, coming to the conclusion that player B was banned for 6 competitive matches whilst player A "only" got 3. The media caught wind of this and people are furious about the fact that player A only got 3 matches whilst player B who was "only defending" himself got 6 (Myself included).

So I want to ask you, is this fair or unfair? Does a provocation like this deserve a violent response or should violence on the pitch always get a higher penalty? Is violence worse than racism?
 
Doesn't sound like he was just defending himself if he carried on kicking him whilst he was down!!!

But to answer your question player A should no longer be invited to represent his team or his league. End of.
 
Both incidents need to be condemned but it always infuriates me how in some cases verbally assaulting someone is deemed more serious than physically assaulting someone. Sticks and stones and all that....
 
I'm sorry, but if someone called me a dirty Jew or something, I'd probably react similarly
 
COYS said:
I'm sorry, but if someone called me a dirty Jew or something, I'd probably react similarly
Click to expand...

I was in Canada recently and ended up in a minor altercation with a Canadian gentleman who kept calling me a "Limey Bastard". I thought it was quite funny, especially as he kept saying it more and more aggressively as if he thought I'd be offended by someone calling me a name or by insulting my nationality or heritage. But I'd have been justified beating the brick out of him and kicking him whilst he was on the floor? I think not. Although it may have been apt considering the "debate" was over whether Lennox Lewis was Canadian or English 8-[
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
I was in Canada recently and ended up in a minor altercation with a Canadian gentleman who kept calling me a "Limey Bastard". I thought it was quite funny, especially as he kept saying it more and more aggressively as if he thought I'd be offended by someone calling me a name or by insulting my nationality or heritage. But I'd have been justified beating the brick out of him and kicking him whilst he was on the floor? I think not. Although it may have been apt considering the "debate" was over whether Lennox Lewis was Canadian or English 8-[
Click to expand...

It's different when it's religion/race
 
COYS said:
It's different when it's religion/race
Click to expand...

That's because we're brainwashed into believing that. Prejudice is bad no matter the circumstances, but in most cases it doesn't even exist. People just go a little OTT when worked up and say silly things. I certainly think religion is a LOT lower down the pile than race or nationality in what should be deemed as being insulted.....
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
That's because we're brainwashed into believing that. Prejudice is bad no matter the circumstances, but in most cases it doesn't even exist. People just go a little OTT when worked up and say silly things. I certainly think religion is a LOT lower down the pile than race or nationality in what should be deemed as being insulted.....
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because I'm brought up in more of a world of more people hating Jews than British people
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
Both incidents need to be condemned but it always infuriates me how in some cases verbally assaulting someone is deemed more serious than physically assaulting someone. Sticks and stones and all that....
Click to expand...

Tend to agree with this, any form of racism is totally wrong but sometimes too much is made of name calling.
 
Icelander said:
So, we had an ugly incident the other day in a youth match(Approx. 15 & 16 year olds) here in Iceland. A player from Team A called a black player from Team B a "fu**ing ni**er sh*t". Naturally, player B lost it and attacked player A, repeatedly punching him in the face and head, also landing punches and kicks once player A had fallen to the ground before the red and other players finally managed to separate them.

The ref filed a report and our federation's disciplinary committee reviewed the incident, coming to the conclusion that player B was banned for 6 competitive matches whilst player A "only" got 3. The media caught wind of this and people are furious about the fact that player A only got 3 matches whilst player B who was "only defending" himself got 6 (Myself included).

So I want to ask you, is this fair or unfair? Does a provocation like this deserve a violent response or should violence on the pitch always get a higher penalty? Is violence worse than racism?
Click to expand...

Yes violence is worse than this racist incident (there are different levels of racism). A verbal racist incident, while being an unpleasant thing to do, is unlikely to cause long term damage or cause the guy any pain. I mean I have been called a white **** and apart from laughing it had no other effect on my life.

This guy has decided to punch and kick, this will cause pain and long term damage. Also he was under no threat when he did it, attacking someone for some name calling is not self defence. Attacking someone trying to attack you is.
 
If you cross the line racially or even abusing someone on the street without provocation then you get what's coming to you - tough.
 
I think he was within his rights to react but he crossed the line by continuing to kick the brick out of him once he was on the ground. He deserves a ban but as others have said the guy who made the racist remarks should be banned for a year.
 
one slur...one tooth. should have stopped once that icelandic brick hit the ground. oh crap. sorry icelander.
 
Roy1983 said:
Condoning violence is not the way forward.
Click to expand...

Neither is condoning verbal abuse, or use of what every man and his dog knows is deemed inappropriate against someone you don't know without repercussion. Not that Papercut did so either, you simply interpreted "what's coming to you" as physical violence.
 
SubZero said:
Neither is condoning verbal abuse, or use of what every man and his dog knows is deemed inappropriate against someone you don't know without repercussion. Not that Papercut did so either, you simply interpreted "what's coming to you" as physical violence.
Click to expand...

That's the only way 'what's coming to you' can be interpreted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back