I am greatly saddened by the whole soccer head scarf debate surrounding one girl who wants to play. Playing is good and as we learn over and over FIFA is bad. It is not a difficult or even controversial statement. It is simply so. Feel good about thinking FIFA bad. Does anyone shed a tear for the Olympic Committee or any other private unelected mens’ clubs that organize sport to rake in personal privilege and benefit? It is only right and good to lump FIFA in and, frankly, place them up at the top of the lump.
Let us review some facts. Here is the essential part of the rule…sorry the law of football that is engaged in this case:
A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery).
All items of jewellery are potentially dangerous. The term dangerous can sometimes be ambiguous and controversial, therefore in order to be uniform and consistent any kind of jewellery has to be forbidden.
Players are not allowed to use tape to cover jewellery. Taping jewellery is not adequate protection.
Rings, earrings, leather or rubber bands are not necessary to play and the only thing they can bring about is injury.
You might be confused. You might be asking yourself what a rule about jewellery has to do with a head scarf. You would be right except this is the core prohibition in the rule being cited by FIFA:
Soccer’s legislators have ruled that no player can wear a head scarf on the field. The International Football Association Board was asked at its annual meeting Saturday to adjudicate on a decision to ban an 11-year-old Muslim girl from playing in a tournament near Montreal last weekend because she was wearing a head scarf. “If you play football there’s a set of laws and rules, and law four outlines the basic equipment,” said Brian Barwick, chief executive of the English Football Association, which is one of the IFAB members. “It’s absolutely right to be sensitive to people’s thoughts and philosophies, but equally there has to be a set of laws that are adhered to, and we favour law four being adhered to.” Law four lists the items a player is entitled to wear and head scarves are not mentioned.
That last sentence added by The Globe and Mail is not entirely true as Law Four goes on to state:
Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight, padded material are not considered to be dangerous and are therefore permitted.
A headscarf is light, soft and in this instance one understands is protective of modesty according to the standards of the player. As her leggings are. By any reasonable understanding they are allowed. By any reasonable standard they are an entire non-issue.
But remember who you are dealing with. FIFA considers soccer players – you know…the people who play the game – as something between figures on paper and Subbueto players. Uniformity in uniform is about central control. This child might have been Amish or had a skin disease requiring covering. It just so happens that this one child is honouring her Islamic faith. It could as easily be any other thing. For FIFA that is not really important as she is fundamentally not acting FIFA-n. She is displaying unFIFA-like personal characteristic. That is anti-FIFA and that cannot be tolerated.
Why is this? First, FIFA wants to dominate world sport. To do this, there must be one game defined by one set of laws imposed by one bureaucracy. This means the other games to be driven out – it must be so if FIFA is to achieve the power and benefit that uniformity brings. We do not need to get to the level of cheese rolling or other local games or group play-like traditions. We just have to keep in mind there are many football games that sprung from the mid-19th century. When more organized games were formed between, say, 1850 and 1920, the lack of communication and the greater interest in the local meant no one worried that Gaelic football was different from Canadian rugger or from what has become Aussie rules. But FIFA now cares and cares very deeply as one of the forms of sub-global football, NFL style, has the notion of also being a global game. That must be stopped just as all other deviation must be stopped.
This is not about that keen young lady or her particular faith. It is about the primacy of the primates of FIFA. Hmmm…the phrase “the anti-Christs of play” just popped into my head for some reason. It is enough to say for now that FIFA is anti-play and therefore anti-KSPC. For that reason we shall be kicking a ball about this summer around here without any sidelines to which someone can tell me or mine to go sit. I expect it to be fun.
[Original Comments…]
David Janes – March 4, 2007 12:42 PM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
Yawn: it’s wrapped around her neck.
Matt Fletcher – March 4, 2007 1:35 PM
http://livinginasociety.blogspot.com
While the early-modern sentiments the underpin the KSPC have their place so does FIFA and the Laws of the Game.
While the purpose of play is simply fun, the purpose of sport is competition – and the latter requires uniform rules applied uniformly to ensure a level playing field. FIFA and its bureaucracy are necessary for the governance of the global game of football.
The problem here is with the consistent application of Law Four.
The only equipment that is supposed to be allowed is a numbered jersey, shorts, socks, shin-guards (covered by socks) and shoes (with appropriate studs). The difficulty is with the provision that allows for “modern” “safe” protective equipment, such as the eye-wear worn by Edgar Davids and others.
However, I would note, as David does, that the scarf is wrapped around the player’s neck – and all items around the neck are generally forbidden. In addition the player in question is wearing leggings below the level of her shorts not of a colour different than that of her shorts, which Law Four also prohibits. I have prohibited many players from playing with this type of equipment. Without a specific ruling from tournament organizers or the provincial governing body I likely would have told the player and her coach that her equipment did not meet the standards of Law Four. In most cases when players need to wear equipment outside the bounds of Law Four, especially in a competitive level tournament outside their provincial jurisdiction, they obtain permission from the appropriate authorities prior to the game, or at the very least approach the referee prior to the game.
Matt Fletcher – March 4, 2007 1:42 PM
http://livinginasociety.blogspot.com
However… I would also note that I have often observed players from Latin American teams wearing gloves when playing top-level FIFA sanctioned games in Canada and the northern United States. Gloves certainly are not listed in Law Four and have no necessary protective purpose.
Again, the problem is with non-uniform application of the Laws, but not inherently the Laws or FIFA.
Gordo – March 4, 2007 2:22 PM
http://blog.cruachan.ca
The Globe’s interpretation of the football lords’ ruling is incorrect. They declined to get involved and clarify the law. They are going to continue to allow individual associations to interpret law four as they see fit. I can’t possibly imagine a worse course of action for them to take.
Alan – March 4, 2007 2:44 PM
Yawn – please let me know how in the course of play this fabric actually causes an injury. Please note that rings, ear rings and other metal objects are removed as they rip flesh. Note that cloth does not. I know David is always one for the quick and easy answer but actual fact might be useful in this instance.
Note also the word “basic” in the rule which connote minimal which also connotes other things are OK except when they are dangerous. A head scarf is no more dangerous than the commonly worn turtleneck in winter play. Grab that by accident when going for a header and you might bet a boo-boo of an abrasion but David’s sort are anti-boo-boo-ists as well as authoritarianism lovers.
David Janes – March 4, 2007 4:27 PM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
Actually, this is exactly the reason the Quebec whatsyamacallit association gives and it seems reasonable to me, though I’m not expert on the choking ability of common textiles in sportsplay, unlike yourself apparently. Authoritarianism lovers? Give me a break. It’s “authoritarianism lovers” who seem to be doing all the hand wringing over this faux-rights issue.
Crypto-reactionaries!
Alan – March 4, 2007 5:08 PM
Having played the sport for 25 years at a competitive level I thank you for that compliment. The funniest thing, of course, is a libertarian pleading (as usual) for the imposition of needless authority and the licking the boot of a rule maker. Shouldn’t the girl and her family be able to choose as, even if there is a risk, it is only to her. But there is no risk – unless you think pillows are sharp objects.
Gorthos – March 4, 2007 6:22 PM
http://www.gorthos.com
I applaud FIFA. It is the parents of canadian children trying to make the game happy fluffy and nicey nice to everyone that have caused youth soccer in this nation to be non-competative and laughable to persons from other nations. Look at the games. 5 times as many parents show up to games screaming and yelling like its a hockey game. The rules for youth soccer promote non-competitition and in some leagues they don’t ever have real playoffs with a final award system for teams that do best because they don’t take account of the standings. Bah.. its one of the reasons we don’t have a national adult team worth spitting at.
FIFA makes the rules. A head scarf could be grabbed in a tussle and a person could have their neck snapped. Whats next, allowing a male sikh to wear a dagger to games (“it is wrapped in cloth ind in his shorts, it’s perfectly safe”)
This doesn’t even go into the debate about the true historic nature of a hijab. The Quoran does NOT require the wearing of a Hijab. It is a fundamentalist muslim interpretation of their scripture that is not accepted by most mainstream scholars.
Plus, religion has no place in sport.
David Janes – March 4, 2007 6:59 PM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
Are you in some sort of parallel universe today where you’re reading the reverse of everything? I’m more than happy with a course of “no action”; somehow I don’t think you are, and I’m certain that the people making an issue about this are not at all.
The girl “and her family” can choose to do anything they want to. And the organizations she interacts with can do likewise.
Alan – March 4, 2007 7:35 PM
I am just trying to keep up with your inconsistencies.
The organization she interacts with, of course, cannot do likewise as it would be illegal to discriminate especially, as in this case, when there is no demonstrable reason for the discrimination other than the failure to follow the Subbuteo player appearance rule, Sean’s paranoia aside.
David Janes – March 4, 2007 7:44 PM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
Perhaps you didn’t read the Sick Kids link. I’ll drop out of this discussion, pardon, lecture now: I am at a totally at a loss at why you’re making up stuff and attributing it to me.
Alan – March 4, 2007 8:23 PM
Gee – your first comment?
Your floating off point links? Your assumption that a bunch of pieces laying around the floor makes for a finished jigsaw? A failure to connect a woolen winter scarf and outdoor play to an organized sport and a light head scarf? You can’t serious think this explains a scenario where this strangulation would play out. It’s like Gorthos and alt-paranoia of the the broken neck. I assume he likewise refuses to enter the field where there is anyone on a pony tail.
And again, with the inconsistencies – it is your lecturing style of “the assumed point that need not be explained” that is the gap in discussion. Not to mention the libertarian arguing for more nanny-ish control.
Gorthos – March 4, 2007 10:55 PM
http://www.gorthos.com/blog
There is no rule against a ponytail.
David Janes – March 5, 2007 5:48 AM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
_where_ did I nannyish argue for more control? Bizarro.
– Play experts declare it to be dangerous (i.e. explicitly, experienced refs; implicitly FIFA)
– Domain experts declare it to be dangerous (doctors; your contentions about “lightness” aside, as the issue for shock loading will be stretchiness and the tearing point; would a Muslim girl under a suicide watch be allowed to keep her “light” hajib? could I choke you with a silk scarf?)
– You’ve made explicit unsupported arguments about illegal discrimination (Singh, or whatever the Kirpan case is, explicitly brings the issue of “danger” and or lack thereof as an important point, cf two previous points)
– You’re making implicit unsupported arguments that a hajib is as important to a Muslim’s religious identity as a Kirpan (or whatever)
Alan – March 5, 2007 8:22 AM
Just to mix it up, in reverse order:
– no, I wrote: “This child might have been Amish…” Religiosity has nothing to do with this FIFA order or my point.
– no, not unsupported but perhaps implicit due to its screamingly obvious nature as a basic systemic example. There is so obvious a case of discrimination in the “one rule for all” idea that it need not be elaborated. I can hold your hand if need be and go through the duty to accomodate that exists in law. We can all then enjoy the very bloggy experience of “law is bad” and “judges want to be kings,” right?
– no, no “domain expert” (whatever that is) has explained how this light scarf in soccer is dangerous. You have told me how toddlers in school yards in winter are at risk of a strangulation, likely associated with bullies around corners and play equipment. Gorthos has said there is a shocking pattern of broken necks in girls soccer in the Middle East. I again confirm that I understand pillows therefore are sharp objects. You make no sense as you give no proper example. I cannot be expected to concern myself. You need to argue for the break-away hajib – like an NFL jersey.
– yes, there has been a FIFA declaration. That is the point. It makes no sense due to the same problem with the previous point. Please review the history of FIFA regulations and decide for yourself as to the organizations legacy of good sense. With all respect to Matthew, who is right about the nature of the rules at first instance, a ref’s job is not to determine which rule to impose but to impose them all. He just follows orders. He is the good referee.
That was fun. I am organizing pick-up soccer nonetheless and am reminded now of the Sikh players I have played against with non-law four head dress. Did they have tiny swords tucked away somewhere? Did I wear tartan underwear?
Alan – March 5, 2007 8:25 AM
Oh, and you are nanny-ish because you want a rule to stop someone from choosing to take on a manageable risk only to themselves of the lowest threshold with no previous examples of a single occurance. If you find that a bizzaro proposition, there is little I can do for you but it does explain much.
David Janes – March 5, 2007 9:09 AM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
To take my last point, which is your first point in your penultimate reply: if this is _not_ a religious issue, then where charter-correctable discrimination you are talking about? I can make my own soccer league and ban — discriminate — against orange and pink uniforms and I’m fairly certain there’s nothing no bullypulpit lawyer can do it about it. How then do you differentiate the Hajib-ban from my ugly-color ban if “religiousity” is not the point?
definition of domain expert.
Hans – March 5, 2007 9:22 AM
I’m with Gorthos on this one. Religion has no place in sports. If you want to play follow the rules. I think we accept that soccer refs have a discretion to interpret what they think is dangerous on soccer. I’ve seen some refs call high kicks and others not. The way to not get penalized is don’t kick anywhere near as high as you think the ref might call it. The way to not get sent off for wearing potentially dangerous non-standard uniforms is don’t wear them. A soccer field is for playing soccer, go worship somewhere else. I guarantee if I showed up in kilt for a soccer game I would get sent off. So if I wanted to play soccer in a kilt on what basis would argue my case?
Alan – March 5, 2007 10:19 AM
Systemic discrimination is never about the substance. My position is that FIFA in its drive for homogenized Subbueto drones has unthinkingly trampled on this right. Others may see it differently but that is still as much a Charter issue as if they intentionally decided to be anti-Islamic. Direct v. indirect discrimination.
Hans – that is like saying the way to be a top level hockey player is not be a girl. Both religion and gender are personal characteristics that other elements in society should and do make room for.
Hans – March 5, 2007 10:48 AM
I fundamentally disagree. Left-handedness, gayness and gender are personal characteristics that (a) cannot be expected to be changed and (b) do not require other people or groups of people to make accommodations. Religion is a set of beliefs that a person chooses to adopt and display. In the case of the scarf-wearing soccer-playing girl she is choosing to display her religious beliefs in a manner that, when playing soccer, may be dangerous to herself, other players and has been interpreted to being against the rules. Why does her choice of belief and display of belief get to override the choice of FIFA to interpret their own rules and to have their own rules about uniforms and override the other players rights to a plain set of rules fairly interpreted.
Alan – March 5, 2007 10:52 AM
Hans of the LLB, please supply SCC cases to support the proposition “religion is a set of beliefs that a person chooses to adopt and display.”
Alan – March 5, 2007 11:02 AM
And just to clarify – in my pre-caffeinated state we got into Charter. It should be referenced to human rights. Charter is only government obligations. Human rights is private sector. All else remains applicable so far.
Hans – March 5, 2007 11:19 AM
I shouldn’t have to refer to the SCC where common sense and reason are better! Religious belief and gender are by nature 2 different kinds of personal characteristics. Do you have SCC rulings supporting that idea that religion and gender are characteristics of the same nature that other elements in society should make the same room for?
As an aside, I think such garb violates the spirit of the game which is based on the simplicity of its attire and equipment and requires players to accept that the ref is a reasonable person who has the game and the players best interest in mind and let him/her call the game and shut up.
Alan – March 5, 2007 11:39 AM
If rulings, then, on the duty to accommodate religious belief are a nothing, please advise as to the other laws which I may ignore on your advice. In the meantime, I should direct you to ths helpful guide to some of the general concepts.
Shutting up one’s comments to the ref and playing soccer are hardly related, though the power of the ref is much stronger than many other sports. Baseball umps, however, have the strongest card when it comes to discussing their strike calls.
Paul of Kingston – March 5, 2007 12:43 PM
While I am not a fan of religious bling in general (I suspect it has been developed to support very human needs for clubism and convenient identification and control of the masses), one has to concede that reasonabel religious accomodation is entrenched within the law of the land and thus FIFA’s ruling really should focus only on the issue of safety on the pitch. The ref’s original ruling on the field was 100% correct as it his mandate to interpret the existing rules in a relatively narrow fashion. FIFA’s call is a bit more dubious in my opinion. To support it I need a stronger case for the safety issue to be made.
cm – March 5, 2007 12:45 PM
I agree with the ruling on this one, but that’s because it conforms to my own personal bias. I have no logic or links to back it up.
Paul of Kingston – March 5, 2007 12:50 PM
Kilts on the pitch? I suspect you might get sent off if it gave you some form of advantage. Otherwise not.
The issue of knee braces has always bothered me a bit. I don’t care what you say about “padded” – those things are hard and scary. I change my play when I’m within 5 feet of one.
Paul of Kingston – March 5, 2007 12:55 PM
cm – thanks for the reality check.
Alan – March 5, 2007 1:15 PM
I am leaning more and more in favour of a factory producing break away hijabs as the real solution here. Why fall back on the law where fashion provides the recourse.
ry – March 5, 2007 1:40 PM
IF it were me, I’d say the parents would have to sign a waiver absolving the league. The grabbing of the headscarf is unlikely to happen, but so was the Zidane headbutt. It happens. My knee was wrecked during an 800m run. Even non-contact sports have bad moments.
When i was playing summer league ball almost 2 decades ago they kicked a kid out for wearing a headband around his neck. Some reasoning even though it was soft.. Nobody wants to be sued.
The rest of it is fluff as far as I’m concerned. The league and the refs don’t want to be on the hook for her getting hurt and sueable. I don’t blame them one bit. Sign a very comprehensive waiver and she can play—taking whatever comes her way. Taunts. Insluts. Grabing of the scarf. Whatever. Otherwise, no. It simply isn’t worth the risk legal/financial to me. Sign a comprehensive waiver. Anytghing not directly attributable to a tackle or kick to the sternum as simple examples is not covered by the league nor is the league on the hook for it.(Yes, you can wreck knees and ankles by heaving your head or torso messed with)
It’s a liability issue. I wouldn’t want to be culpable for lawsuits of racial intolerance and injury if/when kids take liberties with her. That’s it.
Hans – March 5, 2007 2:47 PM
My view is that following religion is like adopting a kinky sex lifestyle. It may be personally fulfilling, but it is irrational if not foolish and should be practised in private or only with other like minded people. I realize that this view may not conform with the Onatrio Human Rights Commission or legal precednets related thereto.
gorthos – March 5, 2007 2:49 PM
http://www.gorthos.com/blog
Personally, if someone on a playing field is wearing a hear covering that may shift and prevent their seeing me which may result in me being run into, I think my human rights are being trampled.
gorthos – March 5, 2007 2:50 PM
http://www.gorthos.com/blog
head covering.. not hear covering
Paul of Kingston – March 5, 2007 4:23 PM
I dream of playing against a squad of men wearing head scarves and leggings on a 30 degree C day. The second half would be all mine!
David Janes – March 5, 2007 4:32 PM
http://blog.davidjanes.com
Al comes across the correct solution above. It misses the point of the exercise, of course, which is to posit that Canada is racist society biggoted various minorities.
gr – March 5, 2007 4:52 PM
Dare I jump in here? I object to the head covering in principal, what it stands for in any situation. You could argue religious and societal convention says I should wear a wedding ring, and that these are the reasons why women are asked or told to wear a head scarf. But, we are not talking about a skirt worn down to and covering the ankles. The headscarf and the further body coverings worn by more fundamentalist Islamists suggest that women are to be treated like cattle and property, uneducated and unable to drive or travel on their own. THAT is why I don’t like headscarves on the soccer field or in the schools, or anywhere else. Whereas choosing the pink colored mohawk haircut represents one thing (punk? anarchy? individuality or bad taste?) the headscarf represents patriarchal theocracy.
cm – March 5, 2007 4:57 PM
gr, everything represents patriarchal theocracy. ::sigh::
Alan – March 5, 2007 5:01 PM
David, you must know someone else having a discussion with you as “which is to posit that Canada is racist society biggoted various minorities” has nothing to do with me or anything I have written. Maybe it’s the voices coming from those sharp edged pillows.
Gorthos – March 5, 2007 7:40 PM
http://www.gorthos.com/blog
My house is a matriachal dictatorship ::sigh::
Gorthos – March 5, 2007 7:44 PM
http://www.gorthos.com/blog
matriarchal… damn my fingers