Racism in (BC) Soccer?

[Keeper]

Tonight's news had a bit about a Calgary U-17 player who was told by a Langley Tournament ref that he must remove his turban (in addition to any jewelry, etc). Apparently he swore at the ref during the disagreement, was told to leave the field and his teammates backed him up and defaulted the game.

The news report even went so far as to interview one of the tournament organizers who actually supported the ref by referring to a FIFA rule regarding wearing anything not directly related to a soccer uniform.

Should be in the paper (The Province) tommorrow.

Is this not the most absurd call in recent BC soccer? For God's sake, it's a U-17 tournament game -- how can a turban be dangerous to other players. And what rule was this organizer referring to?

It seems to me that this organizer was just blindly backing up a bad (and morally confused) ref without getting his facts straight first. Speaking of which, I'll be interested to hear more about this incident tomorrow and from anyone else who may have been there.

~Gettingthefactsstraightpiecebypiece.

P.S. On related matter, perhaps the kid's parents should also have a word to the boy about swearing at a ref, adult, and authority figure (regardless of the ref's idiocy or not).

 

[Ankle Breaker]

I saw the story also and was shocked that the ref would not allow the kid to play with his turban.

Keeper, I agree that the kid should respect authority figures but I probably would have cursed the ref also. The turban is a religious article and having someone idiotic tell us that you are not allowed to play with it is absolutely shocking.

 

[cside17]

My boys U13 Gold team, got absolutely thumped yesterday by a Marpole team, about 90% of the kids were wearing headpieces. They aren't full turbans, but a smaller version, mandated by their religion to wear. The kid from Calgary on the news, had the same head piece. That tournament rep, looked a little uncomfortable on the news.

Hopefully BCSA comes down on the ref, and Langley youth soccer. I don"t Condone the kid swearing at him, but can understand his frustration.

He should have sworn in Punjabi, as the ref wouldn't have understood him

 

[Captain Shamrock]

I saw the story also and was shocked that the ref would not allow the kid to play with his turban.

Keeper, I agree that the kid should respect authority figures but I probably would have cursed the ref also. The turban is a religious article and having someone idiotic tell us that you are not allowed to play with it is absolutely shocking.

Agreed, but you have to wonder how religious the guy is to be dropping the 'few choice words' to the ref.......

It was disgraceful and old English fart who was interviewed was a right walloper. He was uncomfortable and for good reason.

 

[LSD]

This is a pretty pathetic story, clearly a case of a referee on a power trip.

On the news I also noticed that apparently the ref would not allow the kid to wear his religious bracelet either. This year I will have to wear a brace on my hand due to a previous surgery, and if a ref won't allow me to play, I might have a few choice words for him as well

 

[SC]

. That tournament rep, looked a little uncomfortable on the news.

Hopefully BCSA comes down on the ref, and Langley youth soccer. I don"t Condone the kid swearing at him, but can understand his frustration.

He should have sworn in Punjabi, as the ref wouldn't have understood him

Fcuken bullshite. I would love to grab that ref by the nuts and toss him a few yards. How ignorant could he be? I feel sorry for the young fellow and his mates for getting mixed up in this. My guess is that the fellow in question was the best player on the pitch and very noticable (probably the most skilled player). I hope they come back to BC to play one day...*** only knows he should be allowed to . I respect his teammates for packing things up and walking away from the tourney. Langley, the runner up most whitest place in BC

"...Let him play...let him play..."
+SCwhoserelativesliveinLangleyBC

 

[Demolition]

Turbaned player blocked from game
Ref says Williams Lake teen must choose between religion or game

Ethan Baron
The Province


Monday, September 05, 2005


Charges of racism and religious discrimination were flying at Langley soccer pitches yesterday, after referees prohibited a number of Sikh boys from playing while wearing turbans.

"It makes me feel like an outcast," said Gurmukh Aujla, 15, a player for a Williams Lake team in the Langley Labour Day Soccer Tournament.

Gurmukh, a midfielder, said he's dealt with racism before, but never on the soccer field. "It shouldn't be happening," he said.

His coaches Jim Tanis and Thor Carlson confronted the unidentified referee after the man told Gurmukh before the game that he couldn't wear his turban in the game.

"We said, 'This is a religious issue, it's cultural, you can't ask him to take it off,' " Carlson said.

"He said, '[Gurmukh] has to decide what's more important: His religion or the game.' "

When it became clear mid-way through the first half that the referee wouldn't relent, and after tournament officials declined to intervene, Gurmukh's team refused to go on playing.

"It's discrimination," said teammate Max Correia, 15. "It was unbelievable. Never heard of that before, never even thought that would happen."

Their opponents, a Vancouver-area team, in solidarity with the Williams Lake team forfeited the match.

They went on to play a "friendly" game, with Gurmukh on the field in his turban.

The Williams Lake team took the field for their second match of the day, against a team from 100 Mile House, wondering whether Gurmukh would be told to either doff his turban or be turfed.

The referee allowed him to play and, when asked why, said questions should be directed to the B.C. Soccer Association.

Tournament officials and referees say the B.C. Soccer Association last week issued a directive to referees that they should follow a new International Soccer Federation rule banning all headgear.

"Headgear includes turbans, baseball hats that goalies wear on a sunny day, toques," said tournament referee Ward Sirman.

But Sirman said he wouldn't have made an issue of Gurmukh's turban. "If he didn't have a knife in it, I'd let him play," Sirman said.

B.C. Soccer can expect problems, with many B.C. teams withdrawing from play, unless they change the rule, said Michael Smith, chairman of the Langley tournament.

"It's harsh, and I think it's probably illegal under the human rights of the Canadian constitution," Smith said.

"This, to me, I'm afraid, smacks of religious discrimination."

Several referees told Smith yesterday they'd uphold the turban ban.

"With the season starting in a couple of weeks, I am told they are going to enforce it to the letter," Smith said.

B.C. Soccer Association could not be reached for comment.

ebaron@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2005

........

 

[Keeper]

A few notable points in that article:

"He said, '[Gurmukh] has to decide what's more important: His religion or the game.' "

That's crazy. I can't even imagine someone suggesting something even remotely close to that sentiment.

Tournament officials and referees say the B.C. Soccer Association last week issued a directive to referees that they should follow a new International Soccer Federation rule banning all headgear.

"Headgear includes turbans, baseball hats that goalies wear on a sunny day, toques," said tournament referee Ward Sirman.

I've got to see if I can find this "rule". Baseball hats too? How many pro's have we seen do this?

B.C. Soccer can expect problems, with many B.C. teams withdrawing from play, unless they change the rule, said Michael Smith, chairman of the Langley tournament.

"It's harsh, and I think it's probably illegal under the human rights of the Canadian constitution," Smith said.

"This, to me, I'm afraid, smacks of religious discrimination."

Several referees told Smith yesterday they'd uphold the turban ban.

Sounds like there's a major disconnect between the refs and the tournament organizers. Who was the guy interviewed on TV last night? And do those "several referees" know the full details of the situation and what the player was wearing before they said they'd uphold the ban?

This is crazy.

P.S. It's funny how different this story is from the TV report as well. I distinctly remember Global saying it was a Calgary team, yet here its a Williams Lake team. Likewise, this report says a "number of Sikh boys" were prohibited from playing. I'd like to here about these other boys' experiences.

~Somebody'sgonnagetahurtrealbad

 

[Keeper]

From the 2005 FIFA Laws of the Game (July 2005):

LAW 4 – THE PLAYERS’ EQUIPMENT

Safety

A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).

Basic Equipment

The basic compulsory equipment of a player is:
• a jersey or shirt
• shorts – if thermal undershorts are worn, they are of the same main colour as the shorts
• stockings
• shinguards
• footwear

Shinguards

• are covered entirely by the stockings
• are made of a suitable material (rubber, plastic, or similar substances)
• provide a reasonable degree of protection

Goalkeepers

• each goalkeeper wears colours that distinguish him from the other players, the referee and the assistant referees


Infringements/Sanctions

For any infringement of this Law:
• play need not be stopped
• the player at fault is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to correct his equipment
• the player leaves the field of play when the ball next ceases to be in play, unless he has already corrected his equipment
• any player required to leave the field of play to correct his equipment does not re-enter without the referee’s permission
• the referee checks that the player’s equipment is correct before allowing him to re-enter the field of play
• the player is only allowed to re-enter the field of play when the ball is out of play

A player who has been required to leave the field of play because of an infringement of this Law and who enters (or re-enters) the field of play without the referee’s permission is cautioned and shown the yellow card.

Restart of Play

If play is stopped by the referee to administer a caution:
• the match is restarted by an indirect free kick taken by a player of the opposing side, from the place where the ball was located when
the referee stopped the match * (see page 3)

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 1
• Players must not reveal undershirts that contain slogans or advertising. A player removing his jersey to reveal slogans or advertising will be sanctioned by the competition organiser.
• Jerseys must have sleeves.

Some related points from Questions & Answers to the Laws of the Game 2005:

LAW 4 – THE PLAYERS’ EQUIPMENT

5. May a player wear equipment designed to protect him against injury during a match?

Players may wear protective equipment such as knee or arm pads, face masks or padded headbands provided the equipment meets the requirements of Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment (i.e. it is not dangerous to either the player himself or to other players).

6. May a player wear spectacles during a match?

Modern sports spectacles, made of plastic or similar material, are not normally considered to be dangerous and referees would in such circumstances be expected to allow them to be worn.

7. The referee requests a player to remove jewellery. After a number of minutes, the referee realises that the player is still wearing the jewellery. What actions should the referee take?

The player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player is instructed by the referee to leave the field of play to remove the jewellery.

8. Are players allowed to use tape to cover jewellery that is considered to be dangerous?

No.

11. Are member associations allowed to introduce modifications to Law 4?

No. Law 4 is not included in the permitted modifications described in the Notes on the Laws of the Game.

 

[Keeper]

2003 FIFA Circular #863 - Players wearing non-compulsory equipment

To the national associations of FIFA
____________________________

Circular no. 863

Zurich, 25 August 2003
GS/hus-sbu


Players wearing non non-compulsory equipment


Dear Sir or Madam,

FIFA has received correspondence from a number of national associations concerning the legality of players wearing non-compulsory equipment.

In the light of discussions by the International FA Board, the following guidelines have been issued to clarify this matter.

Under the Powers and Duties of the referee in Law 5 – The Referee, he or she has the authority to ensure that the players’ equipment meets the requirements of Law 4, which states that a player must not wear anything that is dangerous.

Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight, padded material are not considered dangerous and are therefore permitted.

FIFA also wishes to strongly endorse the statement on the use of sports spectacles made by the International FA Board on 10 March 2001 and subsequently in FIFA circular no. 750, dated 10 April 2001. New technology has made sports spectacles much safer, both for the player himself or herself and for other players. This applies particularly to younger players.

We expect referees to take full account of this fact and it would be considered extremely unusual for a referee to prevent a player taking part in a match because he or she was wearing modern sports spectacles.

It is hoped that this circular will give clear guidelines to referees concerning the correct application of Law 4.

Thank you for your attention to the above.

Yours faithfully,

Urs Linsi
General Secretary

 

[Keeper]

I can't find anything that remotely concerns this "directive to referees from the BSCA" regarding the banning of all headgear on either the BSCA, CSA, or FIFA websites. There are a bunch of interpetations, notices, and whatnot, but -- if anything -- they do nothing but support the teen.

I wonder if Walks has any info on this directive to referees from the BCSA that they should follow a new International Soccer Federation rule banning all headgear.

 

[Yoda]

From the 2005 FIFA Laws of the Game (July 2005):
5. May a player wear equipment designed to protect him against injury during a match?

Players may wear protective equipment such as knee or arm pads, face masks or padded headbands provided the equipment meets the requirements of Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment (i.e. it is not dangerous to either the player himself or to other players).

6. May a player wear spectacles during a match?

Modern sports spectacles, made of plastic or similar material, are not normally considered to be dangerous and referees would in such circumstances be expected to allow them to be worn.
[/b]:

So you can wear glasses, but you can't wear a hat?
Which do you think would cause more damage?
Both help you to see in a game.

Headbands are OK but a headcovering item (turban) is not?
I think the key point is Law 4, "it is not dangerous to himself or others".

Those wearing turbans should just tell the refs that it's not a turban it's protective headgear to stop other players from pulling their hair.

The article this morning also mentioned toques and hats for goalies. How about those pansy mini gloves? A loose thread might take someones eye out!

Why don't we all just play in spandex boysuits just to be safe.

 

[canuckboy]

I really don't think this was a case of racism. Why are people so quick to use that word? I think the ref was just stupid. Probably doesn't realize the signifigance of the headpiece. Mabye if the player attempted to communicate to the ref the religious significance of the turban instead of telling him to f-off this whole thing wouldn't have happened. No doubt though that ref is a retard.

 

[bulljive]

It is definitly a case of ignorance. however If the refs did have a meeting before hand like the organizer or whoever it was on the news had said it is not just this refs fault. between all the refs and the head tournament organizers did nobody know the significance. Not to mention the problem it was going to cause having every sikh take off there turban. i do think this problem probably could have been fizzled if the player did not tell the ref to fukc off right off the bat. i don't blame the kid by any means but it could have been handled much different for sure.

 

[kokanee]

The article this morning also mentioned toques and hats for goalies. How about those pansy mini gloves? A loose thread might take someones eye out!

Hey, I know this one is somehow directed to my team Last year, when we played Langley in a league game, out at the oval, the ref made us take off our gloves. He said it isnt soccer gear or something along those lines.

 

[Keeper]

Why don't we all just play in spandex boysuits just to be safe.

Sorry, Yoda. That's also covered in the Questions & Answers to the 2005 Laws of the Game.

4. May players wear a one-piece playing suit in place of shirts and shorts?
No.

 

[Reccos]

I think this is blatant stupidity and power tripping without realizing either the signficance of this person's head wear or the consequences of banning the player for wearing a symbol that is important to his religion. Nothing surprises me when a bunch of overzealous powertrippers gather together and discuss how the rules ought to be applied versus the common sense of real life. I think any ref who would enforce this rule is in a definite minority as would be any one who thought the enforcement was a good idea.

As far as the 17 year old cussing out the ref - it is wrong sure, but who among us hasn't done that now and again and we are older than 17.

As far as getting things wrong in the media, it was reported in the media that when Buck Pierce came on at QB for the Lions vs Hamilton his dad couldn't watch and was out pacing the concourse. Then I read at Lionbackers.com some guy saying Pierce's mom and dad were in S. 45 where he was and after the TD pass to Antonio Warren, they realized that it was his mom and dad sitting there watching - and not from outside. Go figure. His parents drove for 10 hours to get here and his dad can't watch but he could travel from northern Calif to New Mexico to watch him play in front of 60,000? Go figure.

 

[Yoda]

I really don't think this was a case of racism. Why are people so quick to use that word?

I agree, although if there were some caucasion boys wearing them and they didn't ask any of them to take off their turbans, then we'd have a problem.


Thanks Keeper, must have skipped that part.
I'm shocked it actually in there!

I think GEUUUU has found thier new uniforms style though.

 

[Sandman]

A few thoughts:

-I think its important to note that the Sikh boy was not wearing a turban. That would be quite encumbering.

-The Vancouver Sun reported that there were kids on other teams in the tournament that were playing with bandanas.....I hope thats a false report.

-I've never seen a National Side from India play soccer at an international level but the Field Hockey team regularly has men from the Sikh faith wearing similar head gear...I am sure Soccer would be no different. I doubt there has ever been a precedent set by FIFA....if there was I assume there would have been some outrage.

-It is clear from the reporting that this was not the case of one stupid official......this issue was raised during a few games over the weekend, hence three teams dropping out.

-I will be interested to see how BC Soccer squirms out of this one.

Sandman

 

[girth]

Last year, when we played Langley in a league game, out at the oval, the ref made us take off our gloves.

He probably made you guys take them off because it was a July summer soccer game and 30 degrees out , he had thought your team forget that's all.