Seattle Pacific University coach Cliff McCrath is soccer's version of Confucius -- he's usually good for a philosophy or two on any given issue. On the increasing use of foul language on the soccer pitch, for example -- and its growing acceptance nationally -- McCrath says, "A man who walks into the intersection on the green light may have the right of way, but that doesn't give him the right to be stupid and not look before crossing."

Translation: Just because the language bar has been lowered in some segments of society doesn't mean it should sink in college sports.

The NCAA Men's and Women's Soccer Rules Committee, of which McCrath is secretary-rules editor, tried to do something about the issue last year when it endorsed a zero-tolerance language-abuse policy that would require officials to red card (and eject) players and coaches who otherwise would have their mouths soaped.

The proposed policy earned mixed reviews from the NCAA governance structure -- Division I thought soccer's existing unsportsmanlike conduct rules were sufficient, while Divisions II and III supported the idea. The issue in fact was the first playing-rules proposal since the NCAA restructured to be decided by the Executive Committee, the final stop for playing-rules issues that don't gain agreement from all three divisions. Though the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel (a group composed of championships committee members and charged with providing input to the Executive Committee in such disputes) recommended adoption of the policy, the presidents on the Executive Committee decided that zero tolerance wasn't the right approach. They did say, however, that officials in all sports should enforce existing rules regarding player and coach behavior.

What prompted the issue in soccer in the first place was a request from soccer officials for the rules committee to consider more stringent enforcement of abusive language. Though current provisions in the soccer rules book allow officials the discretion to caution (yellow card) or eject (red card) players and coaches who use abusive or profane language or gestures, enforcement had become uneven at best.

"That led us into a discussion about the welfare of the game, the family side of what we're trying to promote, and the declining attendance we've been experiencing," said committee Chair Nelson Bobb, athletics director at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. "There's a difference between uttering an expletive after missing a shot and uttering one in the face of an official while arguing a call.

"The rules of soccer always allowed the officials to make those decisions during the course of the match. What appeared to be the problem, though, was that some conferences were employing officials who were reluctant to card the hand that fed them, so to speak. So how do you take that discretion out of the officials' hands? You make a zero-tolerance policy.

"That's how we got there. It was a very logical discussion."

International flavor

Soccer doesn't corner the market on language abuse, but the rules committee was the first in any sport to try so hard to turn off the four-letter faucet. There are several theories as to why the committee felt compelled to act. First, some of the "colorful" language that has infiltrated the sport has been imported from the international game, where some people believe such vernacular is more common and condoned. Second, it doesn't take much television viewing to recognize a societal tolerance creep in language use in this country, either.

"Third," said Bobb, "is that on the college soccer pitch, we're not playing in front of 60,000 or 70,000 people who drown the language out. So when the language flies, it's usually a point of emphasis because it's so audible. Then when kids who've heard it don't see it enforced, they take that down to the next level.

"Here we are promoting models for youth by showing them something that isn't enforced, so the next time you go to a high-school or youth match, you hear it."

Of the international influence, Ken Andres, secretary of the National Intercollegiate Soccer Officials Association, said what may be regarded as acceptable in some cultures has inadvertently corrupted the college game.

"It's unfortunate, but it's true," he said. "What we see are players who are participating in amateur soccer leagues throughout the year where that type of behavior is acceptable, and then bringing it into the intercollegiate game where it is not acceptable. It's as simple as that."

McCrath has heard it first-hand. "Historically in the international game, the idea of calling your opponent a despicable name is part of the game," he said. "Some countries in fact have spent years dreaming up things to say about each other that no other nationality has ever been able to match. To some, it's as natural as drinking milk."

Layton Shoemaker, former Messiah College coach who now chairs the National Soccer Coaches Association of America ethics committee, also has first-hand experience. In his role, he sees the reports that officials are required to file after issuing red cards. Shoemaker said language is the predominant reason for red-card ejections.

"I know what's happening in soccer," he said. "Some of the things that are said are absolutely abhorrent."

Indirect affect

Ironically, though the zero-tolerance policy was not adopted, some say the threat of implementation had an indirect affect on behavior. Andres said he's not hearing as many complaints from officials who report to him, and Bobb said the proposal has led to a better understanding of the spirit of current rules.

"Our bringing focus to the issue has prompted officials to enforce the existing rules more," Bobb said.

For some officials, the zero-tolerance policy cuts two ways. Though they appealed to the rules committee for help, some didn't want zero tolerance to be the final answer.

Andres said in some ways zero tolerance would put officials in a tough spot when those gray judgment calls are made black and white. Under the zero-tolerance policy, four-letter slips said in frustration after a mistake or an injury and not directed maliciously toward another player or official would earn an ejection. In such cases, the team would be able to replace that player. In blatant language violations, however, the offending player cannot be replaced as he or she can be