[Eric_the_Red99]

Lads it's not 'silly' ffs, it's homophobia and should should be treated with the seriousness of the charge.

I wouldn't be playing him for the rest of the season at least not in the seniors. If he's still throwing out such insults he's not mature enough to play with grown ups. He'll hopefully learn never to do that shit again.

I agree about him not being selected for the first team for the rest of the season. I’d have much more sympathy if he’d just punched the Barnsley player.

 

[devilish]

As in Marcus Thuram who was once sent off for spitting in someone's face?

Didn't know that tbh. Still someone who is raised in football should know better. Unlike players from tough backgrounds who struggle to come to terms with instant wealth the former footballers kids know what football is all about.They also would know they'll be baited.

Btw thuram claim to have been accidental (both father and son). However I didn't see it myself so I can't say

"Today something took place that is not in my character and must never happen. I reacted to an opponent in a wrong way and something occurred accidentally and not intentionally," Thuram wrote on Instagram."

 

[WitchWithoutACat]

Let's hope it was just a dumb mistake said in the moment and not because he's actually homophobic.

He can learn from the former but the latter is too far. Even for a young lad.

 

[IRN-BRUno]

True.

I might have missed it in the article but how did they manage to ban him - assuming the other player reported him? Or the ref overheard?

The referee's witness statement says he was stood next to him when he said it.

 

[jimmyb2000]

I agree about him not being selected for the first team for the rest of the season. I’d have much more sympathy if he’d just punched the Barnsley player.

Its only a 3 match ban for violent conduct so in a way that would have been 'better'.

But it does raise the issue - why does calling someone a nasty word be deemed more serious than physically assaulting someone. That doesn't make any sense to be honest.

Just to add before I get pelters, I'm not condoning a violent assault - merely highlighting how odd the severity of each action is when applied in comparison.

 

[Carl]

In the FA response they say it was later proven that another player was violent towards Jack prior to this incident. Does anyone know of that act of violence was punished?

6 games feels heavy. Good to see the FA taking action though.

 

[OL29]

Its only a 3 match ban for violent conduct so in a way that would have been 'better'.

But it does raise the issue - why does calling someone a nasty word be deemed more serious than physically assaulting someone. That doesn't make any sense to be honest.

Just to add before I get pelters, I'm not condoning a violent assault - merely highlighting how odd the severity of each action is when applied in comparison.

Well for one it's pretty hard to conclusively say that someone intended to cause someone serious damage under the guise of attempting a tackle. Every time you step on the field, you've already accepted the risk of injury. Unless it's an off the ball incident, which is rare, how do you separate a reckless tackle from a deliberate attempt to injure someone? Secondly, homophobic abuse impacts more than just the opponent. If the powers that be are seen to enabling it then they risk excluding huge demographics from the game which would cause a big financial hit.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's ridiculous. 6 games for that?

Not ridiculous at all

 

[erlichbachman]

Good to see FA setting an example, but it would be good if they also started punishing similar behaviour regarding swearing and insulting other players, referees, etc. You get 6 games for being homophobic, and that's more than fair, I wouldn't mind even if it's more, but how many games you get for saying this to the referee: "Are you blind you fecking cnut?". Especially young players who just started playing, I see them acting like idiots more than older players who are similar age with some refs. You cannot call all kind of words someone that is double your age.

I bet you can say that many times during the game and nothing will be done about it.

 

[Silas]

It’s not ‘silly’. Regardless of whether he said it because he views gay people as less or just to rile up the opposition, it’s still clearly homophobic. If he’s using it as an insult then that says all that needs to be said.

People being desensitised enough to consider it ‘silly’ rather than harmful are part of the problem. Swap it out for a different form of bigotry and I’m sure responses would be different.

 

[BehemothTerror]

The punishment is fine, obviously lad was out of line. Hope he learns from it and it's just an immature kid thing.

 

[Bright_Eyes]

Let's hope it was just a dumb mistake said in the moment and not because he's actually homophobic.

He can learn from the former but the latter is too far. Even for a young lad.

I mean, he is homophobic to say it. You can't call someone gay as an insult and not be homophobic. If you think gay is an insult you're by definition homophobic. If that's the "insult" that comes to you in the heat of the moment, you're homophobic. That doesn't mean he should be cancelled or whatever though. Not to excuse it, but it's probably in the way a lot of teens are homophobic and they grow out of it later, rather than him being a raging dedicated homophobe.

 

[Pass and Move]

It’s obviously not right to use that slur, but it’s a ridiculously harsh punishment for a young person being provoked while FIFA award the World Cup to countries where homosexuality is illegal.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Best mates with Mazaroui is he?

 

[SilentWitness]

It’s obviously not right to use that slur, but it’s a ridiculously harsh punishment for a young person being provoked while FIFA award the World Cup to countries where homosexuality is illegal.

What a fecking stupid comment.

 

[Pass and Move]

What a fecking stupid comment.

Care to explain how?

 

[FromTheBench]

What counts for his suspension?

U21 games or first team games or efl cups?

Or all?

 

[Hammondo]

Care to explain how?

Because those things are not related, whataboutism is a fallacy.

 

[Hammondo]

What counts for his suspension?

U21 games or first team games or efl cups?

Or all?

Someone wrote just reserves games.

 

[manutddjw]

I wouldn't put him in the first team for the rest of the season. Especially with the shit we just went through because of Ratcliffe's comments, we didn't really need this, especially coming from the son of one of our former players which guaranteed it would attract attention.

I do find it funny though that the player rakes another players Achilles and says stuff about Jack's family and then goes and cries to the referee. I don't find that "shithousery" or "wumming" amusing.

 

[Mainoonited]

I think the word homophobia gets thrown around. Most of us in our late 30s or 40s probably used that term as a mild insult when we were the same age.

Doesn't mean its ok - but im sure most of you who said it didn't do it from a place of spite for gay people.

The boy definitely needs to face some consequences, but lets try to avoid nasty labels.

There are people out there who genuinely hate homosexuals and woild cause them harm. Those are the sort of people who deserve the label. Jack if he doesn't repent for his actions - could then be deemed of that ilk.

 

[ariel]

His ban will be served at reserve level as it was a non-first team fixture, can't play in any setting until that is completed though.

In the FA's written reasons, Fletcher states that the player in question had stamped on his Achilles in an off-the-ball incident which was later proved in video footage. And that after Barnsley's 3rd goal, he walked past him rather than celebrating and made comments about his brother and father, which led him to say “You seem to know a lot about me, are you a gay boy?"

If this is true then the punishment is exaggerated.
It's not that he used foul language or some other word instead of gay, which I believe is a neutral or even likeable term.

Obviously he should have known better and kept his mouth shut. He will learn

 

[Oranges038]

Should have done a Zidane on it, would have got 3 games tops.

 

[Bondi77]

It’s obviously not right to use that slur, but it’s a ridiculously harsh punishment for a young person being provoked while FIFA award the World Cup to countries where homosexuality is illegal.

True.

 

[DOTA]

I think the word homophobia gets thrown around. Most of us in our late 30s or 40s probably used that term as a mild insult when we were the same age.

Doesn't mean its ok - but im sure most of you who said it didn't do it from a place of spite for gay people.

The boy definitely needs to face some consequences, but lets try to avoid nasty labels.

There are people out there who genuinely hate homosexuals and woild cause them harm. Those are the sort of people who deserve the label. Jack if he doesn't repent for his actions - could then be deemed of that ilk.

Pinky promising you don't really hate the gays doesn't stop the shit you've done being homophobic.

 

[Trequarista10]

He should know better. He's the son of a former football after all ie someone who grew up in football.

On top of this, he is the son of a former United player. United players are always held to a higher standard than players at other clubs, and punishments for United players are always on the higher end of the expected/reasonable range.

 

[PSV]

Sending off would have been enough for a first offence.

 

[Ekeke]

Stupid mistake. Young enough to learn

 

[Bondi77]

On top of this, he is the son of a former United player. United players are always held to a higher standard than players at other clubs, and punishments for United players are always on the higher end of the expected/reasonable range.

What do you base that on?

 

[championo]

It’s obviously not right to use that slur, but it’s a ridiculously harsh punishment for a young person being provoked while FIFA award the World Cup to countries where homosexuality is illegal.

You make too much sense it hurts.

 

[Drainy]

Sending off would have been enough for a first offence.

No because its discriminatory language and the punishment needs to dissuade players from using it

 

[SilentWitness]

Care to explain how?

1. Someone being provoked doesn't excuse homophobic retorts or insults.

2. FIFA awarding a country a world cup is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the situation at hand. He plays for a club which is part of the PL and FA which has been and continues to be involved in campaigns in support of the LGBT+ community, in a country where being gay is very much legal and not at all something which is wrong or weird in any way, which his comment and retort was quite clearly trying to mean or reference.

 

[Ish]

The referee's witness statement says he was stood next to him when he said it.

Thanks bud. Hope he learns from it and puts it behind him.

 

[PSV]

No because its discriminatory language and the punishment needs to dissuade players from using it

You have yellow for dissent and red for foul language for a reason. If it turns out he repeatedly offend you can start adding games.

 

[iHicksy]

Gen Z are obsessed with the 90's. Apparently they're even bringing back our cringe insults.

 

[Trequarista10]

What do you base that on?

Rio, Rooney, Evra the three main examples I was thinking of. Also numerous players who had genuine appeals against suspension rejected resulting in increased suspension. There was also the time that the FA upheld suspensions for red cards in a pre-season friendly.

 

[Sandikan]

His ban will be served at reserve level as it was a non-first team fixture, can't play in any setting until that is completed though.

In the FA's written reasons, Fletcher states that the player in question had stamped on his Achilles in an off-the-ball incident which was later proved in video footage. And that after Barnsley's 3rd goal, he walked past him rather than celebrating and made comments about his brother and father, which led him to say “You seem to know a lot about me, are you a gay boy?"

It's quite interesting when you read the actual details isn't it.

I swear a lot of people acting disgusted haven't read this.

 

[Wibble]

Its only a 3 match ban for violent conduct so in a way that would have been 'better'.

But it does raise the issue - why does calling someone a nasty word be deemed more serious than physically assaulting someone. That doesn't make any sense to be honest.

Just to add before I get pelters, I'm not condoning a violent assault - merely highlighting how odd the severity of each action is when applied in comparison.

Probably because it wasn't just an insult. Obviously.

 

[Wibble]

It's quite interesting when you read the actual details isn't it.

I swear a lot of people acting disgusted haven't read this.

What has reading those details got to do with using a homophobic slur? I don't think "I was really annoyed" is a justification for it TBH. Do you?

 

[goldenboy]

Well yeah. He's obviously homophobic. That's why when this player is being a weirdo to him with overly personal insults his instinct is to call that weirdness 'gay'.

What if hypothetically the player did know lots of personal information about him because he did in fact have a gay crush on him? Would it still be a homophobic insult, or just a statement of fact?