RugbyRebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35827133

Marler gets off with the 'strike'. No word on the taunt.

Lucky boy imo...so far.

That's alright then. The verbals are now just banter according to the Welsh Head coach.

Oakboy wrote:That's alright then. The verbals are now just banter according to the Welsh Head coach.

He's had to retract that!

Guardian says they'll decide on the other bit tomorrow.

I'm not sure lucky adequately covers this one. Everything I'd ever seen of rugby before led me to believe this was a stone cold ban.

That is quite a surprise....or maybe not based on some of the odd descisions that we've had before.

The process is becoming continuing to be a joke.

Yet another poor decision.

It's not necessarily a surprise. While technically speaking, a punch in the face should be a two week ban, in order to get a ban at all, it's got to be deemed a retrospective red card and I think we all would have been a bit aggrieved if he'd been given a red for that mid-game.

I still think he'll get done for his poorly-chosen words tomorrow, so we'll probably be without him anyway.

Puja

Can we stop being one-eyed for a second. Its clear the first point of contact is with the chest and his arm rises in a brushing motion to remove him from the camera views.

If your argument is that an elbow push to the chest is a red card offence than fair enough, but you would simply be wrong.

padprop wrote:Can we stop being one-eyed for a second. Its clear the first point of contact is with the chest and his arm rises in a brushing motion to remove him from the camera views.

If your argument is that an elbow push to the chest is a red card offence than fair enough, but you would simply be wrong.

That's a... generous assessment of the situation. I would say he's clearly struck him in the face with his forearm. I agree with you that it's not a red, but I can't see how you can describe this as a brushing motion to remove him from the camera views:



Puja

Puja wrote:

padprop wrote:Can we stop being one-eyed for a second. Its clear the first point of contact is with the chest and his arm rises in a brushing motion to remove him from the camera views.

If your argument is that an elbow push to the chest is a red card offence than fair enough, but you would simply be wrong.

That's a... generous assessment of the situation. I would say he's clearly struck him in the face with his forearm. I agree with you that it's not a red, but I can't see how you can describe this as a brushing motion to remove him from the camera views:



Puja

Since when has a forearm blow to the face not been a red card?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Since when has a forearm blow to the face not been a red card?

When it's a nasty little jab, rather than a full-blooded strike. I'd've been annoyed if that'd got more than a yellow mid-game.

It's banter, nothing more.

Puja

Puja wrote:It's not necessarily a surprise. While technically speaking, a punch in the face should be a two week ban, in order to get a ban at all, it's got to be deemed a retrospective red card and I think we all would have been a bit aggrieved if he'd been given a red for that mid-game.

I still think he'll get done for his poorly-chosen words tomorrow, so we'll probably be without him anyway.

Puja

Just had a notification on my phone telling me he will not be punished for that either.

I hope one of the French players calls him a 'lucky boy'! See how he likes it.

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:It's not necessarily a surprise. While technically speaking, a punch in the face should be a two week ban, in order to get a ban at all, it's got to be deemed a retrospective red card and I think we all would have been a bit aggrieved if he'd been given a red for that mid-game.

I still think he'll get done for his poorly-chosen words tomorrow, so we'll probably be without him anyway.

Puja

Just had a notification on my phone telling me he will not be punished for that either.

I hope one of the French players calls him a 'lucky boy'! See how he likes it.

Wow. Jammy sod.

Puja

Shay won't be happy.

That "forearm" was nothing.

I'm obviously a big fan of Marler what with him being a Quin and a Prop, but I do think he should have copped a short ban for the verbals, a couple of weeks maybe.

I've seen a lot of nothing strikes to the face get a red. That was a ban and I'm angry it wasn't this time, the inconsistency in officiating this game needs to go.

No action on the racism is incomprehensible and embarassing.

Blimey, he's a very lucky boy.

As much as its stupid and pointless it isn't obviously a forearm to the face. There's a forearm, but it is not obviously to the face by any stretch.

On the remarks it's a tough one. How much would he get if he'd called him a pikey? Would that be worse? Justin Harrison got three weeks for calling a black South African a "stinking black c**t". Is this comparable? Dunno to be honest. Can see it both ways.

Overall I'm suprised there wasn't some comeback, but can see rationale for why there would be no ban either.

Mellsblue wrote:Blimey, he's a very lucky boy.

On the elbow, yes. Looked like intent.

Glad common sense on the 'banta' prevailed, both from players/coaches and 'panel'. Just a shame it dragged on so long.

Blessed by a gypsy at birth perhaps, not to be confused with a gypsy blessing.

I've been pretty sanguine about the omnishambles that is rugby discipline recently. However it's just occurred to me that rugby now condones behaviour that even football would blanche at. Now I'm depressed.

This isn't a good look for the sport. Now this is all every one will be talking about this week not the rugby. Wouldn't it have made sense just to take him out of the public eye for this last 6N match at least?

Kind of mixed feelings about this. On one hand I'm clearly biased and want him to play, and I doubt he genuinely meant it in a racist way.

On the other hand it's this type of casual racism that is the most damaging.