Mark Clattenburg and "Racial" Language

[DannyInvincible]

I'm not sure if this is one for 'World Football' or 'Current Affairs' as it crosses both spheres, but I'll just post it here. A mod can move it to 'Current Affairs' if he wishes.

Anyway, Mark Clattenburg; he's been accused of using "racial" language in relation to two Chelsea players during their game against Manchester United on Sunday. However, something I've noticed is that he hasn't been acused of using overtly or explicitly racist language. What exactly is "racial" language then and can it be seen as distinct from racist language? Is there a subtle distinction and is this important or should this matter? Is one more inappropriate than the other or are they both as bad as each other?

Referring to a player as, say, "the black/African/Nigerian lad" in order to distinguish him from a group of surrounding white players would presumably be construed as racial in nature, but is it overtly racist and to be viewed in the same light as derogatory slurs like "n*gger"? I'm not really sure. Context is important. It may not be the most sensible thing to say in a highly-charged and sensitive environment, but I'm not so sure I would classify it as racist, nor would I put it on a pedestal anywhere near the latter racist term. I'm not even sure the former phrase would be unequivocally inappropriate. Then again, that's not necessarily what Clattenburg is accused of having said. It'll be interesting to hear what Clattenburg is actually accused of having said. A part of me suspects that Chelsea may be making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted in order to tarnish the reputation of a referee they feel cost them an important game; otherwise why not accuse him of having used racist language?

[DeLorean]

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Chelsea+v+Manchester+United+Capital+One+Cup+xRuMhL rmCC0l.jpg

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Clattenburg-leader-legend-chelsea.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01611/beas03_28_620x413_1611990a.jpg

[NeverFeltBetter]

I'm not sure if this is one for 'World Football' or 'Current Affairs' as it crosses both spheres, but I'll just post it here. A mod can move it to 'Current Affairs' if he wishes.

Anyway, Mark Clattenburg; he's been accused of using "racial" language in relation to two Chelsea players during their game against Manchester United on Sunday. However, something I've noticed is that he hasn't been acused of using overtly or explicitly racist language. What exactly is "racial" language then and can it be seen as distinct from racist language? Is there a subtle distinction and is this important or should this matter? Is one more inappropriate than the other or are they both as bad as each other?

Referring to a player as, say, "the black/African/Nigerian lad" in order to distinguish him from a group of surrounding white players would presumably be construed as racial in nature, but is it overtly racist and to be viewed in the same light as derogatory slurs like "n*gger"? I'm not really sure. Context is important. It may not be the most sensible thing to say in a highly-charged and sensitive environment, but I'm not so sure I would classify it as racist, nor would I put it on a pedestal anywhere near the latter racist term. I'm not even sure the former phrase would be unequivocally inappropriate. Then again, that's not necessarily what Clattenburg is accused of having said. It'll be interesting to hear what Clattenburg is actually accused of having said. A part of me suspects that Chelsea may be making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted in order to tarnish the reputation of a referee they feel cost them an important game; otherwise why not accuse him of having used racist language?

If it was anything other than this I would be surprised.

[SkStu]

Apparently he called Mikel a cheeky monkey. I must racially abuse my goddaughter every day...

[theworm2345]

Apparently he called Mikel a cheeky monkey. I must racially abuse my goddaughter every day...
Scumbag.

[ArdeeBhoy]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=359615277465788&set=a.105473786213273.9902.103673066393345&type=1&theater

[SkStu]

Scumbag.

What?! Are you serious???

[theworm2345]

What?! Are you serious???
Are you seriously asking if I'm serious?

[SkStu]

There is absolutely nothing racist about that term. It's an extremely popular phrase used in England that has absolutely no racial connotations whatsoever.

[theworm2345]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg?1240934151

[SkStu]

Yeah. Good one. Educate yourself yank.

[theworm2345]

Yeah. Good one. Educate yourself yank.
Good idea, I think I'll grab my dictionary

sarcasm (plural sarcasms)

1.(uncountable) A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Insincerely saying something which is the opposite of one's intended meaning, often to emphasize how unbelievable or unlikely it sounds if taken literally, thereby illustrating the obvious nature of one's intended meaning.
2.(countable) An act of sarcasm.

From Late Latin sarcasmus, from Ancient Greek σαρκασμός (sarkasmos, "a sneer"), from σαρκάζειν ("gnash the teeth (in anger), literally, to strip off the flesh"), from σάρξ (sarks, "flesh").

/ˈsɑːkæzəm/

Synonyms: derision, facetiousness, irony, ridicule, satire

[SkStu]

Nice try but we all know Americans don't do sarcasm.

[theworm2345]

Nice try but we all know Americans don't do sarcasm.
You projecting your stereotypes and prejudices will do nothing to help your cause in this thread and the tribunal that is likely to follow.

[SkStu]

Ooh ye cheeky monkey.

Y6oajPBSnO8

[KK77]

I see that Chelsea supporter has been arrested now. Similar incident happened at Anfield last season in the FA Cup match against Man U and the supporter was arrested and rightly done over it.

A Manchester United supporter was also arrested around the same time in a home match against Stoke. There was no real media coverage at all over the incident.

[DannyInvincible]

So, the Metropolitan Police have dropped their inquiry citing no evidence of an offence having been committed whilst Chelsea/the FA have been accused of a cover-up for failing to send the alleged victims forward: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20319926 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20321225

Or perhaps Chelsea, deep down, didn't feel their accusation merited a criminal investigation?...

[DannyInvincible]

Nice twist, this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20454854


Referees' union Prospect has demanded that Chelsea apologise to Mark Clattenburg and compensate him after he was cleared of making a racist remark.

The Blues claimed Clattenburg, 37, used "inappropriate language" towards their midfielder John Obi Mikel.

The FA has now cleared the referee and Chelsea accepted the decision.

Prospect chief Alan Leighton called for "a full and unreserved apology and compensation for loss of earnings, damage to reputation and stress."

[NeverFeltBetter]

If Chelsea don't get done for this is some manner, it's an absolute crime. They got annoyed over some bad decisions and threw a hissy fit.

[geysir]

You'd hope that Chelsea would get hammered for making yet another false allegation against a ref.
But in this case, Chelsea fc managed to get themselves into the position where they are just passing on an allegation from a player, to the FA for examination.

[osarusan]

If Chelsea don't get done for this is some manner, it's an absolute crime.

I don't know what the FA/EPL rules are, but if they are similar to laws, they'd need to be found guilty of malicious prosecution to be punished (as in, having no good reason to believe that they had a legitimate grievance).

[DannyInvincible]

I don't know what the FA/EPL rules are, but if they are similar to laws, they'd need to be found guilty of malicious prosecution to be punished (as in, having no good reason to believe that they had a legitimate grievance).

As far as I understand, Chelsea had a duty of care to investigate the concern of their player(s) and took the correct steps in raising the issue with the FA. According to the FA anyway. What was inappropriate, however, was going public with it before concluding their own investigation, but I don't think that is punishable by the FA; just bad manners. Presumably, Clattenburg would be entitled to make a legal claim against Mikel for "compensation for loss of earnings, damage to reputation and stress", however? Or would such a claim have to be made against Chelsea? And if they were found to be performing their duty of care to their player, might that then fall flat?

[geysir]

I wouldn't presume that Clattenburg has a case to make a claim, even if he did, it wouldn't be against Mikel, wasn't it Ramires who has the eagle ears.

When you hear about yet another accusation concocted by Chelsea, you'd be forgiven for automatically assuming that it has the same value as a lying snitch trying to weasel his way out of a fix.
The referees' union in a statement said it all
"The charge was based on the flimsiest evidence that should never have got to this stage. It should never have been made public and should have been dealt with confidentially."

If we totally suspend belief and pretend that the Chelsea player sincerely thought he heard those remarks from Clattenburg, but it was later found out, that either he was grossly but genuinely mistaken or he heard right but it couldn't be proven, then why should the player have action taken against him or actions taken against his club for reporting the matter?
If that was the case, no player would feel confident about reporting a genuine complaint
If the allegations can be shown to be totally concocted, like with previous Chelsea examples, then the fines should be increased incrementally with every false allegation, even point deducting sanctions.
What has muddied the waters here, is that the allegation came out of Chelsea, who have virtually forced good refs out of the game under spurious pretenses. I think Clattenburg's status has jumped up, I hope he stays in the game.

[DannyInvincible]

I think Clattenburg's status has jumped up, I hope he stays in the game.

So, what you're saying is, he should be paying Chelsea? :p

[geysir]

Payback takes many forms :)

[DeLorean]

Eamonn Sweeney : Sport's most appalling club (http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/eamonn-sweeney-sports-most-appalling-club-3304910.html)