No ban for Marler's elbow drop

[Nightynight]

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!

Investigating the RFU decision making processes is one thing, Hopley has a point though its not Marler's fault RFU didn't ban him as per the law, the decision was given, whether You agree with it or not is a moot point, he followed the process as directed, having him and him alone brought in for another hearing and by assumption a possible sanction isn't really fair to any player.

If your beef is really with the inconsistent process of sanctions/punishment its the RFU that should be explaining itself not picking out a single incident weeks afterwards.

BTW - I assume statements were taken or now will be taken from other players and officials including the Ref, possibly even the actual full mic recording on the day, if Lee was abusive as well they can both be cited under the WR laws for 'posh English cnut' as abusive terminology, they both could get cited presumably along with Evans if you follow it to its full logical conclusion for using racist/abusive language. How will any of that sort the RFU process out?

One final question to my "incredulous" opinion as you put it earlier, if 'travelers' count as a race when do 'Chav's' get the same status? the law is an ass, sorry but it bloody well is if a life style choice gives anybody extra status!

[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!

Investigating the RFU decision making processes is one thing, Hopley has a point though its not Marler's fault RFU didn't ban him as per the law, the decision was given, whether You agree with it or not is a moot point, he followed the process as directed, having him and him alone brought in for another hearing and by assumption a possible sanction isn't really fair to any player.

If your beef is really with the inconsistent process of sanctions/punishment its the RFU that should be explaining itself not picking out a single incident weeks afterwards.

BTW - I assume statements were taken or now will be taken from other players and officials including the Ref, possibly even the actual full mic recording on the day, if Lee was abusive as well they can both be cited under the WR laws for 'posh English cnut' as abusive terminology, they both could get cited presumably along with Evans if you follow it to its full logical conclusion for using racist/abusive language. How will any of that sort the RFU process out?

One final question to my "incredulous" opinion as you put it earlier, if 'travelers' count as a race when do 'Chav's' get the same status? the law is an ass, sorry but it bloody well is if a life style choice gives anybody extra status!

I've said from the very start that my beef isn't with Marler. He made a stupid remark, but due to the incompetence of Six Nations rugby this is still dragging on.

What will be will be with the WR hearing with regards to what other action they take, depending on what evidence there is. At the moment there is only Marler's comments. I asked before what is the story with Evans but neither you or Digby have answered me. And as far as I'm aware Lee has not been accused of being abusive, all that has been said is that Marler was abused, people are jumping the gun assuming it's Lee unless they have heard differently to me.

That's is why I find it incredulous, as you just seems unable to grasp the point. The law in a 'recent' revision has seen to include Gypsies as a race. When Chavs will be recognised as a race, I have no idea, I'm not involved in the Equalities Act. Maybe you should go and ask your local politician when he's going to extend the law to cover you!

Anyway it's nice that you were prepared to come back and continue to debate the point. I hope you know none of this is personal.

[Stooo]

First they said it was just a "bit of banter" all friendly like.

Now they're saying he was abused and reacted when provoked.....

Which is it?!?!

[Nightynight]

First they said it was just a "bit of banter" all friendly like.

Now they're saying he was abused and reacted when provoked.....

Which is it?!?!

No Marler apologized and got a bollocking, Lee said it was banter.

You'd assume logically some evidence was given at the RFU hearing about the verbal exchanges between Marler & Lee, hence the let off would make more sense... yeek common sense, damn that wont do

[Stooo]

First they said it was just a "bit of banter" all friendly like.

Now they're saying he was abused and reacted when provoked.....

Which is it?!?!

No Marler apologized and got a bollocking, Lee said it was banter.

You'd assume logically some evidence was given at the RFU hearing about the verbal exchanges between Marler & Lee, hence the let off would make more sense... yeek common sense, damn that wont do

Being made to say sorry though isn't the sanction for this..... That's the issue you seem to be able to completely unable to grasp. Saying "I'm sorry" and getting a bollocking (which if I'm honest I don't believe even happened) isn't good enough. I would agree though that if anything I wouldn't even be calling in Marler for this.

I'd be looking at sanctioning the ref for not giving Marler a straight red and then 6n committee for completely ignoring the game.

Or is it now ok to use the above excuse (and the bs heat of the moment line) as a perfectly fine reason not to ban someone for say punching someone?

[cadofyddol]

First they said it was just a "bit of banter" all friendly like.

Now they're saying he was abused and reacted when provoked.....

Which is it?!?!

No Marler apologized and got a bollocking, Lee said it was banter.

You'd assume logically some evidence was given at the RFU hearing about the verbal exchanges between Marler & Lee, hence the let off would make more sense... yeek common sense, damn that wont do

What verbal exchanges between Marler and Lee? Why is everyone assuming that Lee said something to Marler, when there is no evidence to support this at the moment.

If Marler was abused it could have been at a separate point in the game and by another player altogether.

Why is it logical to assume that evidence was presented at the hearing about verbal exchanges between Marler & Lee??? You're assuming soooo much.

If the RFU believed that what Marler said was racist and unacceptable they should have banned him regardless of the provocation to show that they were fully behind kicking racism out of the game. They could then have cited, or complained about the abuse Marler received.
That they are backing Marler and throwing mud shows that they aren't particularly concerned about the comments and they are making a mockery of the campaign to kick racism out of sport.

[Nightynight]

Common sense would dictate that;
1. That Lee was involved equally in verbal exchanges so the Ref didn't ping either of them. i.e. it was not one sided 'banter'
2. The Ref was unaware the term gypsy boy is racist, that would be fair for non-UK officials
3. Assume the case result was on the evidence provided at the hearing and Marler's discipline record

Now I keep reading its conjecture about Lee's behavior
1. why did Lee say it was 'banter'
2. COS would pretty stupid to make statements he can't back up in a formal hearing and get himself in trouble for lying
3. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything stated by the other welsh front forwards, the official's or Lee refuting COS claims of verbal abuse towards Marler

If Lee hadn't said anything surely he alone would have made a noise over false accusations?

[Digby]

I'm not asking for a 4 week ban, I'm just quoting that that is the supposed minimum for racist abuse.

There isn't a sanction that stands alone for racist abuse, there's a sanction for verbal abuse of other players one example of which would be racism. The code of conduct under which Marler I assume is being called in for further hearing being the likely point of reference. The sanctions are set out as;

Verbal abuse of Players based on Religion, Race, Colour, or National or Ethnic Origin, sexual orientation or otherwise

Low End - 4 weeks
Mid Range - 8 weeks
Top End - 16+ weeks

There's not an awful lot more detail set out in the code of conduct, certainly nothing which would allow one to distinguish between the various types of abuse. Of course there might also be some reference to UK law in the WR appeal that will have bring Marler to his hearing, and I can't say I've seen the appeal, but it would be very unusual to make reference to a local set of laws with WR preferring to see procedures and their unions adopt a more uniform approach. So for UK law to apply I think we'd need Lee to seek redress against Marler.

[Nightynight]

What you can deduce from this is that low level/controlled verbal abuse between player's is most likely common and accepted by rugby officials whether in country leagues or international.



NOTE: its still low level if the official in question doesn't know 'gypsy boy' is racist ffs!

[Which Tyler]

Being made to say sorry though isn't the sanction for this..... That's the issue you seem to be able to completely unable to grasp. Saying "I'm sorry" and getting a bollocking (which if I'm honest I don't believe even happened) isn't good enough. I would agree though that if anything I wouldn't even be calling in Marler for this.

I'd be looking at sanctioning the ref for not giving Marler a straight red and then 6n committee for completely ignoring the game.

Or is it now ok to use the above excuse (and the bs heat of the moment line) as a perfectly fine reason not to ban someone for say punching someone?

You'd sanction the ref for not hearing something?
Even if he did hear it, there's pretty good reason for thinking that he wouldn't know the comment was racist - hands up all who knew before this broke out?

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.
6N committee are at fault for not enforcing this. It could be argued that RFU should have taken matters into their own hands, but I can't really blame them for letting the more senior (and appropriate) body deal with it.
WR should have taken them to task earlier and held hearings sooner; but seem guilty only of being quite slow and unwieldy (so far).

[cadofyddol]

Common sense would dictate that;
1. That Lee was involved equally in verbal exchanges so the Ref didn't ping either of them. i.e. it was not one sided 'banter'
2. The Ref was unaware the term gypsy boy is racist, that would be fair for non-UK officials
3. Assume the case result was on the evidence provided at the hearing and Marler's discipline record

Now I keep reading its conjecture about Lee's behavior
1. why did Lee say it was 'banter'
2. COS would pretty stupid to make statements he can't back up in a formal hearing and get himself in trouble for lying
3. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything stated by the other welsh front forwards, the official's or Lee refuting COS claims of verbal abuse towards Marler

If Lee hadn't said anything surely he alone would have made a noise over false accusations?

You keep talking about common sense, but in reality it's just you trying to justify your own opinion. It's not common sense at all.

Whether Lee said anything or not, when is the last time you saw a ref penalise a player for verbally abusing a player? So 'common sense' would dictate that Marler could have been the only player to have said something abusive and still not been penalised.

I'm happy to accept that Joubert didn't hear or understand the connotation of Marler's comment.

We don't know what was discussed at the Six Nations hearing or by who as they have decided to keep that information private. If it was above board they should have published the findings and the mitigation against sanctioning Marler.
World Rugby have said that incident should have been considered by an independent process. "In the absence of such a process by Six Nations Rugby, World Rugby is exercising it's right to take appropriate action before an independent judicial committee."
So therfore WR doesn't think that there has been a process!

Why Lee said it was banter is irrelevant. It's not acceptable to racially abuse someone whether it's banter or not. Which is something I think you are struggling to grasp. I accept that the intent should be taken into account during the hearing and affect the outcome, but not as far as no punishment.

Why would COS be stupid to make up comments he can't back up, it happens all the time in court? The evidence is less strong and in COS's case hearsay, then if there was a recording. It would be almost impossible to prove he was lying and of they could is defence is that he was told Marler was abused because it's obvious he didn't witness it. Also you say it would be stupid if he can't back it up, well then I say it is stupid, because I very much doubt he has recorded evidence of abuse that no one else has got.

Maybe there has been no comment from the WRU or their players as they have installed a media ban regarding the matter, pending the WR hearing. Or as it is such a spurious comment by COS with zero substance they are treating it with the contempt it deserves. As I also keep saying to you, but you seem not to take in or refute is that I have not seen it written or said anywhere in the media that Lee is the player who abused Marler. Yet again you are assuming. COS has said that Marler was abused not when or by who, it could well have been one of his team mates for all you know!

[Nightynight]

I like the way you just ignore the fact nobody from the welsh player's has denied their was verbal abuse from both sides. If somebody had made a false accusation surely somebody would have responded before the ban?

The treating it with contempt it deserves is laughable and nothing you have written has any backing that we know of other than marler said 'gypsy boy'. No evidence, but no denial either all that twaddle about WR/WRU is also conjecture

[Digby]

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.

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

[Nightynight]

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.

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

Because no Welsh player would lowering himself to swearing/racist/abusive comments, he would treat such behavior with the contempt it deserves Huuurrraagghhh! They're all angels and pillars of society, not at all like those saes cnuts!

[Digby]

World Rugby have said that incident should have been considered by an independent process. "In the absence of such a process by Six Nations Rugby, World Rugby is exercising it's right to take appropriate action before an independent judicial committee."

I suspect Marler will simply plead guilty, but WR could find themselves on a sticky wicket over the idea of what is and what isn't an independent panel?

Btw, I've been supposing WR aren't actually hearing this case for the first time, rather that they're appealing the decision and will need to show why it was obviously wrong, is that correct? Or in citing the original panel wasn't independent are they hearing this case now for the first time and without reference to the 6N hearing?

[Which Tyler]

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.

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.
Alternatively, one was abused for being part of a protected minority; the other was not - if you prefer that wording.
Therein lies a huge difference (for an offence taking place on UK soil).

If you really haven't understood that people believe this (and support it with evidence); then I can only assume that you haven't bothered reading the 250-odd posts over the 2 threads.

[Digby]

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.

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.

[Digby]

Alternatively, one was abused for being part of a protected minority; the other was not - if you prefer that wording.
Therein lies a huge difference (for an offence taking place on UK soil).

I don't like that wording. I don't think we get to a point of treating people equally by treating them unequally.

[Stooo]

Being made to say sorry though isn't the sanction for this..... That's the issue you seem to be able to completely unable to grasp. Saying "I'm sorry" and getting a bollocking (which if I'm honest I don't believe even happened) isn't good enough. I would agree though that if anything I wouldn't even be calling in Marler for this.

I'd be looking at sanctioning the ref for not giving Marler a straight red and then 6n committee for completely ignoring the game.

Or is it now ok to use the above excuse (and the bs heat of the moment line) as a perfectly fine reason not to ban someone for say punching someone?

You'd sanction the ref for not hearing something?
Even if he did hear it, there's pretty good reason for thinking that he wouldn't know the comment was racist - hands up all who knew before this broke out?

Marler should have been banned; 50% reduction from the minimum 4 week tarrif.
6N committee are at fault for not enforcing this. It could be argued that RFU should have taken matters into their own hands, but I can't really blame them for letting the more senior (and appropriate) body deal with it.
WR should have taken them to task earlier and held hearings sooner; but seem guilty only of being quite slow and unwieldy (so far).

He did hear it. It was right in front of him and picked up on the mic ffs. His ignorance is no excuse imo. He's a professional. Or supposed to be.

[cadofyddol]

I like the way you just ignore the fact nobody from the welsh player's has denied their was verbal abuse from both sides. If somebody had made a false accusation surely somebody would have responded before the ban?

The treating it with contempt it deserves is laughable and nothing you have written has any backing that we know of other than marler said 'gypsy boy'. No evidence, but no denial either all that twaddle about WR/WRU is also conjecture

Can't you read?

I have addressed that in the previous post. If the WRU have installed a media ban on the subject then that may be why no one has spoken about it recently.
Or do you think that every Welsh player should individually come out to deny the spurious allegations against persons unnamed, just in case COS was referring to them? Pathetic!
You may think it's laughable, but I think the same about COS's comments. Zero substance, zero detail!! It's like a child saying "he started it"! If COS's has got any evidence to support his comments then he should put them forward, until he does I'll treat them as pathetic lies.

What have I written as fact that has zero backing? You're the only one here who is masquerading speculation as fact.

[cadofyddol]

World Rugby have said that incident should have been considered by an independent process. "In the absence of such a process by Six Nations Rugby, World Rugby is exercising it's right to take appropriate action before an independent judicial committee."

I suspect Marler will simply plead guilty, but WR could find themselves on a sticky wicket over the idea of what is and what isn't an independent panel?

Btw, I've been supposing WR aren't actually hearing this case for the first time, rather that they're appealing the decision and will need to show why it was obviously wrong, is that correct? Or in citing the original panel wasn't independent are they hearing this case now for the first time and without reference to the 6N hearing?

From what I understand is that WR have said that there should have been a process to look at the abuse. However in their opinion there has not been a process carried out by Six Nation Rugby, so they are exerting their right to do their own process.

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

Why do you think WR are on a sticky wicket? How hard would it be to put together a panel consisting of no English, Welsh or Gypsy?

[Nightynight]

I like the way you just ignore the fact nobody from the welsh player's has denied their was verbal abuse from both sides. If somebody had made a false accusation surely somebody would have responded before the ban?

The treating it with contempt it deserves is laughable and nothing you have written has any backing that we know of other than marler said 'gypsy boy'. No evidence, but no denial either all that twaddle about WR/WRU is also conjecture

Can't you read?

I have addressed that in the previous post. If the WRU have installed a media ban on the subject then that may be why no one has spoken about it recently.
Or do you think that every Welsh player should individually come out to deny the spurious allegations against persons unnamed, just in case COS was referring to them? Pathetic!
You may think it's laughable, but I think the same about COS's comments. Zero substance, zero detail!! It's like a child saying "he started it"! If COS's has got any evidence to support his comments then he should put them forward, until he does I'll treat them as pathetic lies.

What have I written as fact that has zero backing? You're the only one here who is masquerading speculation as fact.

nothing like having balanced view of things anything that doesn't support the argument is lies, lies and damn lies!

I would have thought the WRU at least made a statement after talking to the players if it wasn't true as brings in to doubt their behavior on the day? ho com'on don't you find it a little strange WRU not defending the welsh team from spurious and false claims and accusations?

If its true Hopley may have a point about witch hunting, you might even give him & COS some credence that they knows more about what actually happened on the pitch than you do and checked before making any statement because that would be the sensible thing to do, but I guess we'd be back to spurious lies, contemptible and the welsh team being above such things, my further speculations and COS/Hopley are dirty liars, because of course that's how you become a respected professional career coach and head of the players union by being liars and idiots. Jesus wept!

[Numbers]

First they said it was just a "bit of banter" all friendly like.

Now they're saying he was abused and reacted when provoked.....

Which is it?!?!

No Marler apologized and got a bollocking, Lee said it was banter.

You'd assume logically some evidence was given at the RFU hearing about the verbal exchanges between Marler & Lee, hence the let off would make more sense... yeek common sense, damn that wont do

Wasn't it the 6 nations organisers that cleared him not the RFU?

You seem to have missed the point regarding the verbal exchanges, one party was perceived to have made a racist comment one wasn't. The WRU have realised the error in letting Gatland answer these questions at a press conference and have quite rightly decided to stay tihgt lipped on the subject, also as Lee faces no sanction why do they need to comment?

[cadofyddol]

I like the way you just ignore the fact nobody from the welsh player's has denied their was verbal abuse from both sides. If somebody had made a false accusation surely somebody would have responded before the ban?

The treating it with contempt it deserves is laughable and nothing you have written has any backing that we know of other than marler said 'gypsy boy'. No evidence, but no denial either all that twaddle about WR/WRU is also conjecture

Can't you read?

I have addressed that in the previous post. If the WRU have installed a media ban on the subject then that may be why no one has spoken about it recently.
Or do you think that every Welsh player should individually come out to deny the spurious allegations against persons unnamed, just in case COS was referring to them? Pathetic!
You may think it's laughable, but I think the same about COS's comments. Zero substance, zero detail!! It's like a child saying "he started it"! If COS's has got any evidence to support his comments then he should put them forward, until he does I'll treat them as pathetic lies.

What have I written as fact that has zero backing? You're the only one here who is masquerading speculation as fact.

nothing like having balanced view of things anything that doesn't support the argument is lies, lies and damn lies!

I would have thought the WRU at least made a statement after talking to the players if it wasn't true as brings in to doubt their behavior on the day? ho com'on don't you find it a little strange WRU not defending the welsh team from spurious and false claims and accusations?

If its true Hopley may have a point about witch hunting, you might even give him & COS some credence that they knows more about what actually happened on the pitch than you do and checked before making any statement because that would be the sensible thing to do, but I guess we'd be back to spurious lies, contemptible and the welsh team being above such things, my further speculations and COS/Hopley are dirty liars, because of course that's how you become a respected professional career coach and head of the players union by being liars and idiots. Jesus wept!

Whereas you are happy to accept anything they say as fact! What they are saying is hearsay and would not be admissible in a court of law.

There was a time when England would have just sucked it up and got on with it, seeing as what he was said was heard on national tv. That they are more interested in slinging mud shows more about their ego than the values of the game.

Do I think that no Welsh player made a negative comments against an English one during the game. No probably not, so for the WRU to say that their players didn't say anything would be foolish. Do I think that Marler was the only English player to say a negative comment, no probably not. That the WRU or Wayne Pivac haven't come out and said another player was abused doesn't mean it doesn't happened.

What needs to be clamped down on are comments of a serious enough nature, and racial abuse would be that. Not every single insult, which would see almost every player cited every game.

What underlines your whole attitude to me is that you think "Oi Gypsy boy, get back to your caravan" belongs in the same bracket as "You posh English c**t", whereas "Oi Black boy, get back in your tree" is altogether more serious and should be dealt with as racial abuse.

That you don't recognise Gypsies as a racial group under the Equalities Act is your problem and says more about you and your beliefs than anything else.

[Digby]

Why do you think WR are on a sticky wicket? How hard would it be to put together a panel consisting of no English, Welsh or Gypsy?

First I think they'll have an issue proving the first panel wasn't actually independent, then having seemingly announced it's important to find Marler guilty so he can be punished I think they may have an issue demonstrating their panel is independent. I can't imagine a lot of the people involved will want to drag into public considerations on why the first panel wasn't independent, but I'd love to see that first panel called up to answer the charge.