RugbyRebels

cadofyddol wrote:
So to answer your question, No I don't think that WR have heard this case before.

I know WR haven't heard the case before, I'm wondering though whether the new hearing is an appeal of the 6N decision or a de novo trial

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:
Why? Or at least why just him, and why not everyone else in breach of the code of conduct?

One comment was racist (under UK law); the other was not - even if it is also against WR code of conduct. Therein lies a huge difference (for an offence taking place on UK soil)

UK law isn't relevant unless Lee wants to take action outside of rugby. So unless someone wants to show WR are using it, and I've asked if they would and been told it'd be very unusual for them to do so then all we've got to go on is the WR code of conduct.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Its fair enough for Lee to make a complaint or not, but it would be equally fair for a Traveling Community organization to make a complaint on behalf of the community. There are also many examples of the police getting involved when no one has made a specific complaint but racist terms have been heard.

The English Law point is important as it defines gypsies as a recognized racial group. Therefore if rugby is interested in maintaining its own laws, it has to take account of that. Ive no doubt that across the land there is worse language used between players, but unless a referee clearly hears a racist comment (and Im not convinced the ref i the England Wales game did hear it correctly since he was talking to someone else at the time) then nothing is going to happen as there is no evidence. In this instance, there is evidence and the matter is public. The 6N committee, if they had decided that the incident didn't require a ban, should have provided a clearly guide to why that decision had been taken, given the amount of rationale that accompanies other offenses. This leads to the opinion that the matter had not been handled in the same way as the offer offenses cited from that game; something which unions, players and supporters have every right to query.

Digby wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:
So to answer your question, No I don't think that WR have heard this case before.

I know WR haven't heard the case before, I'm wondering though whether the new hearing is an appeal of the 6N decision or a de novo trial

I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

cadofyddol wrote:

Digby wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:
So to answer your question, No I don't think that WR have heard this case before.

I know WR haven't heard the case before, I'm wondering though whether the new hearing is an appeal of the 6N decision or a de novo trial

I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

Sandydragon wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:

Digby wrote:
I know WR haven't heard the case before, I'm wondering though whether the new hearing is an appeal of the 6N decision or a de novo trial

I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

I'm starting to think that rugby union is even more corrupt than football. The sooner the blazers get replaced the better.

cadofyddol wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:
I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

I'm starting to think that rugby union is even more corrupt than football. The sooner the blazers get replaced the better.

I was thinking prior to this incident that the 6N committee was failing to keep up with modern requirements; this has done nothing improve my opinion of them. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call and the next time this happens, the process will be far smoother. This current charade isn't fair on anyone, even Marler, but it is sadly necessary.

Sandydragon wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:

Digby wrote:
I know WR haven't heard the case before, I'm wondering though whether the new hearing is an appeal of the 6N decision or a de novo trial

I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

Two routes forward for consistency, no ban for Marler, or a ban for Marler and a huge number of others. Or there's removing pikeys as a race I suppose.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:
I read it as that they are dismissing the Six Nations case altogether, so a de novo trial. But I could be wrong.

Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

Two routes forward for consistency, no ban for Marler, or a ban for Marler and a huge number of others. Or there's removing pikeys as a race I suppose.

A huge number of others?? Who??

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Some of the articles Ive seen suggest that they are completely ignoring the 6N process. As much as I do think Marler deserved a ban for his comments, I seriously hope that if WR aren't happy with the 6N process, that the organization gets a massive boot up the posterior. All along they have given the impression of being totally behind the drag curve with this, and given the clear evidence and offense, its isn't rocket science to make a judgement that is consistent with the laws and is open to scrutiny afterwards.

Two routes forward for consistency, no ban for Marler, or a ban for Marler and a huge number of others. Or there's removing pikeys as a race I suppose.

A huge number of others?? Who??

Anyone who fails the code of conduct for directing verbal abuse at other players. There is nothing in the code that singles out racist abuse as warranting action different to other breaches of the code, people might like there to be, though whether it'd be worse than homophobia or misogyny is perhaps down to the individual, but it's not.

So they either apply their rules consistently, change their code, or do as they normally do, nothing.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
Two routes forward for consistency, no ban for Marler, or a ban for Marler and a huge number of others. Or there's removing pikeys as a race I suppose.

A huge number of others?? Who??

Anyone who fails the code of conduct for directing verbal abuse at other players. There is nothing in the code that singles out racist abuse as warranting action different to other breaches of the code, people might like there to be, though whether it'd be worse than homophobia or misogyny is perhaps down to the individual, but it's not.

So they either apply their rules consistently, change their code, or do as they normally do, nothing.

The thing that frustrates me Digby is that if this was relating to a black player, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That you can't look past your prejudices towards Gypsies makes a mockery of everything you type.

You have a point in some ways in your post above. World Rugby's regulations group verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin, sexual orientation or otherwise, together. But that doesn't mean that they will all carry the same sanction. Abuse that contravenes the Equalities Act will receive a stronger sanction than a generic insult naturally.

You could argue therefore that any little abuse one player gives another and can be proven, should receive a sanction starting at the lower end of 4 weeks (which obviously could be reduced on mitigation). A player who called another player a knobhead would get 4 weeks and Marler for what he said would get 52 weeks. If that was the case matches would have to be played at least 4 weeks apart because there would be no players available.

I'm certainly not saying that there should be no sledging in sport, and I think you have to accept it as part of a competitive contest, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and racial abuse is one of them. Yes you could argue that World Rugby's regulations state otherwise, but then every single scrum should see a straight put in, but it doesn't happen.

Had Marler called Lee a "fat ginger prick", we wouldn't be having this conversation either, but that you and Nighty fail to see the difference between abuse and racial abuse on this occasion highlights your prejudices against Gypsies and your failure to grasp the issue others have with the whole sorry state of affairs.

I've a number of issues with this and, whilst I'd like to think it's not only my view caustic view of gypsies which makes a mockery of what I type, I'd not dismiss all my concerns on the back of my view of gypsies. Also I don't think I fail to grasp the issues other have with this, I understand the concerns raised but don't come close to reaching the same conclusions. Just as others will read this, or not, and not share my take on the situation.

First yes I don't think one can be racist towards gypsies, they're not in my estimation a race but people who choose and are defined by a particular lifestyle. So for me gypsies could be of any race, and any gypsy as defined by a race in law could be a perfectly normal member of society. So I don't have issues with gypsies because of their 'race' but owing to their behaviour. I understand however they have been given certain protections, and those will come into consideration despite my view that once more the law is an ass.

Second that despite what can be considered racist words that their was no racist intent behind them, rather an attempt to offend which we see over and over within rugby and label banter, and that allied to an ignorance that the comments could/would be considered racist. As with many other examples ignorance is not a sufficient reason to exonerate, but I'd question whether in this instance whether we need to go to a hearing vs relying on the player to be educated as to future conduct. And I think that is different to calling someone black or queer because it'd be more reasonable to suppose a person should know that's unacceptable - and btw there are lots of onfield references in rugby to something or someone being queer or gay that are always skipped over.

Third, and alluded to previously, that they have some rules which set out that pretty much any sort of abuse isn't accepted, but in practice just about every bit of abuse is accepted, and then they get in a tizz because one bit happens to get some wider publicity, and yet ignore Lee's own teammate used the same word a day or so earlier which draws no censure and ignored all the wider abuse. If they want to have justice I don't think we should have such isolated examples of a sanction being applied, it's a cruel and unusual practice and we should be beyond that.

Fourth, that this matter has already gone to a hearing, and WR not liking the outcome have proceeded to stage their own 'independent' inquiry. And I'm sorry but how they can stay mute on things like the Hugest stamp to the face, or McGrath dropping the knee prior to the WC when French and Irish officials decided no citings were needed as they'd then have no choice but to ban their players from the WC, but now get involved in what to me is a markedly more trivial action, well I'd say that beggars belief but really it's just another piece of pathetic administration of a sport.

I've asked both you and Nighty several times to expand on what Evans has supposedly said, which I'm guessing you're also alluding to in your post above. I have completely missed the incident you are referring to so would be grateful if you could provide more detail.

Nothing much in it. Essentially said when he first met Lee the talk amongst the players had been there was a gypsy lad pushing for a role, and his early recollections were that Lee was smelly.

Eugene is contending that when Evans was recounting this to the media he was recalling past prejudices and that differs from Marler's comments in that Marler was aiming to cause upset. I think they're both attempts at banter, perhaps ill judged ones, and that absent of the players involved telling us what drove their comments we'll not know what drove their comments, we can guess, perhaps even make very likely guesses, but they'd still be guesses.

Digby wrote:Nothing much in it. Essentially said when he first met Lee the talk amongst the players had been there was a gypsy lad pushing for a role, and his early recollections were that Lee was smelly.

Eugene is contending that when Evans was recounting this to the media he was recalling past prejudices and that differs from Marler's comments in that Marler was aiming to cause upset. I think they're both attempts at banter, perhaps ill judged ones, and that absent of the players involved telling us what drove their comments we'll not know what drove their comments, we can guess, perhaps even make very likely guesses, but they'd still be guesses.

Thank you.

My opinion based solely on your post and not what was actually said is this..

There is nothing wrong with saying there is a gypsy lad pushing for a role just as there wouldn't be saying a black lad. They are both acceptable descriptors. Also he was saying that Lee was smelly and not that gypsies are smelly, so again no issue.

Having not seen and heard the actual conversation then I'm not privy to the context or tone so would maybe change my mind if I saw it. But I agree with Eugene in that Evans wasn't aiming to insult, whereas Marler clearly was regardless of whether he knew that it was racist.

You really are grasping at straws if you are bringing this to the debate.

Digby wrote:I've a number of issues with this and, whilst I'd like to think it's not only my view caustic view of gypsies which makes a mockery of what I type, I'd not dismiss all my concerns on the back of my view of gypsies. Also I don't think I fail to grasp the issues other have with this, I understand the concerns raised but don't come close to reaching the same conclusions. Just as others will read this, or not, and not share my take on the situation.

First yes I don't think one can be racist towards gypsies, they're not in my estimation a race but people who choose and are defined by a particular lifestyle. So for me gypsies could be of any race, and any gypsy as defined by a race in law could be a perfectly normal member of society. So I don't have issues with gypsies because of their 'race' but owing to their behaviour. I understand however they have been given certain protections, and those will come into consideration despite my view that once more the law is an ass.

Second that despite what can be considered racist words that their was no racist intent behind them, rather an attempt to offend which we see over and over within rugby and label banter, and that allied to an ignorance that the comments could/would be considered racist. As with many other examples ignorance is not a sufficient reason to exonerate, but I'd question whether in this instance whether we need to go to a hearing vs relying on the player to be educated as to future conduct. And I think that is different to calling someone black or queer because it'd be more reasonable to suppose a person should know that's unacceptable - and btw there are lots of onfield references in rugby to something or someone being queer or gay that are always skipped over.

Third, and alluded to previously, that they have some rules which set out that pretty much any sort of abuse isn't accepted, but in practice just about every bit of abuse is accepted, and then they get in a tizz because one bit happens to get some wider publicity, and yet ignore Lee's own teammate used the same word a day or so earlier which draws no censure and ignored all the wider abuse. If they want to have justice I don't think we should have such isolated examples of a sanction being applied, it's a cruel and unusual practice and we should be beyond that.

Fourth, that this matter has already gone to a hearing, and WR not liking the outcome have proceeded to stage their own 'independent' inquiry. And I'm sorry but how they can stay mute on things like the Hugest stamp to the face, or McGrath dropping the knee prior to the WC when French and Irish officials decided no citings were needed as they'd then have no choice but to ban their players from the WC, but now get involved in what to me is a markedly more trivial action, well I'd say that beggars belief but really it's just another piece of pathetic administration of a sport.

At the end of the day you are entitled to your view, but World Rugby will be applying the Equalities Act and not Digby's opinion to their disciplinary process. Maybe that's were Six Nations Rugby went wrong!
So therefore irrelevant of your opinion the abuse was unquestionably racist. Whether Marler knew it to be racist or not is unknown.

How do you know that Marler wasn't aware that what he said was racist, how do you know that there wasn't intent?

That's just speculation on your part. I could quite easily say that he quite clearly knew that the words were racist but he obviously forgot about the ref mike, but I'm not going to as I have absolutely no idea.
You're purely taking his coaches opinion that Joe isn't racist and accepting it, what do you expect them to say?!

The problem with this argument is that it contradicts previous arguments....

If Marler didn't know that the words were racist then there is no way on earth that he would have apologised to Lee at half time for his comments. Therefore he was told to by his coaching staff or team mates and they have lied saying that he apologised off his own back.

If he did know that it was racist and apologised off his own back, then good for him for realising the error of his ways, and credit should be given when deciding the sanction. But therfore there was racial intent and he should receive a harsher sanction.

So which one is it? Are Eddie Jones and the RFU liars or is Joe Marler a racist?

And you wonder why many of us don't believe a word that the RFU or CoS have said. It's all starting to unravel!!

cadofyddol wrote:
At the end of the day you are entitled to your view, but World Rugby will be applying the Equalities Act and not Digby's opinion to their disciplinary process.

Why will WR be applying the equalities act? It's very unusual for them to veer away from their own set of standards because then they get different outcomes across the globe and they specifically want to avoid that.

WR will be applying their code of conduct which is more than sufficient.

cadofyddol wrote:
If Marler didn't know that the words were racist then there is no way on earth that he would have apologised to Lee at half time for his comments. Therefore he was told to by his coaching staff or team mates and they have lied saying that he apologised off his own back.

'tis one of the few points of interest as to why it occurred to Marler to apologise. I'm fine saying he did it off his own back if it was mentioned to him and he's gone along to apologise, or if he simply did it himself without any outside input, and if the latter then yes it's harder for him to say he didn't know better in advance.

I did wonder though if the RFU don't have a lawyer watching the game who got a message down that something had been picked up on the audio and he should apologise.

Digby wrote:

cadofyddol wrote:
If Marler didn't know that the words were racist then there is no way on earth that he would have apologised to Lee at half time for his comments. Therefore he was told to by his coaching staff or team mates and they have lied saying that he apologised off his own back.

'tis one of the few points of interest as to why it occurred to Marler to apologise. I'm fine saying he did it off his own back if it was mentioned to him and he's gone along to apologise, or if he simply did it himself without any outside input, and if the latter then yes it's harder for him to say he didn't know better in advance.

I did wonder though if the RFU don't have a lawyer watching the game who got a message down that something had been picked up on the audio and he should apologise.

So which one is it?

Are Eddie Jones and the RFU liars

Or

Is Joe Marler a racist?

Likely those aren't the only options. And people can mean many things when using words, whether accidentally or giving themselves wiggle room, or trying to present what they consider a best version of events, or simply trying to give as little info as possible.

Digby wrote:Likely those aren't the only options. And people can mean many things when using words, whether accidentally or giving themselves wiggle room, or trying to present what they consider a best version of events, or simply trying to give as little info as possible.

Eddie Jones is quoted as saying "I did not tell Joe to apologise: he did that of his own accord."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Why would Marler apologies if he didn't think it was racist?

I wonder if Joe also apologised to Rob Evans for the cheap shot?

Liar... or... Racist......... or both?

cadofyddol wrote:

Digby wrote:Likely those aren't the only options. And people can mean many things when using words, whether accidentally or giving themselves wiggle room, or trying to present what they consider a best version of events, or simply trying to give as little info as possible.

Eddie Jones is quoted as saying "I did not tell Joe to apologise: he did that of his own accord."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Why would Marler apologies if he didn't think it was racist?

I wonder if Joe also apologised to Rob Evans for the cheap shot?

Liar... or... Racist......... or both?

Or because with hindsight he realised it overstepped a boundary? In the same way that you might apologise for grabbing someone by the shirt and balling your fist, or maybe even hitting them, or maybe pushing your opposite numbers head into the ground or tapping them on the head when they've given a penalty away or a number of other 'heat of the moment' things that happen during a game of rugby (like winding Dellaglio up by asking him if he'd got any drugs for sale!) and then realising you've gone too far. Perhaps one of the Welsh lads pointed it out. Its not quite as simple as Marler being a liar or a racist.

I read the posts and still comes across with an undercurrent of sour grapes

cadofyddol wrote: Eddie Jones is quoted as saying "I did not tell Joe to apologise: he did that of his own accord."

Leaves all sorts of options. EJ could have have told Marler what he'd done wasn't acceptable, asked what Marler thought he should do next and glared at him until he headed off to the Wales dressing room to apologise, another member of the management staff could have discussed the matter with Marler, or another player could have discussed with Marler, an RFU official could have brought the matter up, and on and on. Maybe we'll find out, maybe we wont, but we certainly don't have a complete picture of what happened and what drove various incidents.

I'm pretty sure Marler will plead guilty and take a 4 week ban dropped down to 2. I think the whole process could be ripped to shreds but I can't see Marler, Quins or the RFU wanting to cause a shitstorm over this which would embarrass WR in the process, they'll just want it over. And tbh getting away from that match with a 2 week ban after trying to drop a forearm on a prone player leaves Marler a very lucky boy anyway.

Digby wrote:

cadofyddol wrote: Eddie Jones is quoted as saying "I did not tell Joe to apologise: he did that of his own accord."

Leaves all sorts of options. EJ could have have told Marler what he'd done wasn't acceptable, asked what Marler thought he should do next and glared at him until he headed off to the Wales dressing room to apologise, another member of the management staff could have discussed the matter with Marler, or another player could have discussed with Marler, an RFU official could have brought the matter up, and on and on. Maybe we'll find out, maybe we wont, but we certainly don't have a complete picture of what happened and what drove various incidents.

I'm pretty sure Marler will plead guilty and take a 4 week ban dropped down to 2. I think the whole process could be ripped to shreds but I can't see Marler, Quins or the RFU wanting to cause a shitstorm over this which would embarrass WR in the process, they'll just want it over. And tbh getting away from that match with a 2 week ban after trying to drop a forearm on a prone player leaves Marler a very lucky boy anyway.

This is what should have happened in the first instance. If it had... as it should... none of this would be going on.

Stooo wrote:
This is what should have happened in the first instance. If it had... as it should... none of this would be going on.

I'd still be stuck wondering why they'd suddenly reach into the hat and pull out a rabbit in this isolated instance. But I do tend to complain about more than praise just about everything anyway.