Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Brayan Chilly Shoplifter wrote: »

This whole sports moment of the decade thing is embarrassing. Listening to Joe and Nathan talking about it last night and they're both only interested in their own agendas.

Got a laugh out of Joe saying that Ireland aren't very successful at Football, though. It's pretty hard to be successful in a proper international game, as opposed to the very successful Irish rugby team who can't get to the last four of a 9 team tournament.

And Gilroy on OTB AM yesterday arguing about the Dublin-Donegal game from 2014.

He went into full Gilroy mode

I AM RIGHT
I AM RIGHT
I AM RIGHT

NA-NA-NA-NA-NA

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Challenge game? That doesn’t half give away your GAA roots. I’m going to assume you are a hurling man, coming from Tipperary and if you are, I’d suggest you take a look at your own sport. Munster championships are often won on the back of just two measly victories and are subsequently met with a confusing and disproportionate euphoria in some counties. This makes no sense whatsoever because a) how is two consecutive wins actually meaningful in any way? And b) even at that, the job is just half-done. Your own Tipp might not **** the bed after such a short run of victories but Waterford and Limerick routinely have. Players are branded heroes for winning two sh1tty games. Also, fck all counties take the game seriously, much like you point out with rugby. I would say three in Leinster and five in Munster. If you say only nine countries meaningfully play rugby, I’m not giving you the Dublin hurlers on this one. They play to two men and their dog in Parnell Park and nobody in the county cares. But let me correct you on the rugby issue from someone who knows and inflate your nine countries a little to reflect greater accuracy: Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and numerous others who may not be competitive with these teams, but do take the game seriously (your definition, not mine).

.
How are England Scotland and Wales separate countries?

100000 people live in tonga.

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Fck me.....ok let me explain this (I’m going to assume you aren’t trolling). In rugby terms (and soccer to a lesser extent), the United Kingdom, aside from Northern Ireland, is divided into three nations. They all have their individual federations who govern the local game and are financially independent from one another. When the detractors in this thread state that the RWC is a nine team tournament I am 110% sure they aren’t grouping England, Wales and Scotland together as one. Whether they are classified as ‘teams’ or ‘countries’ doesn’t really matter for the purposes of the exercise. Has this been difficult for you to comprehend? If so, let me know and I’ll simplify it EVEN further.

Now, for Tonga, you are going to have to return the favour to me. Thanks for the info on the country. Did you know that Greenland is the least densely populated territory on the planet?

Can you accept that they aren't countries and you got it wrong in your initial post

RoversCeltic wrote: »

Can you accept that they aren't countries and you got it wrong in your initial post

Of course not for the reasons already stated. It’s an issue of semantics and you well know that. Your point is illogical in rugby terms. This isn’t the United Nations. If it where, the legitimacy of our own all-island team would be called into question because it’s two countries and not one. I can scarcely believe I’m having this conversation.

Ahwell wrote: »

What exactly is it about players being racially abused that you don't find newsworthy? It was highlighted on MOTD, discussed in every sports program/podcast I have listened to since and written about in every newspapers sports section. You deeming it not worthy of being covered says a lot more about you then it does OTB.

Gary Neville brought up the British prime minister’s comments on immigration fuelling the situation, the OTB lads weren’t the only ones linking him with it.

generalgerry wrote: »

Last night news round.

"one man was thrown out of the Manchester Derby after racially abusing one of the players, one boy was thrown out of the spurs game for abusing Son, and two men were thrown out of the Brighton game for homophobic remarks". Followed by a discussion about how this is all Boris Johnson's fault for making incendiary remarks. And in such a "wonderfully liberal city as Manchester". Interestingly the same exact phrase that Shane Coleman used on the morning show.

Why exactly is a sports show going out of it's way to give us this news? I mean they didn't report anything about the result in Brighton, but gave us the statistics on the numbers of moral infringements they observed at the match. Stop trying to give us your message, just give us the sports news thanks.

Ahwell wrote: »

What exactly is it about players being racially abused that you don't find newsworthy? It was highlighted on MOTD, discussed in every sports program/podcast I have listened to since and written about in every newspapers sports section. You deeming it not worthy of being covered says a lot more about you then it does OTB.

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Gary Neville brought up the British prime minister’s comments on immigration fuelling the situation, the OTB lads weren’t the only ones linking him with it.

I am not condoning racist peoples behaviour. But I always find the whole racist thing a bit odd. Purely on the basis of history call a black person, 'a black xyz' it is racist. But call a white person 'a white xyz' it is not.
Then there is the getting into national stereotypes I remember John Giles said he used to be call a paddy, a spud picker etc. Is that racist?

I heard an English football commentator who recently use the phrase 'throwing a paddy'

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Throwing%20a%20paddy.

Is that racist? Or just xenophobic? So it is grand because there is no 'black' involved?

Then there is the sectarian abuse that James McClean gets thrown at him, he has said if he was Sterling there would have been uproar.

When they go on about 'throwing racism out of football' in the UK it is automatically assumed they mean racism against black players - as there are so few Asian and Indian subcontinent players/descendants.

The other thing I find odd about the whole thing, in order to promote black players and black managers they have or talked of separate organisations for black players and black managers! Which seems counter intuitive to me.

The following are the things they should really be looking at -
Has there ever being a BAME (British Asian Minority and Ethnic) as head of the FA in the UK? And why not?

At the same time when you look outside football in the uk have they ever even come close to having a BAME as PM? And why not?

The whole subject seems full of contradictions, politics, a bit of lip service, and the British class system in my view.

Tell me how wrote: »

I was going to reply to some of your points individually, but, its easier do it all at once.

Ultimately, yes, calling someone a 'white' whatever is as racist as calling them a 'black' whatever and calling Giles Paddy, Spud or whatever was racist.

But, there is no real doubt but that as a race, black people were persecuted much more than white and so the connotations of each term carry very different historical significance.

There is hypocrisy about how the FA react to racism and how they react to the abuse McClean gets, but it took a lot of black people getting a lot of abuse for a long time before they started to act on it and I've no doubt, that in time, they will act in relation to McClean (or other players in a similar way) purely because media attention will be drawn to it.
I think McClean already pointed out the fact that they would come out against him being targeted much harder and faster if it was because he was black.

There are people in every society, culture and race who are racist, but, in the window of time which we exist or pay close attention to, it was the black person who suffered most as a consequence of this and so the focus is more predominantly on ensuring that that no longer happens.

I think it is a cod to be honest. Just nice soundbites, especially in the UK it is jobs for the boys privately educated etc etc. It permeates not only in football at highest level of the FA but in corridors of power in Britain.

All the chat they go on about 'throwing racism out of football' are merely designed to throw them a bone. Make it look like stuff is being done. When in reality it is just mostly certain subset of guilty British white middle class people who hang thier head in shame for the past transgressions of thier ancestors.

Meanwhile there is a huge chasm between 'working class' Britain and top echelons of British society. Yet they think they will throw racism out of football.

Of course the top echclons in Britain can say and do what they like -

All you have to do is look at some of the stuff Prince Philip comes out with -

- If you stay here much longer you will all be slitty-eyed," the Prince told British exchange students who lived in Xian in 1986. When asked on his opinion of Beijing, he replied: "Ghastly."

There is plenty more recent stuff as well.

Really enjoying Cyril Farrell here. Hurling heaven !!

Akabusi wrote: »

I don't recall him doing any of that for Hull.

Well you're wrong there.

But would you explain to me what is meant by modern football?
I hear it a lot but I haven't a breeze what it means.
Sounds like something Jamie redknapp would say.