On the contrary, shouting that gf comment in public may lead to defamation unless it is VERY clear that it is a joke, (ie the gf was there when it was shouted and laughed etc), since it is a public place and a place where peopl who know the bf and the gf would appear, and that statement would give these friends or public a negative impression of the person defamed and her status in eyes of friends and society would be tarnished and hence suffered damage to her reputation.

Anyway back to Babel's case, its really a tough situation not just with the FA but with alot of other bodies, ie this social media phenomena. It cannot be denied that the social media reaches out to so much more audience - tens of thousands to millions of readers - and the impact can be disastrous if not handled well. The FA have their disciplinary board and rules and one of it is nothing disrespectful or diminishing the image of the referees / FAs should be published in public. One of the factors considered (rightfully or wrongfully) would have been the need to prevent mass flooding of similar messages by others. So sadly Ryan was made a scapegoat in that sense. But on the other hand if nothing was done, and that act is deemed condoned, imagine how many such tweets will appear on players or manager's blog on a weekly or even daily basis. Imagine the pressure on the referees whose faces are on blogs everywhere with not-so-well-received comments and how can they even stand out to the pitch that weekend to officiate a match?

my 2 cents

As with most human decisions, the line is drawn by - humans, based on the peculiar facts of each case. This is the reason why panels are set up and why there is court of law etc. In most legal systems / association laws etc, there is always room for personal input from whoever sits in the decising role - it is after all their "experience" and "know how" that puts them in that seat in the first place - they, the arbiters are suppose to be able to decide based on their (perceived) vast knowledge and understanding of the game and rules and can give a decision in context.

Which is why it is academic that the discussions here go on without having sight of the arbiter's decision - which we wont have, since Babel has accepted the charge. To criticse the arbiter's decision, one has to look at their written grounds and reasoning and draw conclusions from what one sees. I have stated that my earlier post was just my 2 cents based on my perception and that alone. And yes, reluctance of FIFA to allow replays for consideration does complicate matters - even if a decision is written, likely no weight can be adduced on external tv replays - so those evidence are just conveniently ignored. Sad but to overcome this the only way is to amend the laws and that means someone has to vote our good friend Sepp out of office and do something about it.

And nope I did not suggest that FA clamp this down. I am just saying in my humble view that would appear to be one reason or factor the FA looks at - without the grounds of decision we can only speculate - and if that is so i think Babel was just unfortunate to be the first to be tested and punished. Like it or not, at least this sets a precedent as to future conduct (whatever passed - neil warnock and co - will remain past) and in future if there are damaging tweets going beyond mere vulgar words (again who judges this? the arbiters - its a subjective test) may have a tougher time to distinguish their case from that of Babel's.

And yup you are right there could be a blanket rule. But i still think they will deal with it ad hoc. This does not mean favouritism (at least not legally) because it is trite law that there can never be two exact scenarios - there are bound to be differences (mental state, occassion of the breach, background of complainents, repeat offenders? etc etc... possibilities are endless) and these differences may or may not lead to different results. The arbiters will have to live with the criticms on their decisions, but a decision they have to make nonetheless.