No ban for Marler's elbow drop

[cadofyddol]

"If they're going to ban Marler then they need to be consistent, and apply bans to anyone like Evans who's used the same term to describe the same player."


End of.

As I said in the previous post, I must have missed something. Which Evans said what?

[cadofyddol]

"If they're going to ban Marler then they need to be consistent, and apply bans to anyone like Evans who's used the same term to describe the same player."


End of.

I think they'd also need to ban anyone who's described Marler in the way COS is suggesting, and probably a huge number more. If they genuinely want to remove offensive language towards other players, or officials , or crowd, and perhaps even take colourful metaphors from the game then fair enough, I'm not that bothered about it but whatever, I've no real objection to such aim - just right now I suspect this is akin to a scrum half on a team lading by 17+ being pinged for a feed into the scrum in the 78th minute

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

[Nightynight]

"Out of interest why do you find it absurd that gypsies are considered a race? "

"Race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century."


Since I don't think they are distinct race to qualify, social boundaries and cultures is loose and specific religion. Who qualifies as gypsy? Irish, English, European ones they are not uniform, your version of race would mean calling someone a manc/Geordie/ scouse/ gog cnut is racist since they have as much affiliation to a particular social grouping.

[Digby]

Society today as a majority still finds it acceptable to treat Travellers and Gypsies negatively, which is why people like you think it'd acceptable to racially abuse them.

In a way I have some sympathy for them, but such lifestyle is increasingly difficult to marry into a fairly heavily populated modern society. And then any sympathy vanishes when exposed to real life examples, whether through noise, stench, thieving.... In simple terms I have no race issues with the gypsies, I have societal ones. I understand the law regards them as a race, but I don't tend to regard people by race period I regard them by their actions, and Is suspect that's actually quite normal. So be they of Indian through Romani stock, or of Irish traveller it's not their race I've an issue with, it's their lifestyle and what that does to others.

It's not an easy situation, I certainly don't think they should be attacked, but other than hoping they all decide to abandon their lifestyle, and in my sole experience utterly unacceptable behaviour, I really don't know what one does with them other than hope they don't turn up near you and if they do the police can move them on quickly without too much havoc being wreaked.

[Nightynight]

"If they're going to ban Marler then they need to be consistent, and apply bans to anyone like Evans who's used the same term to describe the same player."


End of.

I think they'd also need to ban anyone who's described Marler in the way COS is suggesting, and probably a huge number more. If they genuinely want to remove offensive language towards other players, or officials , or crowd, and perhaps even take colourful metaphors from the game then fair enough, I'm not that bothered about it but whatever, I've no real objection to such aim - just right now I suspect this is akin to a scrum half on a team lading by 17+ being pinged for a feed into the scrum in the 78th minute

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

maybe because he thought it was done and dusted or maybe because he thinks both sides of the event should be heard before people start screaming racist, not everything is done underhanded yer paranoid looney.

[oldbackrow]

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

So out of interest, if Marler had been called a "Sais boy", by either a Welsh or Scottish player (saisenag) ,as similar has been used previously and has been used on these boards, would that be considered as racist abuse?

[Digby]

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

The section detailing inappropriate behaviour, such as racism, makes it quite clear that abuse isn't acceptable on grounds of other than racism, and then gives a catchall of not doing anything which adversely affects the game. Why WR would only pick out one element of their own code of conduct isn't clear, and anyway calling someone an English C**t is racist or being discriminatory on the basis of national origin.

And there's no point saying Quins are trying to muddy the water, the water is muddied. Language and indeed behaviour falling foul of WR's code of conduct is ignored just about always.

[Digby]

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

So out of interest, if Marler had been called a "Sais boy", by either a Welsh or Scottish player (saisenag) ,as similar has been used previously and has been used on these boards, would that be considered as racist abuse?

Racist or more likely discriminatory on the basis of national origin as English isn't a race, both are in breach regardless.

[cadofyddol]

"Out of interest why do you find it absurd that gypsies are considered a race? "

"Race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century."


Since I don't think they are distinct race to qualify, social boundaries and cultures is loose and specific religion. Who qualifies as gypsy? Irish, English, European ones they are not uniform, your version of race would mean calling someone a manc/Geordie/ scouse cnut is racist since they have as much affiliation to a particular social grouping.

There is much conjecture with regards to human history and diversity, and for each argument you put forward from another person, I could probably find an alternative.
There is apparently less diversity in the entire human genome than there is in a troupe of wild chimps.

Ive not given you 'my' version of race so your final sentence is wrong.

Also the paragraph you have quoted at the start is misleading too...
It begins "Race, the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences...." African, Indian, Oriental, Aboriginal all have physical and behavioural differences that mark them apart. There is no mention of genetic diversity. It then goes on to dismiss the existence of "biogenetically distinct races" but the opening sentence is comparing people on physical and behavioural differences not genetic.

So what if race is a cultural intervention, it acknowledges the physical and behavioural differences in the human race and laws have been created to protect those people from abuse relating to their 'race'.

Whether you think they are a race or not is irrelevant, as the law does. The law changes, years ago it was acceptable to enslave 'negros' then that changed. Not so long ago in the eyes of the law Gypsies weren't recognised as a race, they are now.
If you only recognise race with regards to genetic diversity then you must think it's acceptable to abuse black people, oriental people etc as it's not racist.

[cadofyddol]

I think they'd also need to ban anyone who's described Marler in the way COS is suggesting, and probably a huge number more. If they genuinely want to remove offensive language towards other players, or officials , or crowd, and perhaps even take colourful metaphors from the game then fair enough, I'm not that bothered about it but whatever, I've no real objection to such aim - just right now I suspect this is akin to a scrum half on a team lading by 17+ being pinged for a feed into the scrum in the 78th minute

It's funny how when COS spoke out in the press to defend Marler originally, there was no mention Marler being abused. However now that the caravan comments have emerged COS is busy throwing mud to try and justify his player's racist abuse.
All this from the club that brought you bloodgate!

The thing you're also really struggling to comprehend is that it's only the racist abuse that World Rugby are looking to remove. Non racist abuse is acceptable!

maybe because he thought it was done and dusted or maybe because he thinks both sides of the event should be heard before people start screaming racist, not everything is done underhanded yer paranoid looney.

And not everything is done above board you racist c**t

[Nightynight]

jesus wept, f#$l rationale thinking then LOL. I think the above sums it up, by definition don't agree then you must be racist as well. hypocrisy in action

[cadofyddol]

Society today as a majority still finds it acceptable to treat Travellers and Gypsies negatively, which is why people like you think it'd acceptable to racially abuse them.

In a way I have some sympathy for them, but such lifestyle is increasingly difficult to marry into a fairly heavily populated modern society. And then any sympathy vanishes when exposed to real life examples, whether through noise, stench, thieving.... In simple terms I have no race issues with the gypsies, I have societal ones. I understand the law regards them as a race, but I don't tend to regard people by race period I regard them by their actions, and Is suspect that's actually quite normal. So be they of Indian through Romani stock, or of Irish traveller it's not their race I've an issue with, it's their lifestyle and what that does to others.

It's not an easy situation, I certainly don't think they should be attacked, but other than hoping they all decide to abandon their lifestyle, and in my sole experience utterly unacceptable behaviour, I really don't know what one does with them other than hope they don't turn up near you and if they do the police can move them on quickly without too much havoc being wreaked.

People should be judged by their actions and not their 'race' but unfortunately due to a number of incidents involving Gypsies, they are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, and as a result society finds it acceptable to racially abuse them. That attitude used to prevail towards black people but thankfully it has now changed.

It's not acceptable to abuse someone about the colour of their skin but it is ok to do so with regards to the colour of their hair. It seems bizarre but mankind's actions have resulted in this situation. We live in a democratic society and the law is what it is. And if we break the law we have to face up to the consequences.

[Digby]

People should be judged by their actions and not their 'race' but unfortunately due to a number of incidents involving Gypsies, they are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, and as a result society finds it acceptable to racially abuse them. That attitude used to prevail towards black people but thankfully it has now changed.

It's not acceptable to abuse someone about the colour of their skin but it is ok to do so with regards to the colour of their hair. It seems bizarre but mankind's actions have resulted in this situation. We live in a democratic society and the law is what it is. And if we break the law we have to face up to the consequences.

I'd say find me an acceptable gypsy so I can consider if they've been unfairly tarnished. And just to note if someone is now living legally in approved dwelling they're likely to fail an important criteria I'd have for them being a gypsy, but I congratulate them on joining the larger society.

[cadofyddol]

jesus wept, f#$l rationale thinking then LOL. I think the above sums it up, by definition don't agree then you must be racist as well. hypocrisy in action

I threw the comment in to make a point.
I think that the RFU and Six Nations rugby have acted badly to what was a racist comment, so I have called them on it. Rather than putting their hands up and saying yes it is not acceptable lesson learned, people are still making excuses, so I have called them on that too.
You found it necessary to call me a paranoid looney, maybe in jest. But it's difficult to tell in written format. I responded to the name calling, with a comment I don't really believe as I don't know you, to point out how childish name calling is.

[cadofyddol]

People should be judged by their actions and not their 'race' but unfortunately due to a number of incidents involving Gypsies, they are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, and as a result society finds it acceptable to racially abuse them. That attitude used to prevail towards black people but thankfully it has now changed.

It's not acceptable to abuse someone about the colour of their skin but it is ok to do so with regards to the colour of their hair. It seems bizarre but mankind's actions have resulted in this situation. We live in a democratic society and the law is what it is. And if we break the law we have to face up to the consequences.

I'd say find me an acceptable gypsy so I can consider if they've been unfairly tarnished. And just to note if someone is now living legally in approved dwelling they're likely to fail an important criteria I'd have for them being a gypsy, but I congratulate them on joining the larger society.

Awesome!

[WaspInWales]

Given that Henson was attacked from behind and reacted to it, I think the penalty was completely disproportionate.

Bollocks. What is disproportionate is rugby's inability to sanction offences across the board.

Henson's elbow and kick were cheap shots that were duly dealt with. Unfortunately, repeated failings by rugby's governing bodies have left the citings procedure nothing more than a lottery.

It's about time we had a no-nonsense approach that leaves no player, regardless of what domestic team or nation they represent under no illusion that should they be a cwnt, they will be dealt with.

What's your definition of a cheap shot?

For me Moreno's shot at Henson is cheap, as Henson has his back turned. Henson reacting and landing before Moreno does, isn't imo.

I'd consider both were cheap shots.

[Nightynight]

jesus wept, f#$l rationale thinking then LOL. I think the above sums it up, by definition don't agree then you must be racist as well. hypocrisy in action

I threw the comment in to make a point.
I think that the RFU and Six Nations rugby have acted badly to what was a racist comment, so I have called them on it. Rather than putting their hands up and saying yes it is not acceptable lesson learned, people are still making excuses, so I have called them on that too.
You found it necessary to call me a paranoid looney, maybe in jest. But it's difficult to tell in written format. I responded to the name calling, with a comment I don't really believe as I don't know you, to point out how childish name calling is.

I called you a looney since you have now resorted to inferring conspiracy theories around peoples motives to support your arguments. Sod, rationale thinking ...that maybe, just maybe 2 front forwards were both giving each other verbal during a rugby match, hence why Lee referred to the episode as banter, heaven forbid that logic or balance views, common sense should be getting in the way of a good version of events to support one person's view with an axe to grind.

[Digby]

People should be judged by their actions and not their 'race' but unfortunately due to a number of incidents involving Gypsies, they are pretty much all tarred with the same brush, and as a result society finds it acceptable to racially abuse them. That attitude used to prevail towards black people but thankfully it has now changed.

It's not acceptable to abuse someone about the colour of their skin but it is ok to do so with regards to the colour of their hair. It seems bizarre but mankind's actions have resulted in this situation. We live in a democratic society and the law is what it is. And if we break the law we have to face up to the consequences.

I'd say find me an acceptable gypsy so I can consider if they've been unfairly tarnished. And just to note if someone is now living legally in approved dwelling they're likely to fail an important criteria I'd have for them being a gypsy, but I congratulate them on joining the larger society.

Awesome!

More acceptable than awesome that they've taken a move into society. Moving around the country setting up camps illegally being unacceptable even before their further actions paint such a rancid picture. I can see why such travelling was once acceptable, and frankly even useful looking back at our social history, but as things stand it's anachronistic and hard to see where they'd fit in, and why anyone would want them.

[cadofyddol]

jesus wept, f#$l rationale thinking then LOL. I think the above sums it up, by definition don't agree then you must be racist as well. hypocrisy in action

I threw the comment in to make a point.
I think that the RFU and Six Nations rugby have acted badly to what was a racist comment, so I have called them on it. Rather than putting their hands up and saying yes it is not acceptable lesson learned, people are still making excuses, so I have called them on that too.
You found it necessary to call me a paranoid looney, maybe in jest. But it's difficult to tell in written format. I responded to the name calling, with a comment I don't really believe as I don't know you, to point out how childish name calling is.

I called you a looney since you have now resorted to inferring conspiracy theories around peoples motives to support your arguments. Sod, rationale thinking ...that maybe, just maybe 2 front forwards were both giving each other verbal during a rugby match, hence why Lee referred to the episode as banter, heaven forbid that logic or balance views, common sense should be getting in the way of a good version of events to support one person's view with an axe to grind.

And you're using conspiracy theories to dismiss another person's conjecture to support your own.
Why didn't the RFU or COS say initially that Marler was being abused too? They chose to defend him and could have added more 'weight' to their defence.

Maybe just maybe two front row forwards were giving each other verbal during the match, but one of them stepped over the line by resorting to racist comments. Or maybe that's just a conspiracy theory as there is no evidence to support Marler getting abused.

There's only one group of people who aren't using logic. Racial abuse caught on ref's mic. Player admits to racial abuse. Minimum sanction for racial abuse is 4 weeks. Accusations of sour grapes and conspiracy theories.... Hmmmm which is the odd one out.

[Nightynight]

Its nothing other than common sense

what do you expect COS to do other than defend one of his player's? eh?

Two front players giving verbal, you don't see that as being the most likely scenario?

sour grapes comment comes from the constant banging on about a 4 week ban, where actually the punishment is up to the review panel and you didn't get what you wanted. Secondly the WRU involvement, with a slight one eye'd view by missing other person's making similar comments. Its not an accusation if its a fact.

I'm out of this,

[cadofyddol]

Its nothing other than common sense

what do you expect COS to do other than defend one of his player's? eh?

Two front players giving verbal, you don't see that as being the most likely scenario?

sour grapes comment comes from the constant banging on about a 4 week ban, where actually the punishment is up to the review panel and you didn't get what you wanted. Secondly the WRU involvement, with a slight one eye'd view by missing other person's making similar comments. Its not an accusation if its a fact.

I'm out of this,

I'm not asking for a 4 week ban, I'm just quoting that that is the supposed minimum for racist abuse. Quite frankly I'm almost past caring what happens to Marler, for me it goes deeper and I want Six Nations rugby to be held accountable for this almighty cock up. What I wanted was a decision in line with their published guidelines not a sham brushing it under the carpet. If Marler would have only got one week I would have accepted it as the typical Rugby inconsistency, but no ban is lamentable considering that there is a big push to kick racism out of sport.

I have no issue with CoS defending his player, but I question why he didn't bring up the abuse initially when he spoke up. You were banging on about conspiracy theories, which is exactly what CoS is doing. There is no proof as of yet (so therefore not FACT) that Marler was abused, and whilst it wouldn't surprise me that there has been verbals from both sides it also wouldn't surprise me if nothing abusive was said in response. As far as I'm aware it's not been said that Marler was responding to abuse, just that he was abused. So let's not try and paint a picture that has no facts to support it.

The other issue that I find incredulous is that both you and Digby would take a different view if it was a black player being abused and not a Gypsy. For me that just about sums it up.

Finally I would say I don't have an issue with Marler, sure he come across as a knob and several people I know who have had dealings with him say the same, but I'm happy to accept that he's not a person who would discriminate against someone based on their race. He's said some stupid comments in the heat of the moment and will probably suck up any punishment that comes his way like a man.
The issue I have is with the joke of a governing body that could have prevented all this from dragging on if they weren't so incompetent!

[Stooo]

Its nothing other than common sense

what do you expect COS to do other than defend one of his player's? eh?

Two front players giving verbal, you don't see that as being the most likely scenario?

sour grapes comment comes from the constant banging on about a 4 week ban, where actually the punishment is up to the review panel and you didn't get what you wanted. Secondly the WRU involvement, with a slight one eye'd view by missing other person's making similar comments. Its not an accusation if its a fact.

I'm out of this,

I'm not asking for a 4 week ban, I'm just quoting that that is the supposed minimum for racist abuse. Quite frankly I'm almost past caring what happens to Marler, for me it goes deeper and I want Six Nations rugby to be held accountable for this almighty cock up. What I wanted was a decision in line with their published guidelines not a sham brushing it under the carpet. If Marler would have only got one week I would have accepted it as the typical Rugby inconsistency, but no ban is lamentable considering that there is a big push to kick racism out of sport.

I have no issue with CoS defending his player, but I question why he didn't bring up the abuse initially when he spoke up. You were banging on about conspiracy theories, which is exactly what CoS is doing. There is no proof as of yet (so therefore not FACT) that Marler was abused, and whilst it wouldn't surprise me that there has been verbals from both sides it also wouldn't surprise me if nothing abusive was said in response. As far as I'm aware it's not been said that Marler was responding to abuse, just that he was abused. So let's not try and paint a picture that has no facts to support it.

The other issue that I find incredulous is that both you and Digby would take a different view if it was a black player being abused and not a Gypsy. For me that just about sums it up.

Finally I would say I don't have an issue with Marler, sure he come across as a knob and several people I know who have had dealings with him say the same, but I'm happy to accept that he's not a person who would discriminate against someone based on their race. He's said some stupid comments in the heat of the moment and will probably suck up any punishment that comes his way like a man.
The issue I have is with the joke of a governing body that could have prevented all this from dragging on if they weren't so incompetent!

This.

[Sandydragon]

Its nothing other than common sense

what do you expect COS to do other than defend one of his player's? eh?

Two front players giving verbal, you don't see that as being the most likely scenario?

sour grapes comment comes from the constant banging on about a 4 week ban, where actually the punishment is up to the review panel and you didn't get what you wanted. Secondly the WRU involvement, with a slight one eye'd view by missing other person's making similar comments. Its not an accusation if its a fact.

I'm out of this,

I'm not asking for a 4 week ban, I'm just quoting that that is the supposed minimum for racist abuse. Quite frankly I'm almost past caring what happens to Marler, for me it goes deeper and I want Six Nations rugby to be held accountable for this almighty cock up. What I wanted was a decision in line with their published guidelines not a sham brushing it under the carpet. If Marler would have only got one week I would have accepted it as the typical Rugby inconsistency, but no ban is lamentable considering that there is a big push to kick racism out of sport.

I have no issue with CoS defending his player, but I question why he didn't bring up the abuse initially when he spoke up. You were banging on about conspiracy theories, which is exactly what CoS is doing. There is no proof as of yet (so therefore not FACT) that Marler was abused, and whilst it wouldn't surprise me that there has been verbals from both sides it also wouldn't surprise me if nothing abusive was said in response. As far as I'm aware it's not been said that Marler was responding to abuse, just that he was abused. So let's not try and paint a picture that has no facts to support it.

The other issue that I find incredulous is that both you and Digby would take a different view if it was a black player being abused and not a Gypsy. For me that just about sums it up.

Finally I would say I don't have an issue with Marler, sure he come across as a knob and several people I know who have had dealings with him say the same, but I'm happy to accept that he's not a person who would discriminate against someone based on their race. He's said some stupid comments in the heat of the moment and will probably suck up any punishment that comes his way like a man.
The issue I have is with the joke of a governing body that could have prevented all this from dragging on if they weren't so incompetent!

Completely agree. Lee has accepted the apology and any wider offense is for the Traveling Community to take - Im not going to take any on their behalf.

What does annoy me is that, as you point out, the governing body has ignore its own clear laws with no explanation as to why. A punch can be thrown that does little damage in the heat of the moment, but it will still be punished. Why not racist abuse when, as you correctly point out, all sports are trying to stamp down on incidences of this? Its very hard to avoid the conclusion of the issue being swept under the carpet since the 6N committee haven't provided any sensible or clear rationale for their decision. Perhaps World Rugby will agree with them and we will at least get a better explanation. Either way, I want rugby to get a f*cking grip and front up on why this decision was made.

[cadofyddol]

I give up!!! I was wrong and Nighty, Digby et Al are right. Apparently it's nothing but a witch hunt by the media. Apologies to the afore mentioned, to Saint Joe of Marler, to Conner of the Shea, to the Six Nations committee and anyone else who I have upset. Next time I will read the small print.

The RFU - #kicking racism out of sport



except in the heat of the moment!

[Sandydragon]

Hopley joins the increasingly lengthy list of people who don't emerge from this with credibility enhanced. The only point I'd agree with is the length of time taken to pass judgement. It is fast approaching a farce.