World Rugby wants Marler explanation

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35837685

While the subject matter is quite serious, this thread is a fun read for a Friday

Would it be fair to suggest then that most people would find it unacceptable if someone had said black boy to Itoje in a similar way to try and wind him up etc?

Then we really come down to people either thinking that gypsies aren't a race, as stated above. Or that it doesn't matter as much as it was aimed at gypsies.

The first point of view is incorrect in the eyes of the law (yes it was on a rugby pitch but the majority of people I would hope now acknowledge they are wrong on that aspect?) and the 2nd...well.

TrailApe wrote:

Familiarise yourself with your own laws because if you break them don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you

So why are rugby players who punch, gouge etc not arrested and facing criminal proceedings?

This whole 'laws of the land' argument needs to be examined.

Or are you saying assault is ok but racial slander is not?

Can't pick and choose which laws are valid for a rugby pitch.

It's a contact sport. Contact happens, and players have been jailed for assault which tipped over the boundaries.

But nowhere in the laws of rugby is there anything that constitutes occasions of racist abuse. Which is what Marler did.

This thread will be pulled now. And the disgusting views of Daily Mail readers of middle england will be buried again.

Or we could all just move on and not all turn into fully paid up members of the easily offended, PC leftie luvvie brigade.

GunsGerms wrote:I wonder if you are now allowed punch someone in the face and chalk it down to the heat of the battle.

This years six nations the citing panel and refs have been ridiculously lenient.

I think I can answer that one for you. No.

At the heart of the decision is, I think, a recognition that the term used is not in of itself an ethnic slur, or at least not unanimously accepted as such. It does not carry the same weight, for example, as the "N" word, and in fact there is quite a bit of debate out there as to exactly how the Roma people view it (it seems that some members of the group use it themselves, whereas others deem it a slur). What I think has also carried some weight in this case is the opinion of the person deemed to be offended, Samson Lee.

Now, you may well say that the fact that Marler has apologised would immediate presume guilt, in that he must have intended it to be offensive otherwise why apologise? My view is that the reaction of Lee at the time prompted Marler to appreciate that he'd said something that crossed the line, thus the unprompted apology at half time.

At the end of the day the 6 Nations panel has made a decision, and the individual at the heart of all of this, Samson Lee, has accepted it.

TightHEAD wrote:Or we could all just move on and not all turn into fully paid up members of the easily offended, PC leftie luvvie brigade.

It's not PC. It's the law.

Get that in our head, then it will all fall into place.

And that's the better discussion to have FES. Should an accepted apology and heat of the moment mean that no action is taken on citing matters?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I wonder if you are now allowed punch someone in the face and chalk it down to the heat of the battle.

This years six nations the citing panel and refs have been ridiculously lenient.

I think I can answer that one for you. No.

At the heart of the decision is, I think, a recognition that the term used is not in of itself an ethnic slur, or at least not unanimously accepted as such. It does not carry the same weight, for example, as the "N" word, and in fact there is quite a bit of debate out there as to exactly how the Roma people view it (it seems that some members of the group use it themselves, whereas others deem it a slur). What I think has also carried some weight in this case is the opinion of the person deemed to be offended, Samson Lee.

Now, you may well say that the fact that Marler has apologised would immediate presume guilt, in that he must have intended it to be offensive otherwise why apologise? My view is that the reaction of Lee at the time prompted Marler to appreciate that he'd said something that crossed the line, thus the unprompted apology at half time.

At the end of the day the 6 Nations panel has made a decision, and the individual at the heart of all of this, Samson Lee, has accepted it.

Fair enough. Id be happy to give Marler the benefit of the doubt if I was on the panel too. My point is though you could chalk anything down to heat of the battle.

I would also understand if others thought it fair to give him a one match ban or a fine. After all if you don't sanction things like this it becomes acceptable or justifiable.

I think some of the excuses and justification of his comments are really quite sad in my opinion though.

Well Jimpy has earned his place on the naughty step for a few days - hopefully sensible discussion can break out now and I'm sure no one else wants to join him!

no 7 & 1/2 just because something is law doesn't mean that's what it should be.


Gunsgerms whatever, can't be bothered to argue, you're not going to budge and neither am I Got better things to do. If you want to talk rugby you'll see me on other threads. Bye. This kind of topic only divides people.

Where do you draw the line? Stick one group on a pedestal and sod the rest?

If Marler called Lee a sheep shagger that would have been fine. That's the impression I am getting. Doesn't count as racism because Welsh aren't a race no?

I don't think that would have been acceptable either but sheep shagger instead of gypsy boy - we wouldn't be talking about this now would we?

Jimpy - I don't think the nationality of Marler is relevant.

I actually think this is an interesting issue, and it does merit debate. There are numerous examples of terms commonly used in our society with potentially pejorative and racist undertones and each merits close scrutiny as to its usage.

I've been called a "Jock" numerous times for example. I also completed a project a few years ago and my boss wrote "not bad for a crofter" on my appraisal (I'm from the Highlands). To be clear I have never been in a scenario where I've taken any of that to be of any offence, but those terms certainly have the potential to be offensive in certain scenarios. I think context is everything for terms like that.

I am not a member of the Roma community and I am not Samson Lee. The Roma community spokesman (whether he/she actually speaks for the community I don't know) says the term is offensive. Lee reacted badly to it which I would take to mean he feels the same way. Exactly how Marler meant it we'll never know, but we do know that upon realising the offence caused he apologised. Does that deserve to be a mitigating factor? Maybe. I think so, in context, but I can see both sides.

A bit of a ramble, but I guess I'm trying to say that I don't think this is particularly clear cut.

But it is and is viewed as such beshocked. Go try it out in the real world, not sure a defence of it shouldn't be racist will work though.

So is watching and laughing/mocking Channel 4 'Big fat Gypsie weddings' racist?

I never said Marler should be arrested

I agree - however you brought the UK Laws into the discussion, of course you were not the first one.

My point is that we need to be very careful how far we go down this road and if people are quoting chapter and verse of UK law about incidents which happened on a rugby pitch then before long it will be too dangerous to play rugby unless you have a VERY good lawyer.

As for World Rugby, they should back off. The individuals concerned have dealt with it, the governing body of the 6N have dealt with it - why are they getting involved? Somebody wants to justify a good salary? or is it that the media have whipped up a frenzy of outrage and World Rugby feel they need to be seen doing something?

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.


This is not a dig at the WRFU or the Welsh lad - just the media sh i t storm of moral outrage.

I think he should be given appropriate sanction by a governing body that is charged with handing out appropriate sanctions.

And the 'appropriate' governing body decided that this incident did not merit any further action.

beshocked wrote:

If Marler called Lee a sheep shagger that would have been fine. That's the impression I am getting. Doesn't count as racism because Welsh aren't a race no?

No. It wouldn't have been fine. Because, yes, under the law, the Welsh are a race. You need to get up to speed with this. You are dreadfully out of touch.

On the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding it would be down to the context. Similar to if Marler and Lee were mates it could have been very different. As it was it was clearly meant to not be friendly and jovial.

The quote of the law is simply to show or argue against that gypsies aren't a race so are free to abuse as you like.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 just because something is law doesn't mean that's what it should be.


Gunsgerms whatever, can't be bothered to argue, you're not going to budge and neither am I Got better things to do. If you want to talk rugby you'll see me on other threads. Bye. This kind of topic only divides people.

Where do you draw the line? Stick one group on a pedestal and sod the rest?

If Marler called Lee a sheep shagger that would have been fine. That's the impression I am getting. Doesn't count as racism because Welsh aren't a race no?

I don't think that would have been acceptable either but sheep shagger instead of gypsy boy - we wouldn't be talking about this now would we?

There is no provision under UK law re putting any group on a pedestal over another one. So no, no group is being put on a pedestal.

Sheep shagger is probably too vague to be considered a racial slur as it encompasses parts of England and New Zealand too and possibly a little hard to trace back to one racial grouping.  If he called him a Welsh ********** or whatever else then yes it would be racism. However, my advise to you would be not to say it to a Welsh person just in case.

Just ask Jeremy Clarkson. He recently settled a racial discrimination case for calling a TV producer an Irish **********.

But was Jezza wrong?

TrailApe wrote:

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.

Why would they do that? They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

bumble wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.

Why would they do that? They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

Yet they didn't abuse anyone.

TightHEAD wrote:

bumble wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.

Why would they do that? They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

Yet they didn't abuse anyone.

Really? You stand by that even though the head of the National Alliance of the Traveller community has come out and said how disgraceful Marler's comments are?

bumble wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

bumble wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.

Why would they do that? They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

Yet they didn't abuse anyone.

Really? You stand by that even though the head of the National Alliance of the Traveller community has come out and said how disgraceful Marler's comments are?

Well they wouldn't they!

But I want to know why the Police refuse to go and get my stolen equipment back from the people who stole it, as by the law of the land they have broken the law.

TightHEAD wrote:

bumble wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

bumble wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

If they are really serious about this then perhaps they should interrogate the WRFU who allowed one of their players to be published in a Welsh newspaper saying some uncomplimentary comments on Lee and things that they associated with his Traveller background.

Why would they do that? They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

Yet they didn't abuse anyone.

Really? You stand by that even though the head of the National Alliance of the Traveller community has come out and said how disgraceful Marler's comments are?

Well they wouldn't they!

But I want to know why the Police refuse to go and get my stolen equipment back from the people who stole it, as by the law of the land they have broken the law.

It becomes clear now. You have an axe to grind. A sharp racial axe.

No, just wondering why the law isn't enforced against Gypsies.

TightHEAD wrote:But was Jezza wrong?

Tell us your thoughts? Don't hold back.

TightHEAD wrote:No, just wondering why the law isn't enforced against gypsies.

So because of that, you think the law shouldn't be enforced on Marler?

TighHEAD - you can't use that term on a public forum. I've edited several of your posts and if you do it again you'll have to join Jimpy.

Given Samson Lee's reaction at the time I don't think you can argue that he didn't take exception to it. It was that reaction in my view that prompted Marler to apologise at half time, an apology accepted by Samson Lee.

I still think that the term used sits within a grey area, and that ultimately this is what has saved Marler from a ban. Had a Welsh player used the N word on Itoje, I do not doubt for one second that a ban would have been issued, regardless of "heat of the moment" or "unprompted apology" (whether accepted or otherwise).

It's the term used that's the key to all of this in my opinion, and the context in which it was delivered.

Griff wrote:I agree to a certain extent that it's over the top, happens in every game, but IMO if he's caught on the microphone and broadcast to the world then it would have been good to send a message to kids that this sort of thing is not cool, that we can't and shouldn't goad, belittle, whatever you call it, based on heritage, race or culture.  Think about the kids, mun   I think it's minor, but then I think the same about other 'light remarks' we made about other cultures and heritage.  Doesn't mean I'm right though, or that I can play down any offence caused on the behalf of others.  Where these threads have been deleted is where, understandably, people have been offering up their own hypothetical scenarios for the precedent that this sets!

On another note, and worthy of discussion hopefully, is the point that Eddie Jones has accused Wales of attempting to detail their grand slam.  I personally do not believe this is the case, but each to his own.  However, I do hope that Jones extends that accusation to World Rugby now, after they have demanded an answer?  Doubt it somehow.

Griff,a look at Fast Eddie's career reveals a sustained history of incidents and controversies at both club and country level.He's a master of giving his successful teams any and all advantage over the opposition.I think that's the reason for his remark.He's refocusing his boys.To be fair to him he's not responsible for the Marler decisions but I'd bet he's made his feelings on discipline pretty clear to the squad and reminded them what they'll face when they visit Oz in the summer,the spiritual home of sledging.For Gats,to contradict Howley and others was bizarre.Let's hope it's not symptomatic of deeper issues.

bumble wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:No, just wondering why the law isn't enforced against gypsies.

So because of that, you think the law shouldn't be enforced on Marler?

Go and call the Police then, probably get a quicker response than I did.

To be fair attacking his ethnicity is a bit of a low blow.

He's fat, ginger and his face looks 3 times too big for his head. If I was packing down against him there are plenty of things to say to him before you get to his ethnicity.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Given Samson Lee's reaction at the time I don't think you can argue that he didn't take exception to it. It was that reaction in my view that prompted Marler to apologise at half time, an apology accepted by Samson Lee.

I still think that the term used sits within a grey area, and that ultimately this is what has saved Marler from a ban. Had a Welsh player used the N word on Itoje, I do not doubt for one second that a ban would have been issued, regardless of "heat of the moment" or "unprompted apology" (whether accepted or otherwise).

It's the term used that's the key to all of this in my opinion, and the context in which it was delivered.

In a sense I agree, but this is why it is dragging on and on. Because there should be NO sliding scale with words and creeds that are more important than any other. They should fall under the same blanket of racial abuse. And that is why it is so important that this matter is dealt with appropriately. And that is why people keep comparing it to other racial slurs.

The fact people are brushing it off as "pc gone mad" is as staggering as it is distasteful.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:To be fair attacking his ethnicity is a bit of a low blow.

He's fat, ginger and his face looks 3 times too big for his head. If I was packing down against him there are plenty of things to say to him before you get to his ethnicity.

RDW_Scotland wrote:As I said, I have removed a lot of threads already but this is a hot topic in rugby news just now so it is worthy of debate - assuming people can debate it in a way that won't lead to another thread being pulled.

bumble wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Player says something abusive, not racial

Nope. It was racial.

Gents, I think whether we are dealing in a legal arena or not misses the point.  If Marler said anything about Lee's background, whether racial or not, he did something wrong.  It is still Lee's background.

To me, we are hung up on a minor distinction.  I think we can agree Marler didn't say what he said as a sign of affection.  So likely across the line.  On the other hand, no one is going to charge Marler with a Racial Hate crime.  So the legal aspect doesn't come into it.  The only questions are whether Marler was attempting to be insulting and used Lee's background, and what World Rugby feels they want, or need, to do in this case, and whether we - as the ultimate stakeholders of our sport - believe action needs to be taken to ensure Rugby is perceived in a positive light.  Yes, this might appear political, but this is the world in which we live.  

These things always get back to where is the line in the sand.  The reality is we all know there is no fine line.  We all see the extremes and know that when we see it.  The rest is down to common sense which cannot be legislated.  We don't need new laws every time someone says something wrong.  We do need a heavy dose of simple common sense and respect.

doctor_grey wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:As I said, I have removed a lot of threads already but this is a hot topic in rugby news just now so it is worthy of debate - assuming people can debate it in a way that won't lead to another thread being pulled.

bumble wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Player says something abusive, not racial

Nope. It was racial.

Gents, I think whether we are dealing in a legal arena or not misses the point.  If Marler said anything about Lee's background, whether racial or not, he did something wrong.  It is still Lee's background.

To me, we are hung up on a minor distinction.  I think we can agree Marler didn't say what he said as a sign of affection.  So likely across the line.  On the other hand, no one is going to charge Marler with a Racial Hate crime.  So the legal aspect doesn't come into it.  The only questions are whether Marler was attempting to be insulting and used Lee's background, and what World Rugby feels they want, or need, to do in this case, and whether we - as the ultimate stakeholders of our sport - believe action needs to be taken to ensure Rugby is perceived in a positive light.  Yes, this might appear political, but this is the world in which we live.  

These things always get back to where is the line in the sand.  The reality is we all know there is no fine line.  We all see the extremes and know that when we see it.  The rest is down to common sense which cannot be legislated.  We don't need new laws every time someone says something wrong.  We do need a heavy dose of simple common sense and respect.

This!

bumble plenty of comments are inflammatory. Some are deemed acceptable, some are not......

That's what it ultimately comes down - evidently Gypsy Boy is a big no no, next time Marler knows he needs to call him a sheep shagger and no one will bat an eyelid...

It's okay though because sheep aren't just found in Wales.... could get PETA attacking him next though I guess as discrimination against sheep. We'll see...

Gunsgerms I don't see Welsh,Irish,English as races either, they are nationalities.

My point is where does one draw the line?

Verbal abuse can be just as damaging if it's about your weight,sexual orientation,height etc than just race.

Some people react differently. The head of the traveller community or whatever - what's it got to do with him?

Marler didn't say it to him, he said it to Lee. Lee did not have a problem.

I should make it clear I do not support Marler's comments but if you punish him for that then you start on the slippery slope of scrutinising every potential slur.

An internal punishment perhaps might well have been warranted but let's not blow this out of proportion.

bumble wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Given Samson Lee's reaction at the time I don't think you can argue that he didn't take exception to it. It was that reaction in my view that prompted Marler to apologise at half time, an apology accepted by Samson Lee.

I still think that the term used sits within a grey area, and that ultimately this is what has saved Marler from a ban. Had a Welsh player used the N word on Itoje, I do not doubt for one second that a ban would have been issued, regardless of "heat of the moment" or "unprompted apology" (whether accepted or otherwise).

It's the term used that's the key to all of this in my opinion, and the context in which it was delivered.

In a sense I agree, but this is why it is dragging on and on. Because there should be NO sliding scale with words and creeds that are more important than any other. They should fall under the same blanket of racial abuse. And that is why it is so important that this matter is dealt with appropriately. And that is why people keep comparing it to other racial slurs.

The fact people are brushing it off as "pc gone mad" is as staggering as it is distasteful.

I suppose I sit somewhere in the middle. I think I agree with the conclusion of the 6 Nations Panel (with some reservations as to the wording of their statement), but I certainly do not brush this off as "PC gone mad". It is an extremely important topic and it deserves attention, albeit not necessarily in the context of a comment made on a rugby pitch.

As for the sliding scale, I think this is inevitable unless Parliament actually publishes a list of terms with strict liability on usage. Without that it's very difficult to say there's no sliding scale, as context will always be important. Having been a Scot in England for almost half my life I've heard almost every Scot joke under the sun, and been called just about every derivation of Scot out there. There isn't a single instance where I'd have felt the police and the criminal justice system had a role to play, but then again the decision to take offence, or whether offence is taken, is entirely subjective. I'm pretty sure Nicola Sturgeon, spokesperson for Scotland, would in public say that the term "Jock" is pejorative (it of course would suit her political agenda as well), whereas I think otherwise.

I suppose the context in which it was used then becomes important. If I were mugged in Manchester, kicked in the face and told: "go back to your own country you f*cking Jock", as well as having a case for assault and battery, I would also plead a case for a racially motivated crime. On the otherhand if I were out for some friends, failed to buy a round and a friend of a friend said "typical Jock, not getting a round in", I would probably consider that "banter" and, even if I took offence to it, suggest than an immediate apology should close the matter.

In short, without an exhaustive list of widely accepted terms that cross the line, you need a sliding scale and an appreciation of context. I would also suggest that, with a term at the lower end of the scale, or rather in that grey area, an immediate unprompted apology in an instance of an individual taking offence should, in my view, by a mitigating factor.

And when Itoje gets called black boy as someone is trying to wind him up?

beshocked wrote: next time Marler knows he needs to call him a sheep shagger and no one will bat an eyelid...

They should do. As it will be abuse.

Gunsgerms I don't see Welsh,Irish,English  as races either, they are nationalities.

My point is where does one draw the line?

Just because you disagree with the law, it doesn't make the law wrong.

Some people react differently. The head of the traveller community or whatever - what's it got to do with him?

Erm, quite alot. It shows that the community took offence to the abuse dished out.

I should make it clear I do not support Marler's comments but if you punish him for that then you start on the slippery slope of scrutinising every potential slur.

Why on earth is that a "slippery slope"? Any slur should be dealt with.

They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

You really sure about that?

The article has been taken offline (wonder why...) but as I recall it made reference to Lee being smelly and that this was associated with his roots. And as far as I'm aware 'anecdotal' comments that are made with racial overtones are as offensive as any other racial comment.

Really? You stand by that even though the head of the National Alliance of the Traveller community has come out and said how disgraceful Marler's comments are?

I don't think the lady involved is actually an elected member of anything apart from owning a facebook page 'Nat Alliance Gyspy Traveller & Roma Women Organization'

Doctor Grey, the reference to the law was simply to demonstrate that under UK law members of the travelling community are considered a race and therefore what Marler said could be considered racist. Law was referenced because it applies to Marler and because there is no definition of race in rugby's rules.

I raised this point because in defending Marler some people seem to think that because travellers aren't a race Marler's comments cannot be racist and therefore there is nothing wrong with them. My point was a general point re racist comments and not meant as any barometer for sanction against him in a rugby context. The not a race defence is something that comes up time and time again.

However, yes you are absolutely correct in everything you said. Do you think he should have been given a fine or a ban?

TrailApe wrote:

They weren't uncomplimentary, they were anectodal. Marler's comments were inflammatory and designed to abuse.

You really sure about that?

The article has been taken offline (wonder why...) but as I recall it made reference to Lee being smelly and that this was associated with his roots. And as far as I'm aware 'anecdotal' comments that are made with racial overtones are as offensive as any other racial comment.

Am I sure that Samson Lee's mate of 15 years wasn't racially abusing him? Yeah I am.

Really? You stand by that even though the head of the National Alliance of the Traveller community has come out and said how disgraceful Marler's comments are?

I don't think the lady involved is actually an elected member of anything apart from owning a facebook page  'Nat Alliance Gyspy Traveller & Roma Women Organization'

So? She was offended.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And when Itoje gets called black boy as someone is trying to wind him up?

Classy.

TightHEAD wrote:So the IRB or World rugby (can't decide if they are Arthur or Martha by the sounds of it) want an answer.

Simples, in the heat of battle one man called another man a name (which he himself has described himself as one in the past) the matter was laughed off and one man apologized. (for what I do not know)

Then the coach of one said there was no case to answer as it was just Banter, this then angered the Bosses/overloards of the coach as they have a huge chip on their shoulders and want to derail another teams build up to Saturdays game.

Much ado about nothing!

That's about the size of it in my eyes Tighthead.

Blown out of all proportion. Even the welsh coaching team are of different opinions.

Im beginning to think its the old English syndrome again. Anyone else it wouldn't be an issue, but because its England lets cause a stir! And judging by whats being said on here, that in itself is racist against the English.

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And when Itoje gets called black boy as someone is trying to wind him up?

Classy.

What?

beshocked wrote:bumble plenty of comments are inflammatory. Some are deemed acceptable, some are not......

That's what it ultimately comes down - evidently Gypsy Boy is a big no no, next time Marler knows he needs to call him a sheep shagger and no one will bat an eyelid...

It's okay though because sheep aren't just found in Wales.... could get PETA attacking him next though I guess as discrimination against sheep. We'll see...

Gunsgerms I don't see Welsh,Irish,English  as races either, they are nationalities.

My point is where does one draw the line?

Verbal abuse can be just as damaging if it's about your weight,sexual orientation,height etc than just race.

Some people react differently. The head of the traveller community or whatever - what's it got to do with him?

Marler didn't say it to him, he said it to Lee. Lee did not have a problem.

I should make it clear I do not support Marler's comments but if you punish him for that then you start on the slippery slope of scrutinising every potential slur.

An internal punishment perhaps might well have been warranted but let's not blow this out of proportion.

That is where the whole equal rights, *-ist (insert your choice of word), thing is really awkward. If anyone hears it and does not like it, then you have caused offence using *-ist comments.

So odds are if Marler had said it in the pub it would have been ok (much like the Saints player who got sacked for his Mo Farrah tweet in 2012), but because it was in the public domain, he was almost certain to find that it offended numerous people, and as such then needs to be dealt with.

Do you think he should have been given a fine or a ban?

Thanks Guns

He should be made to 'volunteer' to go and help Travellers, perhaps helping on a Site or perhaps giving them a few training sessions. Fines/Bans are negative. something positive needs to come from this episode - but for Gods sake, if he does do something like that, keep it low key, appropriate and no media circus.

He's been very stupid and he needs to put that right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And when Itoje gets called black boy as someone is trying to wind him up?

Classy.

What?

Don't bother engaging in that 7&1/2. Without really realising it he just agreed with you anyway.

Yup.

TrailApe wrote:

Do you think he should have been given a fine or a ban?

Thanks Guns

He should be made to 'volunteer' to go and help Travellers, perhaps helping on a Site or perhaps giving them a few training sessions. Fines/Bans are negative. something positive needs to come from this episode - but for Gods sake, if he does do something like that, keep it low key, appropriate and no media circus.

He's been very stupid and he needs to put that right.

I think he would prefer a fine or ban.