Who Cares?

Referee Bill Kennedy, following slur by Rajon Rondo, announces he's gay

Veteran NBA referee Bill Kennedy has announced he is gay.

"I am proud to be an NBA referee and I am proud to be a gay man," Kennedy told Yahoo Sports. "I am following in the footsteps of others who have self-identified in the hopes that will send a message to young men and women in sports that you must allow no one to make you feel ashamed of who you are." ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: So before PC Principal comes to find me, the title of the article is not meant to demean Bill Kennedy for announcing he is a homosexual.

My comment is meant to ask, what difference does it make if Rondo made a slur of any type toward a referee? Why should it matter if the particular referee is gay or not? Rondo should get the book thrown at him for his words, period. 

The punishment handed down to Rondo is, by NBA standards, fairly astounding. I believe this is the first time an NBA player has been suspended for comments to a referee in the last 3 or 4 years, where a fine suffices in such cases.

From reports, the comment Rondo made came after he was given a lightning fast pair of technical fouls and was going to get his moneys worth for being run. These comments included a "homophobic slur" in his rant. That is if Rondo knew Kennedy was gay.

This has a couple of dimensions however as the Celtics and Kennedy have some history. Specifically Doc Rivers and Rondo have had other unpleasant conversations with Kennedy in the past, and some reports have it going both ways. Also, Kennedy's sexual orientation was to many an "open secret" to NBA teams and referees alike. While understandably, Kennedy is a private man and did not share this fact publicly, it was apparently known in NBA circles. 

[For any who care to take the flip side of the coin where no one knew of Kennedy's orientation, then frankly this is not an issue at all other than Rondo's bad behavior.]

Why then does it deserve special treatment from the NBA front office?

So we have a player popping off to a referee ... and who used a slur during the tirade ...
What is so unusual?

How many times have we as referees (or in traffic) collectively had our sexuality, gender, race, family relationships, heritage, and just about anything else a player (or other driver) can think of questioned openly?

Please don't misunderstand me, it is not right, and I am not condoning it, but to say it is rare is just factually incorrect.

Is the NBA now going to suspend, not just fine, ANY player who uses that slur without regard to whom it is directed to? If so, why have they not up to this point?

There is a double standard at play here and if the NBA is going to fine players for calling referees names ... that's great and it seems appropriate. If the NBA is going to start playing PC Principal by suspending players for what they think is "insensitive", not so great and are in for a world of trouble. (As one example, they were in Mexico for this game ... what is Rondo called Kennedy a slur in Spanish that he did not understand? Still a suspension?)

If Rondo was really demeaning Kennedy regarding his sexuality, and the NBA can look into his heart and determine that, a single game without pay is not nearly enough punishment for something so heinous. If this was truly the case (as Tom Ziller seems to believe in his recent article) Rondo should go for a very, very, very long time.

Instructive on this is Roberto Alomar and what his words cost him in time and treasure ... or some may say, ultimately gained him in understanding. For those who forgot, not only did Alomar spit on umpire John Hirschbeck but then made reference to his kids, one who just died from ALS and another who at that time was diagnosed with it. Hirschbeck had to be physically restrained from doing physical harm to Alomar the next day by Umpire Legend Jim Joyce.

Interestingly, I wonder if the whole thing actually forced Kennedy to make the public announcement of his homosexuality. As without Rondo getting popped and the NBA making more of it than they have anything in the past regarding dissent, does this even come up?

I for one am not sure, but would hope it was a discussion with Kennedy on such an intensely personal issue and not a way for the new commish to "show force."

For the dissent however, who cares, Rondo was mad and popped off. Throw the book at him and lets move on. If truly the alternative, get Rondo out, and move on.

When dissent ... isin't

Let's take a closer look at Jose Bautista's epic bat flip

Jose Bautista is often known as Joey Bats. Now people are calling him "Joey Bat Flip," after his epic celebration capped a monstrous three-run home run in the seventh inning of Wednesday's deciding Game 5 of the American League Division Series.

With the hit, Bautista helped send the Blue Jays to the American League Championship Series. With the flip, Bautista created an image that rivals Joe Carter's 1993 World Series-winning blast. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: As referees we need to let players emote. Just as players need to let referees emote too and not think that we are all robots. Take a look here at an interesting article about referee communication ... some of which you have seen here at Kicking Back before.

If we take a look at Bautista's reaction, it is completely understandable in context. Big game, big hit. If instead he flipped his bat in the 1st inning if he crushed one over the wall, then a different reaction from the umpire would be necessary involving a dressing down I would imagine.

As referees we need to keep the contest in context to best determine a course of action. Is this a big game? Is this a big game for the particular player for some reason? (1st match back after a long injury? Last match before retirement?)

We need to allow such a player some latitude in expressing their emotions about the situation. If we don't, well, frankly we are robbing the fun out of the sport for them and that is not why we are here.

Consider the opposite number, Dyson in this case, the pitcher who just got lit up for a 3 run homer. He's upset as it is for giving up those runs in such a critical scenario, now add to that a gleeful Bautista and we have an issue. #10 from the Blue Jays did not help by hanging around and egging the crowd on which of course lead to the benches clearing.

In the same way we allowed Bautista to emote, we should allow Dyson to as well. The real magic is now not letting that brushfire spread wildly between the teams. It can be very powerful to let a player, or players have their say with each other and come in as a referee and say, "OK, are we done now?"

Like anything else, it is a fine line and a balancing act to be sure. We may even need to take a barb or two as referees in the process. I would opine however, it is a small price to pay to let some of the air out of the tire to finish with 22.

Another Ballboy Incident

As we recall a couple of years ago in "Five Match Ban ... Due to (Ball) Tosser" we had a ball boy, Charlie Morgan, son of a director at Chelsea, who made contact with then Chelsea player Eden Hazard.

As we recall Hazard was sent off in the 80th minute for violent conduct (not serious foul play) for his contact with the boy.

Of course we have come to find out that Morgan, who was appropriately maligned for his outrageous behavior of intentional time wasting, tweeted out BEFORE the match he was going to waste time for his home side was embellishing the contact with the Chelsea star.

Not the brightest bulb in the scoreboard clearly ...

Enter Ex Chelsea player Kevin De Bruyne, who recently cussed at a ballboy and was fined just over $30K for calling a ballboy a Mother F*&%er. You can see (and hear) the whole interaction here.

My question is where is the suspension? Hazard was suspended for 3 matches for his conduct, yet De Bruune is just fined? Did the ball boy get a cut of this?

On a side bar, talk about stinging ... imagine if a player or coach had to cut a check not to the league, but the person they offended be it a player, fan, ball boy .... yipes ...

Should the league do more here? Is a fine enough? What of the referee heard it? Do we send him for Foul and Abusive language? Or do we seek to let that one go?

Are actions more "actionable" than words?

Should they be?

What the f@$k??

FIFA 13 cursing without repercussions

When we have been playing the current FIFA game there are times when swearing occurs, although this is normally due to frustration and not directed at anyone personally. It seems that when EA launch FIFA 13 they will offer Xbox 360 Kinect users the ability to curse the referee, which will result in no bookings or major repercussions, although this hadn’t been the expected outcome a few weeks ago when we first saw a promotional video. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of PR.net.

Kicking Back Comments: This was interesting to me on many levels, none the least of which was the technology.

There have been times in my career that I have booked, or sent off players for dissent and foul and abusive language (respectively) that may had been in error. I don't hedge to make it appear that I have not made mistakes ... I have ... it is just hard when a player has such a self interest to not poison the pool after the fact.

Language is such a precise construct. Some curses are easy to spot as dissent of FAL, others are not. In fact, the most cunning, and most hurtful, rarely have no curses in them at all.

As a referee, we have to be aware of where the line is for the day ... and when to just suck it up as The Game does not need to caution or send off. The developers at EA need to teach Kinect this as well before we humans have any fear of being supplanted by a robot referee.

BTW, there is no truth to the rumor that FIFA is funding EA to do so, dispute their recent appetite toward technology.

NBA: Referee's Don't Count

The NY Times ran a piece the other day here talking about how the NBA intend to reign in players whining and in general carrying on in front of everyone when they may disagree with a decision from the referee.

I whole heartedly agree with the decision to do so as with any game, if it is not attractive to the spectators, there is a problem they need to resolve as it gets in the way of making money.

I can recall a similar problem a few years back in the "D League". There were some players who would get carried away, or even as a normal part of their lexicon would use the word "f*$k", as both an adjective and verb in every possible conjugation they could think of. The best of course when they used it as both parts of speech in the same sentence.

This had the predictable result of insulting the family of (4) who paid $30 of so to see a match on a nice summer evening on the cape ... for example.

This led to the predictable result of the league requiring the referees to be more stern about the language used by players and there was an expectation we would deal with it ... or the league will deal with us.

I have to admit, it did get better for a time, with the occasional slip that rang the top of the rafters. Over time it became more engraved to the players to just not do that ... and they responded well. I have my doubts personally about how the NBA players will react, but I guess we will see this season.

Where I laughed out load is in this part of the article:

League officials decided to crack down based on feedback from owners and market research.

While I agree this is a critical aspect of such a business, how about the abuse to the referees and respecting them as participants? How about respecting the game and not acting like a cry baby on steroids when something does not go your way? It takes market research and owners losing money to move the needle for something like this?

Yipes. I guess gone are the days of doing the right thing for the right reason. Generally it would seem our decisions are based on poll questions, and not a collective compass we have to keep our actions true.

We shall see how this one unfolds and how the NBA responds to the first sign of trouble.

I would opine the NFL has already summarily failed that test with allowing the Jets to allow Braylon Edwards a free pass on his recent DUI incident, as apparently there is no suspension on a first offence, regardless of how drunk a player was at the time of operation. Oh yeah, he's not being allowed to start on Sunday. I guess that counts.

US Soccer Referee Directive: Dissent (Viewer Warning - Explicit Language)

Hey Rooney, F*%@ you too! This may have been the thought of the referee the other night when England played a friendly against Platinum Stars and was mercilessly berated for his efforts.

Recently guardian.co.uk reported on an incident of a foul mouthed Wayne Rooney during a "friendly" in South Africa that have lead some to paint him as a target to get sent off by inciting him to eruptive dissent. From the cited story, "The USA, England's first opponents on Saturday, have already suggested they might play on Rooney's perceived fragile temperament with this an indication that the player can be on edge. "Rooney insulted me," said Selogilwe. "He said: 'Fuck you.' He is a good player when you see him on the television, but when you see him on the pitch he just keeps on insulting the referee."

So lets get local about this ... what do you do when you are faced with dissent?

Remember we were talking about all these neat memorandum and position papers being online for the world to see at US Soccer. Well, here (.pdf download) is the one for dissent. It is a good read in spots, in particular it goes into the three reasons why dissent must be managed. From the memo:

• Erodes the authority of the referee;
• Reduces the enjoyment of other participants and spectators; and
• Can spread if left unchecked.

Further it goes into what three elements can be considered when determining an action for dissent. Again from the memo:

• Public

• Personal

• Provocative

Now, while the LOTG require a caution when dissent occurs, there is a subjective element when one referee feels that threshold has been breached. It can change under the circumstances, even in the same match.

Lets take some examples to illustrate these points.

In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a player misses a shot in a one goal game and immediately after shouts "Oh (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Dissent? Lets think ...

Does it erode authority of the referee or match control? Probably not.

Does it affect the enjoyment of the match for all? Probably not.

Can it spread? Probably not.

Was it public? You bet - everyone heard it.

Was it personal? No.

Was it provocative such that others will be incited by the matter? Doubt it.

Is it dissent and therefore deserves a caution? I don't think so. Just some frustration. I would probably respond by publicly jogging over and having a quiet word, maybe not even about the explicative, just to show some presence and acknowledge publicly that I will deal with it.

How about this one. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, that (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Ask yourself the same questions as above, what did you get?

How about now. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

How about this. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU (insert one minute trade without and foul language here)".

Same answer? I don't think so. I may be able to excuse the first as frustration, but the second is getting personal, and if done openly, loudly, and publicly, for me likely gets a caution. The third gets a caution. If a player can not calm himself down after a short period of time, he needs help to do so.

Last one. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU'RE MOM (or other relative) (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Here, they are done, send them home for foul and abusive language. Something so personal regardless of loud, soft, public, or not must be dealt with. To not do so invites big trouble. Get rid of that player or coach, the game does not need them, and neither do you.

There are lots of ways to dealt with these issues before they even become issues, and the position paper lists these well and we will deal with these later as well. Here is one now. Do some homework. Case in point:

Look at what the USA is planning, to make Rooney pop. Get him under a caution and you neutralize him for part of the match. Send him off and get a huge advantage.

Do you think Mr. Simon is thinking about this leading up to his match on Saturday?

Bet on it.

We'll watch together how he deals with it.