Animal rights group PETA demands ban on ‘disrespectful’ sporting terms such as ‘bullseye’ 

Golfers may think of the word “worm-burner” as a slightly eccentric sporting term for a shot that rolls on the ground.

But for serious animal rights activists, it is the cruel terminology that should be banned.

Badminton players should also never describe a shuttle hit out of play as a “dead bird,” they say, and in tennis, the “hot dog” shot famously used by Nick Kyrgios and Roger Federer, which sends the ball between the legs of the player is hit. , should be called a “vegan hot dog” instead.

Even the bullseye in darts should be renamed lest anyone think it derogatorily refers to the eye of a real bull.

Campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has a list of sports terms it now wants to review to prevent disrespect for animals.

Ahead of last weekend’s Boat Race, PETA wrote to British Rowing calling for an end to the obscure rowing term “catch a crab,” used for an erroneous stroke in which the oar remains submerged for too long

Ahead of last weekend’s Boat Race, PETA also wrote to British Rowing calling for an end to the obscure rowing term “catch a crab,” used for an erroneous stroke that leaves the oar submerged too long.

Mark Davies, chairman of British Rowing, shared the letter on Twitter and sparked a lot of discussion.

Toby Young of the Free Speech Union said: ‘This is a perfect example of activist overreach.

“By trying to ban innocent words and phrases that have been used for decades on golf courses and village green cricket games, PETA is making itself sound ridiculous.

“No one, not even the most ardent animal rights activist, could seriously want tennis players to call a shot the ‘vegan hot dog.'”

Lee Monks, of the Plain English Campaign, said: ‘This really is the height of silly, easy pearl coupling.

“The charm—unless we’re immune to it—of distinctive sports terms is their humour.

“The idea that there could be inherent cruelty in terms like ‘worm burner’ or ‘dead bird’ is ludicrous.

‘How many worms and birds are likely to take offense?

‘Sporting quips like ‘featherbed’ and ‘catch a crab’ are also completely harmless.

“The choice of alternatives is quite embarrassing.”

Animal terms abound in the sport, and some are overtly violent, such as the “rabbit punch” in boxing.

Giving someone a rabbit punch, which is a sharp, dangerous blow to the neck, is illegal, and campaigners want the term, which comes from a rabbit-hunting technique, to be banned as well.

However, they are also unhappy with much friendlier terms, such as the “featherbed” in cricket, which is a slow, soft pitch with a predictable bounce.

Because duck and geese feathers support the foie gras industry and can in some cases be painfully plucked from birds that are still alive, PETA suggests cricketers should ditch the term featherbed and replace it with “mattress topper.”

PETA’s Elisa Allen said: “Words matter, and sporting terms that normalize violence or mock the misery of animals, even subconsciously, should be given a modern overhaul.

“Choosing more inclusive and respectful language in relation to our compassionate, sentient beings is a really sporting thing to do.”

Mark Davies, chairman of British Rowing, shared the letter on Twitter and sparked a lot of discussion

She said: “Athletes, commentators and fans alike would surely smile rather than cringe if paddlers ‘freed a lobster’ rather than ‘catch a crab’, as captive crabs often suffer pain when their legs are damaged or torn off by workers who pull it. of fishing nets.

“And since throwing a ‘rabbit punch’ is already banned in boxing and other martial arts, why not scrap the phrase as well – derived from the barbaric way hunters kill rabbits by attempting to sever their spinal cords.”

PETA says animal words in sports are examples of “speciesism,” which they liken to racism and sexism.

Among their proposed replacements, the rather odd phrase “germ burner” refers to a golf ball that burns germs off the ground, rather than worms.

Frank Furedi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Kent, said: ‘This is PETA linguistic engineering that wants to rob us of all our metaphors and make people feel guilty about things for which there is no reason.

“I don’t think there are many fools who would object to the use of the word bullseye, but PETA is determined to master the language to make their extreme position seem credible.”