And hijabs on the pitch are out:
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 Ottawa 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.
Hissy fits may now resume in earnest.
Phantom
My wife wears a head covering when appropriate and removes it when it is likely to get in the way. As a Christian man I don’t were anything on my head during prayer of prophecy however if it is forty below I wear a toque like any other human would. As Jesus said these rules were made for man not man for the rules.
My mistake Dawg. The way you’ve been rules lawyering this thing has me all confused. So, what are you on about then?
Joe, that’s what I figured. “When appropriate” pretty much covers it.
Well, Phantom, I’ve been careful not to attribute motives here, at least on the part of the principals–unlike some here. I continue to see no justification, on health and safety grounds (i.e., Law 4), for ejecting the girl from the game.
It was only natural that the imagery would re-ignite the culture wars, so my concern, as expressed over at my place, was that the kid should basically be allowed to play; in other words, be left alone. IFAB ducked the issue, as I have repeated many times, and didn’t even offer an opinion as to the legitimacy of the ref’s call. So, no help from that quarter.
We return to Canada: and, as I have also noted more than once, a “rule” capable of such wildly varying and contradictory interpretation leaves a citizen perpetually vulnerable. It’s not really a rule at all, but an invitation to anarchy. (Laws get tossed in this country for being insufficiently clear, but they’ve been a darn sight clearer, in the main, than “Law 4.”) In this case, the girl will suit up for a game never knowing if the ref will keep her in or kick her out. That is a completely untenable state of affairs.
So I’ve argued this on principle, fending off crazy speculation about her motives and those of her parents, predictable attacks on Islam, and professorial obfuscation. I have not once throughout this discussion called anyone a racist, certainly not the principals in this affair. I have my doubts about some of the commenters, I’ll admit, although xenophobia and not racism has been the sin in evidence, but I think I’ve kept it pretty clean so far, at least at my end.
I raised the issue of the yarmulke at the beginning of this thread to get people to check their feelings about this incident. Granted, it’s hard to make a health and safety case against a yarmulke, but it isn’t any easier making it about the head-scarf, as it turns out. Whole international women’s teams wear the head-scarf, and I’ve not heard of a single injury attributable to it. So I was, myself, admittedly, speculating a bit about the intensity of feeling expressed here and elsewhere. Was it all really just about soccer? I don’t believe that. But again, I accused no one of racism.
So I accept your apology. But don’t make easy assumptions about where I come from on this sort of thing.
Well Dawg, you’re a fine fellow. 😀 With the yarmulke thing I expected the worst.
But you’re wrong. Sorry. Not withstanding that Law 4 may or may not be a piece of crap, we have a ref’s ruling. Which has not been struck down. Which means it stands. Which means IFAB does not disagree. Pending further rules lawyering, that’s all she wrote.
Unless of course some bunch of busybodies pull this up in front of the Human Rights Commission. Then we get to see if this is a free country or not. Again.
As to the health/safety aspect, is not only possible but in fact likely that a Muslim soccer ref would probably have more idea about the relative safety of a hijab in a soccer game than the average? Just because the Iranian women’s team wears them doesn’t mean its a good idea, it means Iran is a place where women wear ’em whether they like it or not. And just because you never heard of it doesn’t mean it never happens, eh?
My two cents worth is that a game where you run and jump and kick is not a place to wear a scarf around your head and neck. Necks are not strong in torsion or in shear, particularly little girl’s necks. The chance of a twisting or cloths-line type injury are higher with the scarf than without.
Before you go off about shirt collars, a shirt is attached to the body. The hijab is attached to the head. It is much, much easier to damage the neck by pulling on the head than the body.
But you’re wrong. Sorry. Not withstanding that Law 4 may or may not be a piece of crap, we have a ref’s ruling. Which has not been struck down. Which means it stands. Which means IFAB does not disagree. Pending further rules lawyering, that’s all she wrote.
At the risk of further desecrating the corpse of a horse, what happens the next time she plays and is permitted on the pitch? That would also be a ref’s ruling. In fact, it’s an OSA ruling. That’s my whole point, and it’s not “rules-lawyering.” There’s simply not enough substance in the rule to lawyer. IFAB owed us a clarification, and we didn’t get it, so we’re all boxing at shadows at the moment.
Which would be OK, except there are real consequences here, for real people. The very least we should expect of a rule or law is that it be clear enough to let people know where they stand (or play). Otherwise we are at the mercy of whims.
Anyway, I’m done.