General Rugby Discussion

jacothelad · 29-03-2016 10:59PM

Stheno wrote: »

No it's not the same under British law. Reading between the lines on what COS said, Marler was called a posh cnut and reacted subsequently

Calling Marler that would be moving him up the social scale quite dramatically. Calling him a tattooed oaf on the other hand would simply be telling the truth.

wp_rathead wrote: »

it's really not the same at all though
Us Connemara people aren't a recognised ethnic group

Have you lost your marbles?:D

former total · 29-03-2016 11:10PM

.ak wrote: »

Hmm, I don't agree. This is exactly why you have a central body. They've done it before with sanzar. Tbh they're completely right. It shouldn't have been brushed off because it sets a dangerous precedent.

The precedent is that World Rugby have decided that THIS instance warrants them stepping in over the Six Nations. Why not any of the other non-citings from the 6N? The answer is PR.

They've also pre-judged his guilt which is not how a disciplinary process should be conducted.

I don't remember the SANZAR case, refresh me?

irishbucsfan · 29-03-2016 11:16PM

How did they pre-judge his guilt?

The precedent that has been set here is that World Rugby will step in if there's a racial slur that goes unpunished. I'm perfectly fine with that precedent being set.

former total · 29-03-2016 11:25PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

How did they pre-judge his guilt?

The precedent that has been set here is that World Rugby will step in if there's a racial slur that goes unpunished. I'm perfectly fine with that precedent being set.

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/148375

World Rugby is of the view that the comments amount to misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct under World Rugby Regulation 20

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

OldRio · 29-03-2016 11:40PM

former total wrote: »

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/148375

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

My heart bleeds for him.

former total · 29-03-2016 11:50PM

OldRio wrote: »

My heart bleeds for him.

I've no sympathy for Marler either, comments like that are totally unacceptable.

But when you start picking and choosing what set of rules you're going to apply, then it's opening up all sorts of issues down the road.

Pink Fairy · 29-03-2016 11:53PM

Can non citings be appealed to world rugby? Some clear and obvious examples during this past 6n that received absolutely no censure, can the respective unions appeal,, or is it a 1 way street so to speak?

Bazzo · 29-03-2016 11:58PM

former total wrote: »

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/148375

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

He pleaded guilty to the 6 nations citing committee so he's already admitted guilt.

I don't think his guilt is in question, just the decision by the 6 nations organisers to let it go unpunished.

Stheno · 30-03-2016 12:14AM

Bazzo wrote: »

He plead guilty to the 6 nations citing committee so he's already admitted guilt.

I don't think his guilt is in question, just the decision by the 6 nations organisers to let it go unpunished.

Good point makes sense.

Webbs · 30-03-2016 12:18AM

former total wrote: »

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

But it was a breach there was no 'may' about it, he has already admitted he said it and I am sure that any racial slur is a punishable offence.
Its what punishment he gets may well depend on the media furore. If the 6N committee had done the right thing in the first place this would be all done and dusted.
In my opinion the 6N committee also have a case to answer

errlloyd · 30-03-2016 12:36AM

former total wrote: »

I've no sympathy for Marler either, comments like that are totally unacceptable.

Even if he gets an 8 week ban he's getting off lightly. Considering he should have been excepting his 6 nations medal and tie having spent the weekend off. Worst case scenario now he misses a mid table finish with Quins.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 30-03-2016 12:49AM

I can't see them banning him, to be honest.

A fine is more likely, I'd think. The only vaguely comparable case is the Potgieter one, I think, and that was a fine.

Stheno · 30-03-2016 12:52AM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I can't see them banning him, to be honest.

A fine is more likely, I'd think. The only vaguely comparable case is the Potgieter one, I think, and that was a fine.

Yep ended up with a 20k fine, half suspended and awareness training

Yeah_Right · 30-03-2016 01:22AM

I don't consider gypsy to be a racial slur. However the country I live in and the countries these two players are from consider it to be racist. Therefore Marler has to be punished.

If some called me a kiwi cnut or a sheep shagger, would that be racist? What about if I call all you country folks boggers or culchies?

wp_rathead · 30-03-2016 01:32AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't consider gypsy to be a racial slur. However the country I live in and the countries these two players are from consider it to be racist. Therefore Marler has to be punished.

If some called me a kiwi cnut or a sheep shagger, would that be racist? What about if I call all you country folks boggers or culchies?

no

Stheno · 30-03-2016 01:34AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

#

If some called me a kiwi cnut or a sheep shagger, would that be racist? What about if I call all you country folks boggers or culchies?

Boggers or culchies is fine tbh

Sheep shagger probably is too.

Now too sure on the kiwi cnut

Marlers comment was apparently something like "get back in your caravan, you gypsy" which is a bit worse imo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 30-03-2016 01:47AM

Probably a hypothetical question but there's a difference between racist words and derogatory words. Calling someone a culchie or bogger is not racism as being from outside of Dublin (or an urban area) is not a race in itself. I suppose f***ot, as used by Potgieter, is derogatory rather than racist, or it was being used in a derogatory way so who knows. I don't think bogger or culchie are terms used outside of Ireland so it's unlikely you'd get someone using them on the international scene anyway.

Being a sheep shagger is a personal choice and is in itself illegal so I don't even know where the line is with that one

Yeah_Right · 30-03-2016 02:00AM

wp_rathead wrote: »

no

That's good because I just consider them terms of endearment (and very truthful)

pickarooney · 30-03-2016 06:04AM

errlloyd wrote: »

It's not really about Samson. Use a slur is derogatory to a whole community, and plenty of representatives from that community have come out and condemned it.

What Jacques Poitgetier was homophobic there was no suggestion that anyone was he directed it at was even gay. David Pocock immediately reacted by saying "There could be gay people out here". I'd say if you were an Emerald Warrior or a Sydney Convict (the two gay rugby teams) and you'd heard him call someone a "******" and get away with it then it would really put you off rugby.

****** is a slur though, everyone knows that. Gypsy is a legitimate term and used by both the British government and people who self identify as gypsies (Tyson Fury's Twitter handle for example). It's also got nothing to do with ethnicity, certainly not as far as Lee, Fury or anyone of Irish descent is concerned. 'Posh English ****' is scarcely an ethnic slur either.

But we're going round in circles at this stage.

In America, white people appropriating terms for other ethnicities is seriously looked down on...

former total · 30-03-2016 08:05AM

Bazzo wrote: »

He pleaded guilty to the 6 nations citing committee so he's already admitted guilt.

I don't think his guilt is in question, just the decision by the 6 nations organisers to let it go unpunished.

He wasn't cited though?

We all know he said it, but every process should start with a basic presumption of innocence. That hasn't happened here. If Marler has a good lawyer...

The Cian Healy fiasco showed us what can happen when the disciplinary procedure is not done right. The Marler case has been a mess from the start.

jacothelad · 30-03-2016 09:06AM

former total wrote: »

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/148375

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

He got his hearing....in the ref mic. The guy did it. He admitted it. What hearing does he need? He needs instead to be called to account for his behaviour that was broadcast to millions of rugby fans. In the same game he also punched a player lying on the ground and feck all was done about that. He serially cheats in the scrum and feck all is done about that so lets not get all dewey eyed about fairness. The guy is a scrote. Suppose he'd used the 'n' word and 'get back to your mud hut' then apologised at half time. Would we be told he's 'Not a racist' by O'Shea and the RFU. Things can be said in the heat of the moment on the rugby field. We may all be guilty of using expletives. We don't go out and research players social history in order to racially abuse them.

jacothelad · 30-03-2016 09:10AM

former total wrote: »

I've no sympathy for Marler either, comments like that are totally unacceptable.

But when you start picking and choosing what set of rules you're going to apply, then it's opening up all sorts of issues down the road.

The people who did that were the 6 Nations disciplinary panel. They clearly ignored the laws of the game to suit a particular player and team. Does anyone think Marler was innocent and didn't deserve sanction? Does anyone think if it was another player who punched an opponent while lying on the ground that he would have been given a free pass? Does anyone think Mike Brown didn't deserve a red card sanction for slicing open Murray's eye area?

jacothelad · 30-03-2016 09:12AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I don't consider gypsy to be a racial slur. However the country I live in and the countries these two players are from consider it to be racist. Therefore Marler has to be punished.

If some called me a kiwi cnut or a sheep shagger, would that be racist? What about if I call all you country folks boggers or culchies?

That would be 'thin skinned Kiwi cnut,' surely?:D

former total · 30-03-2016 09:18AM

jacothelad wrote: »

The people who did that were the 6 Nations disciplinary panel. They clearly ignored the laws of the game to suit a particular player and team. Does anyone think Marler was innocent and didn't deserve sanction? Does anyone think if it was another player who punched an opponent while lying on the ground that he would have been given a free pass? Does anyone think Mike Brown didn't deserve a red card sanction for slicing open Murray's eye area?

Now we're getting places jaco.

So the question is, why is Marler being hauled up in front of World Rugby and not Brown? Or not any of the myriad of other players who have got away with serious foul play in the past, or just received a slap on the wrist?

The answer is PR.

30-03-2016 09:28AM

former total wrote: »

Now we're getting places jaco.

So the question is, why is Marler being hauled up in front of World Rugby and not Brown? Or not any of the myriad of other players who have got away with serious foul play in the past, or just received a slap on the wrist?

The answer is PR.

Straw that broke the camel's back?

Arguably the 6Nations panel and citing commissioners should also be hauled up in front of World Rugby to answer for their inactions too.

irishbucsfan · 30-03-2016 10:28AM

former total wrote: »

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/148375

Not that he "has a case to answer" or that it "may" amount to a breach. I know it's supposed to be an independent hearing but added to the media furore there's no way he can get a fair hearing now.

I'm a bit perplexed here. Either the comments do or don't breach the law. The hearing won't change what the comments were, they've already been established.

I have a lot of difficulty believing that someone is really struggling to see the difference between foul play during the course of a game (such as a tip tackle that goes unpunished or what Brown did while trying to play the ball) and racial abuse.

former total · 30-03-2016 10:47AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm a bit perplexed here. Either the comments do or don't breach the law. The hearing won't change what the comments were, they've already been established.

I have a lot of difficulty believing that someone is really struggling to see the difference between foul play during the course of a game (such as a tip tackle that goes unpunished or what Brown did while trying to play the ball) and racial abuse.

As I said; we know what he said. Everyone knows what he said. That's not the point, there is a process to be followed and they have not done so. Otherwise it's not a hearing, it's a sentencing.

I don't know if the second paragraph is directed at me but I absolutely see the difference between foul play and racial abuse. I am absolutely not defending Marler's comments at all, he should have been banned by the Six Nations committee.

But this is, to my knowledge, the first time that anyone has been hauled in front of a World Rugby hearing having already been investigated by the organising tournament. Am I wrong? Jacques Potgieter got away with a fine and some "re-education" for a similar offence - where were World Rugby then?

Any disciplinary process must have transparent and consistent criteria. Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence until the charge is proven. Neither of those seem to apply here.

The fact that Joe Marler might be a bit of a prat or even a bit of a racist doesn't deprive him of his rights to fair treatment. A decent barrister will savage this hearing.

jacothelad · 30-03-2016 10:49AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm a bit perplexed here. Either the comments do or don't breach the law. The hearing won't change what the comments were, they've already been established.

I have a lot of difficulty believing that someone is really struggling to see the difference between foul play during the course of a game (such as a tip tackle that goes unpunished or what Brown did while trying to play the ball) and racial abuse.

All the laws of the game should be followed, not just the ones that suit a particular bunch who happen to be i/c discipline at any given moment. A breach of the law is just that. When there are clear breaches and there is clear evidence to support it they should be dealt with properly by those who have agreed to do so. Not swept under the carpet or having an 'I see no ships' moment just to suit them. Eddie Jones and the RFU are not I/C world rugby despite what they might believe.

The late hit on Sexton v, France for example simply sent out a clear message that it was o.k. to do that sort of stuff. Ryan Wilson and Hogg going for his face and going unpunished is another example of double standards. Rugby is a complex and potentially dangerous game even when played within the spirit and letter of the laws. When those laws are ignored by those whose brief it is to uphold them then the game is in crisis. Is racial abuse worse than eye gouging or punching? No it isn't. It is different in kind, not in importance to the future of the game. Marler needs to be held accountable for his actions. He has escaped so far. 'Why?' I wonder. Is white on white racism deemed worthy of a lesser level of sanction and public scrutiny? No it isn't.

30-03-2016 10:53AM

former total wrote: »

But this is, to my knowledge, the first time that anyone has been hauled in front of a World Rugby hearing having already been investigated by the organising tournament. Am I wrong? Jacques Potgieter got away with a fine and some "re-education" for a similar offence - where were World Rugby then?

There is precedent as far as I can recall

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10145596/Lions-2013-IRB-appeal-decision-to-clear-Australia-captain-James-Horwill-for-stamp-on-Alun-Wyn-Joness-head.html

The IRB, in a statement, said: "Given its duty to preserve player welfare at all levels of the game, the IRB is compelled to further examine potential acts of foul play which either potentially or in reality impact on the preservation of player welfare.
"It is important for the IRB to ensure amongst all stakeholders in the game that there is full confidence that priority is given to player welfare and the values of the game."

pickarooney · 30-03-2016 11:20AM

jacothelad wrote: »

All the laws of the game should be followed, not just the ones that suit a particular bunch who happen to be i/c discipline at any given moment. A breach of the law is just that. When there are clear breaches and there is clear evidence to support it they should be dealt with properly by those who have agreed to do so. Not swept under the carpet or having an 'I see no ships' moment just to suit them. Eddie Jones and the RFU are not I/C world rugby despite what they might believe.

The late hit on Sexton v, France for example simply sent out a clear message that it was o.k. to do that sort of stuff. Ryan Wilson and Hogg going for his face and going unpunished is another example of double standards. Rugby is a complex and potentially dangerous game even when played within the spirit and letter of the laws. When those laws are ignored by those whose brief it is to uphold them then the game is in crisis. Is racial abuse worse than eye gouging or punching? No it isn't. It is different in kind, not in importance to the future of the game. Marler needs to be held accountable for his actions. He has escaped so far. 'Why?' I wonder. Is white on white racism deemed worthy of a lesser level of sanction and public scrutiny? No it isn't.

This all presupposes that what he said actually constitutes racism, something that nobody seems to have any proof, evidence or relevant opinion on.

World Rugby will need a lot more than vague interpretations of some as yet unquoted law to make a case against him. In their position how would you make a clear distinction between banter (posh English ****, ginger twat, taff prick) and racism?

General Rugby Discussion

Comments