03-11-2016, 14:40
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2016, 14:46 by Salopbaggie.)
Been a while since we have had a good debate on a football related, but not Albion related topic and this looks like a contender.
While I totally see the case for these armbands, I also see F.I.F.A.'s position as well. The rules on wearing anything which makes a statement, political, religious "or a personal statements" are pretty clear. Where the problem lies is that if you do not totally apply the rule to everybody, in every circumstance, the rule ceases to be a rule and becomes more of a guidance. Also this type of issue is personally subjective and particularly comes to the front in international games.
I suspect the F.I.F.A. position is, if we just ban everything then we do not have to get into the position of having to judge what is acceptable and what is not. The problem for F.I.F.A. is each time you have to make a decision on an issue like this is someone will be upset, unfortunately on this occasion most people in the UK will be upset.
Do I agree with the Scottish and English F.A. decision to wear the armbands anyway, absolutely not, because if they are allowed to get away with it, who is going to break the rules next and hold this up as a precedent? Also is there really any need for them? If the rules say players can not wear them, then so be it. The poppy is supposed to be a symbol of remembrance, surely having the Royal Marine Band playing a few numbers before the game or something similar would act as a more fitting tribute, bearing in mind it is supposed to be about remembrance. Ask yourself what would you remember more, a group of players wearing armbands or a tribute by a military band before the game, of course that would mean people leaving the bar and the concession stores 10 minutes earlier and all that lost profit.
While I totally see the case for these armbands, I also see F.I.F.A.'s position as well. The rules on wearing anything which makes a statement, political, religious "or a personal statements" are pretty clear. Where the problem lies is that if you do not totally apply the rule to everybody, in every circumstance, the rule ceases to be a rule and becomes more of a guidance. Also this type of issue is personally subjective and particularly comes to the front in international games.
I suspect the F.I.F.A. position is, if we just ban everything then we do not have to get into the position of having to judge what is acceptable and what is not. The problem for F.I.F.A. is each time you have to make a decision on an issue like this is someone will be upset, unfortunately on this occasion most people in the UK will be upset.
Do I agree with the Scottish and English F.A. decision to wear the armbands anyway, absolutely not, because if they are allowed to get away with it, who is going to break the rules next and hold this up as a precedent? Also is there really any need for them? If the rules say players can not wear them, then so be it. The poppy is supposed to be a symbol of remembrance, surely having the Royal Marine Band playing a few numbers before the game or something similar would act as a more fitting tribute, bearing in mind it is supposed to be about remembrance. Ask yourself what would you remember more, a group of players wearing armbands or a tribute by a military band before the game, of course that would mean people leaving the bar and the concession stores 10 minutes earlier and all that lost profit.