Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35887510

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

Geordie, Marler knew he shouldn't have brought the whole Gypsy thing into though didn't he? He did it to provoke, he brought his background in, it's racist. It's not as bad as it could be, but it should have brought about a ban. 'Heat of the moment' is no excuse surely?

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

And I say again...PC / Human rights bullsh1t!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Geordie, Marler knew he shouldn't have brought the whole Gypsy thing into though didn't he? He did it to provoke, he brought his background in, it's racist. It's not as bad as it could be, but it should have brought about a ban. 'Heat of the moment' is no excuse surely?

We'll just agree to disagree 7.5.

I have seen racism first hand living in Africa for many years and its not nice. It cant be tolerated...but to me this is not racism and we'll just end up going back and forward getting no where

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

And I say again...PC / Human rights bullsh1t!!

"The law" is it's official title.

And the law in its unofficial title "is an a$$" !!

I'm sure we can both agree after the 6Ns said it was against the rules (whether you agree with that bit or not) there's no way a player should get off as it was heat of the moment?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure we can both agree after the 6Ns said it was against the rules (whether you agree with that bit or not) there's no way a player should get off as it was heat of the moment?

If it was against the rules then the 6N would have punished it. Obviously they too have questions about this being racist or not.

It was acknowledged by them that it was against the rules though, and wasn't punished as he apologied without prompt and it was 'heat of the moment'. So no they have no doubts it was against the rules, so given that do you think anyone should be let off as it was heat of the moment and they said sorry?

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

Then you are saying Rob Evan is racist too as he called him 'this gypsy'. But he's Welsh so is spared your pious preaching. England won the Grand Slam, get over it.

pheonix wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

Then you are saying Rob Evans racist too as he called him 'this gypsy'. But he's Welsh so is spared your pious preaching. England won the Garand Slam, get over it.

Can you tell the difference :

1. OJ Simpson is black.

2. "Oi, black boy, Oi, black boy, get back to........."

If you genuinely can not tell the difference between 1 and 2, then you desperately need educating.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was acknowledged by them that it was against the rules though, and wasn't punished as he apologied without prompt and it was 'heat of the moment'. So no they have no doubts it was against the rules, so given that do you think anyone should be let off as it was heat of the moment and they said sorry?

Yes, especially as Mr Lee the "victim" seems to not care jot about the whole thing!

bumble wrote:

pheonix wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

Then you are saying Rob Evans racist too as he called him 'this gypsy'. But he's Welsh so is spared your pious preaching. England won the Garand Slam, get over it.

Can you tell the difference :

1. OJ Simpson is black.

2. "Oi, black boy, Oi, black boy, get back to........."

If you genuinely can not tell the difference between 1 and 2, then you desperately need educating.

But Evans made reference to Lee's odour pointing towards his background? Suggesting Gypsys smell??

Are you saying that's not "racist" but calling someone Gypsy boy IS???

bumble wrote:

pheonix wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

Well it is. And that's a fact.

Then you are saying Rob Evans racist too as he called him 'this gypsy'. But he's Welsh so is spared your pious preaching. England won the Garand Slam, get over it.

Can you tell the difference :

1. OJ Simpson is black.

2. "Oi, black boy, Oi, black boy, get back to........."

If you genuinely can not tell the difference between 1 and 2, then you desperately need educating.

As I've said before, I believe the reason the 6 Nations Panel chose not to ban Marler was because of the word itself not necessarily having racist connotations, as you have eloquently demonstrated above.

For example had you said the following:

1. OJ Simpson is a "N".

2. "Oi, "N" boy, Oi, "N" boy, get back to...."

I think we can all agree that both 1 and 2 are wrong and a ban would have been imposed.

I think they've looked at the context and circumstances of use, considered the word itself (the simple use of which is not against the law, as the law doesn't actually specify such a list), the views and wishes of the victim (rightly or wrongly), the instant and unprompted apology and the fact that he was reprimanded by his employer.

Knowsit17 wrote:With every new development I find myself increasingly wanting 6N's rugby to be the ones facing action. Regardless where you stand on Marler, it's not his fault this has been dragged out so long. That's entirely on the 6N's for not taking what should have been routine action. Their neglect to even bring in the citing officer, who could have clarified things almost as once, deeply concerns me.

 NAIL HIT RIGHT ON THE HEAD

Has that changed your mind at all Geordie? You seemed to be judging it on what the 6Ns panel thought and they said it was against the rules; so do you think it's fair enough for players to get out of bans for acts done in the heat of the moment?

No not in the heat of the moment. I don't condone Calum Clark breaking Hawkins arm in the "heat of the moment"

But I repeat... calling someone a gypsy is not a racist comment in my eyes. I don't believe we can say Gypsies are a "race", they're just a group of travellers.

We're just going round in circles here though.

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But Evans made reference to Lee's odour pointing towards his background? Suggesting Gypsys smell??

He did not.

We can to an extent move beyond whether you believe it's racist though. Whether it was or not in anyones eyes it's been acknowledged as against the rules and then dropped for a laughable reason. Because of that WR are bang on the money in wanting a hearing.

GeordieFalcon wrote:No not in the heat of the moment. I don't condone Calum Clark breaking Hawkins arm in the "heat of the moment"

But I repeat... calling someone a gypsy is not a racist comment in my eyes. I don't believe we can say Gypsies are a "race", they're just a group of travellers.

We're just going round in circles here though.

It doesn't matter what you think "in your eyes". The laws of the land and the laws of rugby are totally at odds with your opinion. Which is something you really are finding difficult to grasp.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We can to an extent move beyond whether you believe it's racist though. Whether it was or not in anyones eyes it's been acknowledged as against the rules and then dropped for a laughable reason. Because of that WR are bang on the money in wanting a hearing.

No because no one will convince me that was a racist act...and no law of the land will either.

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

It's exactly the same.

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But Evans made reference to Lee's odour pointing towards his background? Suggesting Gypsys smell??

He did not.

Oh but he did.
But obviously thats ok... maybe because he's Welsh...or a team mate which is just banter eh?

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:No not in the heat of the moment. I don't condone Calum Clark breaking Hawkins arm in the "heat of the moment"

But I repeat... calling someone a gypsy is not a racist comment in my eyes. I don't believe we can say Gypsies are a "race", they're just a group of travellers.

We're just going round in circles here though.

It doesn't matter what you think "in your eyes". The laws of the land and the laws of rugby are totally at odds with your opinion. Which is something you really are finding difficult to grasp.

What you seem to be failing to grasp, is that although the law is written down, its very often opened up to interpretation by those attempting to implement it. 'The Law is An As5' isn't some throwaway comment, it's coined because the fact is, the law isn't black and white and can even contradict itself. It is down to the Judiciary to implement it after careful consideration. This case will be no different.

I'm still trying to work out which nasty little WUMming Troll you were before you were banned and returned under this pseudonym as another nasty little WUMming troll. I'll get there eventually. I'm not the only one who's noticed either.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:We can to an extent move beyond whether you believe it's racist though. Whether it was or not in anyones eyes it's been acknowledged as against the rules and then dropped for a laughable reason. Because of that WR are bang on the money in wanting a hearing.

No because no one will convince me that was a racist act...and no law of the land will either.

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

Which is fine, as I said whether it was racist or not is moot in this case, as the 6Ns said it was against the rules. Hence the real debate is whether heat of the moment is a suitable excuse and whether WR are right to want to hear more on this.

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

It's exactly the same.

Nope

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But Evans made reference to Lee's odour pointing towards his background? Suggesting Gypsys smell??

He did not.

Oh but he did.
But obviously thats ok... maybe because he's Welsh...or a team mate which is just banter eh?

He did not. Give us the full quote.

You can try and equate the 2 instances as much as you like. But you'll only embarrass yourself further.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

It's exactly the same.

Nope

GeordieFalcon V the Law



Hmmm. k.

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:
But Evans made reference to Lee's odour pointing towards his background? Suggesting Gypsys smell??

He did not.

Oh but he did.
But obviously thats ok... maybe because he's Welsh...or a team mate which is just banter eh?

He did not. Give us the full quote.

You can try and equate the 2 instances as much as you like. But you'll only embarrass yourself further.

Its clear on the Welsh rugby site! But that's ok....

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

It is very different to genuine racist occurances.

It's exactly the same.

Nope

GeordieFalcon V the Law



Hmmm. k.

Yup!

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Its clear on the Welsh rugby site! But that's ok....

Yet you won't quote it, because you know you are wrong, and there is zero correlation between "the smell" and "gypsy"

Its quite clear what he was insinuating....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its quite clear what he was insinuating....

I think it's only clear if you have some axe to grind.

Which you clearly do with Marler.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Which you clearly do with Marler.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

I think you need educating.

I don't have an axe to grind, neither do the 6Ns and we're in agreement it was wrong of Marler to say it. And heat of the moment is no excuse.

You are aware that things like punches are not always banned? The defence 'heat of the moment' is probably why. Otherwise, everytime anyone stuck another player anywhere (punch on the arm, hitting someone's arm holding you in a ruck, etc), would result in the minimum entry level. Collapsing a ruck is also bannable but I don't think we've ever seen anyone banned for that.

So, yes, heat of the moment, etc is a defence that is used multitudes of times in every single game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't have an axe to grind, neither do the 6Ns and we're in agreement it was wrong of Marler to say it. And heat of the moment is no excuse.

I think we'd all agree, as would Marler, that he was wrong to say it.

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Which you clearly do with Marler.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

I think you need educating.

Oh im degree educated thank you very much.

The question I want to know is which user were you prior to being banned and being rejuvenated as your current WUM.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bumble wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Which you clearly do with Marler.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

I think you need educating.

Oh im degree educated thank you very much.

The question I want to know is which user were you prior to being banned and being rejuvenated as your current WUM.

If you've got an issue contact the admin.

I don't believe that's your only issue though.

No probs mate.

Have a nice day.

HammerofThunor wrote:You are aware that things like punches are not always banned? The defence 'heat of the moment' is probably why. Otherwise, everytime anyone stuck another player anywhere (punch on the arm, hitting someone's arm holding you in a ruck, etc), would result in the minimum entry level. Collapsing a ruck is also bannable but I don't think we've ever seen anyone banned for that.

So, yes, heat of the moment, etc is a defence that is used multitudes of times in every single game.

You don't have to rely on probably, find an instance that's the case.

The worlds gone insane, PC is causing us all problems this being case in point. Just google 'cultural appropriation' . If you are white you are now not allowed to wear clothing etc of another race/culture. So no, your not allowed to wear a Sombrero as fancy dress etc etc

This is the quote that GeordieFalcon refers to without posting it. ("It’s a far cry from when Evans used to represent Pembrokeshire schools against their Llanelli counterparts.

It's an occasion Evans has vivid memories of, especially concerning his opponent that day.

“I have played with Samson since I was 15, when we played together first for the Scarlets under-16s,” explained Evans.

“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!”

Lee has since developed his strength with Evans revealing the unusual techniques of his regional and international team-mate.

“He has worked hard and is very strong,” he added.

“He tells me he used to be chucking steel around with all his uncles and stuff!

“He has been really strong since he was a young kid.

“He has worked hard and has a good technique.”)

Whilst the words "gipsy" and "smell" appear on the same page there is no suggestion that gipsies, as a rule, smell badly.

Scarpia wrote:

Whilst the words "gipsy" and "smell" appear on the same page there is no suggestion that gipsies, as a rule, smell badly.

Of course there's not. GeordieFalcon and others are just trying to excuse Marler's racist abuse.

Bumble, England won the grandslam put that in your pipe and smoke it. hahahahahah.

wrfc1980 wrote:Bumble, England won the grandslam put that in your pipe and smoke it. hahahahahah.

And a very worthy Grand Slam win it was too. Well done. England have some great young players at their disposal, with depth now too, which is what the other home nations seem to always lack. I still think they have slight issues at 7 and 10/12 channel. But nothing too sinister.

Now back to the topic....

I've got a strong sense of déjà vu here....hmmmm....writing style is like a fingerprint....unique and identifiable....

The simple fact is. If the law is all that matters, then context doesn't. At all. Because ANYONE can file a complaint about a comment according to the law.

If it's not just rigid application of the law, then there are very clearly degrees of offensiveness. And marlers comment is in this grey area, and hence it's completely fair to debate it.

Bumble saying it's racist yet Evans using the word is not racist means he agrees context is key. Yet if context is key, then the law cannot be simply applied. So which is it bumble? The law rigidly applied or context?

quinsforever wrote:I've got a strong sense of déjà vu here....hmmmm....writing style is like a fingerprint....unique and identifiable....

Something smells?