RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:World rugby's decision to hold a hearing brings the game into disrepute, IMO. The matter has been dealt with and should be closed.

I suppose parents will be happy to let their kids play now they won't be subject to minor insults. It's a shame their kids will still be subject to incidents like the BOD pile-driving which world rugby did not bother to take on once that disciplinary process ran it's course.

Well better they focus on the gypsy boy comments than anything minor -

Wow, somebody there really knew how to cause offence!!

“I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy.

“And he turned up and he was rubbish!

“He has got better since that day. I am only joking, he was strong back then.

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell.

“He smells a bit better now!”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-11005553

Banned for what? quoting what some other kids said about Samson Lee when he was 11 years old?!?!

Christ talk about grapsing at straws.

Stooo wrote:Banned for what? quoting what some other kids said about Samson Lee when he was 11 years old?!?!

Christ talk about grapsing at straws.

I think it's more the case that he said it and it would have been heard by a few million people - a good portion of whom it would seem were offended by it. Whereas hardly anyone reads WalesOnline...or something.

I agree it's ridiculous too and I'm sure there are elements of hypocrisy from the offended brigade.

If SL can shrug it off & JM has apologised, reminders may be in order but Hearing for what ?
(James McCrory used 'gypsy boy' as his tag - proud of the connection it would seem )
I'm sure there's alot more delicate morphicly challenged souls who took offence at this by Flan the Man..

I suspect the action taken by World Rugby is in concern that the 6 Nations Disciplinary Committee decided not to apply a ban following a comment that was clearly racist and made in public.

Regardless of personal views, the comment was racist under English Law.

SL accepted the apology (I think it is pushing it to suggest he didn't take offence - he clearly did at the time). If the incident was just between the 2 of them then it would have stopped there. But the ref mike pickup has made this a bigger issue.

The 6 Nations committee have been asked to clarify the process they went through to judge that Marler had no case to answer. One presumes that they have done so and that WR aren't satisfied with that process, or the outcome. There are clear laws regarding brining the game into disrepute and I suspect that is WR's angle in this.

If Marler escapes a ban again it will be a miracle frankly. The length of time taken and the apparent disregard f English law has left more than a few commentators scratching their heads at the 6N decision; I suspect WR want to rectify that.

On the bright side, it didn't affect your 6N showdown with France.

Sandydragon wrote:I suspect the action taken by World Rugby is in concern that the 6 Nations Disciplinary Committee decided not to apply a ban following a comment that was clearly racist and made in public.

Regardless of personal views, the comment was racist under English Law.

SL accepted the apology (I think it is pushing it to suggest he didn't take offence - he clearly did at the time). If the incident was just between the 2 of them then it would have stopped there. But the ref mike pickup has made this a bigger issue.

The 6 Nations committee have been asked to clarify the process they went through to judge that Marler had no case to answer. One presumes that they have done so and that WR aren't satisfied with that process, or the outcome. There are clear laws regarding brining the game into disrepute and I suspect that is WR's angle in this.

If Marler escapes a ban again it will be a miracle frankly. The length of time taken and the apparent disregard f English law has left more than a few commentators scratching their heads at the 6N decision; I suspect WR want to rectify that.

On the bright side, it didn't affect your 6N showdown with France.

Without wanting to minimise the 'outrage' some feel about the comment, English law also says that swearing in a public place is punishable, and yet some players get away with that on a continual basis, and they don't even apologise, the commentators do that for them!

oldbackrow wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I suspect the action taken by World Rugby is in concern that the 6 Nations Disciplinary Committee decided not to apply a ban following a comment that was clearly racist and made in public.

Regardless of personal views, the comment was racist under English Law.

SL accepted the apology (I think it is pushing it to suggest he didn't take offence - he clearly did at the time). If the incident was just between the 2 of them then it would have stopped there. But the ref mike pickup has made this a bigger issue.

The 6 Nations committee have been asked to clarify the process they went through to judge that Marler had no case to answer. One presumes that they have done so and that WR aren't satisfied with that process, or the outcome. There are clear laws regarding brining the game into disrepute and I suspect that is WR's angle in this.

If Marler escapes a ban again it will be a miracle frankly. The length of time taken and the apparent disregard f English law has left more than a few commentators scratching their heads at the 6N decision; I suspect WR want to rectify that.

On the bright side, it didn't affect your 6N showdown with France.

Without wanting to minimise the 'outrage' some feel about the comment, English law also says that swearing in a public place is punishable, and yet some players get away with that on a continual basis, and they don't even apologise, the commentators do that for them!

english law doesn't say that swearing in a public place is an offence. It says it CAN be an offence if it is threatening abusive or insulting. Mere swearing is generally not an offence.

Oakboy wrote:World rugby's decision to hold a hearing brings the game into disrepute, IMO. The matter has been dealt with and should be closed.

I suppose parents will be happy to let their kids play now they won't be subject to minor insults. It's a shame their kids will still be subject to incidents like the BOD pile-driving which world rugby did not bother to take on once that disciplinary process ran it's course.

The matter hasn't been dealt with and that brings the game into disrepute.

That World Rugby have failed to step in when needed in the past isn't a reason to suggest they should never ever do so. That would be ridiculous.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:I suspect the action taken by World Rugby is in concern that the 6 Nations Disciplinary Committee decided not to apply a ban following a comment that was clearly racist and made in public.

Regardless of personal views, the comment was racist under English Law.

SL accepted the apology (I think it is pushing it to suggest he didn't take offence - he clearly did at the time). If the incident was just between the 2 of them then it would have stopped there. But the ref mike pickup has made this a bigger issue.

The 6 Nations committee have been asked to clarify the process they went through to judge that Marler had no case to answer. One presumes that they have done so and that WR aren't satisfied with that process, or the outcome. There are clear laws regarding brining the game into disrepute and I suspect that is WR's angle in this.

If Marler escapes a ban again it will be a miracle frankly. The length of time taken and the apparent disregard f English law has left more than a few commentators scratching their heads at the 6N decision; I suspect WR want to rectify that.

On the bright side, it didn't affect your 6N showdown with France.

Without wanting to minimise the 'outrage' some feel about the comment, English law also says that swearing in a public place is punishable, and yet some players get away with that on a continual basis, and they don't even apologise, the commentators do that for them!

english law doesn't say that swearing in a public place is an offence. It says it CAN be an offence if it is threatening abusive or insulting. Mere swearing is generally not an offence.

Fair enough EW but some of the swearing picked up on the mikes are "threatening abusive or insulting" so my point remains. Gypsy Boy (and Gypsy Boy On The Run) are books and surely by the letter of the law as stated, are liable to action? Or is intent an overriding factor?

oldbackrow wrote:Fair enough EW but some of the swearing picked up on the mikes are "threatening abusive or insulting" so my point remains. Gypsy Boy (and Gypsy Boy On The Run) are books and surely by the letter of the law as stated, are liable to action? Or is intent an overriding factor?

You answered your own question - as do several other posts on this thread, and common sense.

Refer to someone as being a "black man" or "gay guy" and it's frowned upon, but you're normally fine; do so in a specific attempt to provoke, and you will get the book thrown at you.
And yes, I've specifically changed the word "boy" as well, as that carries further connotations for those two examples.

oldbackrow wrote: Fair enough EW but some of the swearing picked up on the mikes are "threatening abusive or insulting" so my point remains. Gypsy Boy (and Gypsy Boy On The Run) are books and surely by the letter of the law as stated, are liable to action? Or is intent an overriding factor?

Intent and context is clearly important - those books are not being used to denigrate a particular person because of his heritage.

Also, just because other things are bad as well, doesn't mean that we shouldn't address bad things.

Dammit, I said that I wasn't going to comment again.

Puja

Puja wrote:

oldbackrow wrote: Fair enough EW but some of the swearing picked up on the mikes are "threatening abusive or insulting" so my point remains. Gypsy Boy (and Gypsy Boy On The Run) are books and surely by the letter of the law as stated, are liable to action? Or is intent an overriding factor?

Intent and context is clearly important - those books are not being used to denigrate a particular person because of his heritage.

Also, just because other things are bad as well, doesn't mean that we shouldn't address bad things.

Dammit, I said that I wasn't going to comment again.

Puja

Absolute power again Puja?

Puja wrote:Dammit, I said that I wasn't going to comment again.

Dammit - good point, so did I

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Dammit, I said that I wasn't going to comment again.

Dammit - good point, so did I

Catching, isn't it!

"In the absence of such a process by Six Nations Rugby, World Rugby is exercising its right to take appropriate action before an independent judicial committee."

How will World Rugby show the Six Nations panel was not independent, and how will they show their own hearing is?

Galfon wrote:If SL can shrug it off & JM has apologised, reminders may be in order but Hearing for what ?
(James McCrory used 'gypsy boy' as his tag - proud of the connection it would seem )
I'm sure there's alot more delicate morphicly challenged souls who took offence at this by Flan the Man..

From the comments on that vid:

"England punch below their weight in rugby and soccer considering the size of the player pool they can choose from. No creativity in soccer or rugby teams. If sweating, size, or running around like headless chickens don't solve the problem, then England won't solve it."

Sweating. Classic.

This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Given Rob Evans called Lee a Gypsy in the media a day or so before the England game they wouldn't obviously have an issue with it, not least as their own player would then need to suffer the same action. I'm sure Evans would say he didn't mean anything malicious by his comments, but it's doubtful Marler will say otherwise.

Digby wrote:

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Given Rob Evans called Lee a Gypsy in the media a day or so before the England game they wouldn't obviously have an issue with it, not least as their own player would then need to suffer the same action. I'm sure Evans would say he didn't mean anything malicious by his comments, but it's doubtful Marler will say otherwise.

honestly in my experience of the welsh, particularly west wales and in particular the scots during their exit referendum has been constant comments on being better off than England/out of the UK because "we don't have all those p#kis that you lot have and we and want to keep it that way!" ,The 'offended' ones are starting to appear there is more links to Wales losing a rugby match and having something to complain/explain why they were robbed! I find this whole thing quite hilarious.


He without sin cast the first stone and all that

Nightynight wrote:

Digby wrote:

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Given Rob Evans called Lee a Gypsy in the media a day or so before the England game they wouldn't obviously have an issue with it, not least as their own player would then need to suffer the same action. I'm sure Evans would say he didn't mean anything malicious by his comments, but it's doubtful Marler will say otherwise.

honestly in my experience of the welsh, particularly west wales and in particular the scots during their exit referendum has been constant comments on being better off than England/out of the UK because "we don't have all those p#kis that you lot have and we and want to keep it that way!" ,The 'offended' ones are starting to appear there is more links to Wales losing a rugby match and having something to complain/explain why they were robbed! I find this whole thing quite hilarious.


He without sin cast the first stone and all that

I have no doubt the level of casual racism is higher in Wales than one sees here, though there are a number of reasons for that. But I'm not sure the World Rugby action can be attributed to Wales, nor that is especially matters.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:World rugby's decision to hold a hearing brings the game into disrepute, IMO. The matter has been dealt with and should be closed.

I suppose parents will be happy to let their kids play now they won't be subject to minor insults. It's a shame their kids will still be subject to incidents like the BOD pile-driving which world rugby did not bother to take on once that disciplinary process ran it's course.

Well better they focus on the gypsy boy comments than anything minor -

Wow, somebody there really knew how to cause offence!!

A spokesman for the Royal Navy said: “We are aware of an incident at a rugby match between the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale in Toulon, France. We understand the match continued without further incident and the two sides socialised together after the game.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 50446.html

No doubt World Rugby will be straight over to declare the Royal Navy lacks independence!

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Of course it is. Keep on thinking that.

What a twat.

Nightynight wrote:

Digby wrote:

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Given Rob Evans called Lee a Gypsy in the media a day or so before the England game they wouldn't obviously have an issue with it, not least as their own player would then need to suffer the same action. I'm sure Evans would say he didn't mean anything malicious by his comments, but it's doubtful Marler will say otherwise.

honestly in my experience of the welsh, particularly west wales and in particular the scots during their exit referendum has been constant comments on being better off than England/out of the UK because "we don't have all those p#kis that you lot have and we and want to keep it that way!" ,The 'offended' ones are starting to appear there is more links to Wales losing a rugby match and having something to complain/explain why they were robbed! I find this whole thing quite hilarious.


He without sin cast the first stone and all that

Hysterical.

MrK wrote:

Nightynight wrote:This is more about welsh hoping Marler had been red carded on the day and then they would have won the match, sour grapes and nothing else

Of course it is. Keep on thinking that.

What a twat.

Digby "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."




since the 'offended' are from a certain demographic group in the most part and it ain't the one in question, I am wondering if the comment had come from a welsh player to an English one would there be the same fervor over the matter. Would we be seeing the 'grow a pair' comments in the other forum since the offending term appears to be offensive but 'selective' to the person saying it already.