Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

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

Marler said he doesn't condone racism after this so he obviously thinks it's pretty close to the mark and probably over given he was apologising while saying it.

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think you're wrong. This is what Guns said:

"It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said."

So Guns is saying that it's likely that things do get said, and maybe something was said to Marler, but without any real evidence of the alleged remark there's not much value in discussing it. I agree with him. There's only so much we can say about it without any real proof to support it.

How do you know that Marler wasn't the 'sole bad apple'? He might well have been. The say-so of Marler (if that's where COS got his information from) isn't credible and, even if there was credible evidence, in no sense would justify the comment of Marler. WR can only look at the alleged remark to Marler if there is supporting evidence, such as a player admitting to it, or it has been recorded.

No. That is part of what Guns said. He followed it with "There is no need for front rows to clean up their act." Perhaps he didn't intend for that to look like a massive overgeneralisation, but I doubt it.

Now we get onto what is credible and what isn't. Having had Conor as my club's DoR for 5 years, and having regularly gone to his press conferences and Q&A sessions, I know that he very rarely speaks out about disciplinary issues. I trust his integrity. In my judgement, COS is very unlikely to say something like that unless he's confident Marler can corroborate it. That only needs another player to have heard it, and be prepared to speak up about it.

Then there's the general question of plausibility. If you really think it's more plausible that Marler is the only guilty party here than that there is a more widespread problem, then I would recommend a course in elementary statistics.

Both of those make it worth discussing what it would mean if a Welsh player has said what COS has reported. It doesn't exonerate Marler, but it does act as partial mitigation. More importantly, it is suggestive of a wider problem and that front rows - and other players - might need to be encouraged to clean up their act.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand and keep on believing that there's only a solitary Englishman to blame, then go right ahead. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

Guns said there was no place for racism on the field, and so it's obvious that when he stated that there was 'no need for front rows to clean up their act', he didn't mean racist comments are ok. That much is crystal clear.

I'm sure the sun shines out of COS's rear end, but that certainly doesn't make his claim any more credible, just as it wouldn't if Marler tried to defend his racist comment by claiming "but they picked on me first, Sir". Even if true, it's a pathetic defence. There is no value in it because there's no proof that we can see.

If players are using racist comments to wind up their opponents then they do need to clean up their act, but there is zero evidence presented to suggest that Marler was provoked. As I have said, it's a weak defence even if true.

Your defence of Marler smacks of trying to paint the guilty as the victim.

Munchkin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think you're wrong. This is what Guns said:

"It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said."

So Guns is saying that it's likely that things do get said, and maybe something was said to Marler, but without any real evidence of the alleged remark there's not much value in discussing it. I agree with him. There's only so much we can say about it without any real proof to support it.

How do you know that Marler wasn't the 'sole bad apple'? He might well have been. The say-so of Marler (if that's where COS got his information from) isn't credible and, even if there was credible evidence, in no sense would justify the comment of Marler. WR can only look at the alleged remark to Marler if there is supporting evidence, such as a player admitting to it, or it has been recorded.

No. That is part of what Guns said. He followed it with "There is no need for front rows to clean up their act." Perhaps he didn't intend for that to look like a massive overgeneralisation, but I doubt it.

Now we get onto what is credible and what isn't. Having had Conor as my club's DoR for 5 years, and having regularly gone to his press conferences and Q&A sessions, I know that he very rarely speaks out about disciplinary issues. I trust his integrity. In my judgement, COS is very unlikely to say something like that unless he's confident Marler can corroborate it. That only needs another player to have heard it, and be prepared to speak up about it.

Then there's the general question of plausibility. If you really think it's more plausible that Marler is the only guilty party here than that there is a more widespread problem, then I would recommend a course in elementary statistics.

Both of those make it worth discussing what it would mean if a Welsh player has said what COS has reported. It doesn't exonerate Marler, but it does act as partial mitigation. More importantly, it is suggestive of a wider problem and that front rows - and other players - might need to be encouraged to clean up their act.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand and keep on believing that there's only a solitary Englishman to blame, then go right ahead. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

Guns said there was no place for racism on the field, and so it's obvious that when he stated that there was 'no need for front rows to clean up their act', he didn't mean racist comments are ok. That much is crystal clear.

I'm sure the sun shines out of COS's rear end, but that certainly doesn't make his claim any more credible, just as it wouldn't if Marler tried to defend his racist comment by claiming "but they picked on me first, Sir". Even if true, it's a pathetic defence. There is no value in it because there's no proof that we can see.

If players are using racist comments to wind up their opponents then they do need to clean up their act, but there is zero evidence presented to suggest that Marler was provoked. As I have said, it's a weak defence even if true.

Your defence of Marler smacks of trying to paint the guilty as the victim.

And your refusal to acknowledge that a racial slur could have been said to Marler first shows your prejudices and are not interested justice, and are just using this whole thing as a stick to beat an English player with. I'm sure there is a word for that...

It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.

Number 2 would have been my option. An on field yellow would have been a good start IMO.

pheonix wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I think you're wrong. This is what Guns said:

"It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said."

So Guns is saying that it's likely that things do get said, and maybe something was said to Marler, but without any real evidence of the alleged remark there's not much value in discussing it. I agree with him. There's only so much we can say about it without any real proof to support it.

How do you know that Marler wasn't the 'sole bad apple'? He might well have been. The say-so of Marler (if that's where COS got his information from) isn't credible and, even if there was credible evidence, in no sense would justify the comment of Marler. WR can only look at the alleged remark to Marler if there is supporting evidence, such as a player admitting to it, or it has been recorded.

No. That is part of what Guns said. He followed it with "There is no need for front rows to clean up their act." Perhaps he didn't intend for that to look like a massive overgeneralisation, but I doubt it.

Now we get onto what is credible and what isn't. Having had Conor as my club's DoR for 5 years, and having regularly gone to his press conferences and Q&A sessions, I know that he very rarely speaks out about disciplinary issues. I trust his integrity. In my judgement, COS is very unlikely to say something like that unless he's confident Marler can corroborate it. That only needs another player to have heard it, and be prepared to speak up about it.

Then there's the general question of plausibility. If you really think it's more plausible that Marler is the only guilty party here than that there is a more widespread problem, then I would recommend a course in elementary statistics.

Both of those make it worth discussing what it would mean if a Welsh player has said what COS has reported. It doesn't exonerate Marler, but it does act as partial mitigation. More importantly, it is suggestive of a wider problem and that front rows - and other players - might need to be encouraged to clean up their act.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand and keep on believing that there's only a solitary Englishman to blame, then go right ahead. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

Guns said there was no place for racism on the field, and so it's obvious that when he stated that there was 'no need for front rows to clean up their act', he didn't mean racist comments are ok. That much is crystal clear.

I'm sure the sun shines out of COS's rear end, but that certainly doesn't make his claim any more credible, just as it wouldn't if Marler tried to defend his racist comment by claiming "but they picked on me first, Sir". Even if true, it's a pathetic defence. There is no value in it because there's no proof that we can see.

If players are using racist comments to wind up their opponents then they do need to clean up their act, but there is zero evidence presented to suggest that Marler was provoked. As I have said, it's a weak defence even if true.

Your defence of Marler smacks of trying to paint the guilty as the victim.

And your refusal to acknowledge that a racial slur could have been said to Marler first shows your prejudices and are not interested justice, and are just using this whole thing as a stick to beat an English player with. I'm sure there is a word for that...

So you are crying victim .....

I haven't refused to acknowledge that maybe Marler had a racist comment directed at him, but without evidence I, or anyone else, can't say that this did happen.

I'm interested at getting to the truth of things. I have debated against both sides of the argument on this thread, and in doing so have argued that if the alleged comment to Marler is in fact true, it's also racist.

I'm not interested in froth.....

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.
5. He's English - Throw him in the tower and get him on the rack!!!

You forgot that one!

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

No 7&1/2 wrote:Marler said he doesn't condone racism after this so he obviously thinks it's pretty close to the mark and probably over given he was apologising while saying it.

I think the apology was more prompted by the reaction. It is possible to say something without thinking it particularly offensive (rightly or wrongly), realising after the event and based on the reaction that the recipient found it extremely offensive and then apologising for the offence caused.

As I've said before, because the use of the term "gypsy" in of itself is not racist you then have to look at its usage, how it was meant and the context and circumstances of use.

Marler apologised to Lee at half time because of Lee's reaction. I don't think anyone can credit Marler with having the foresight of trying to escape a ban on the 40 minute mark. I would therefore take his apology to be sincere, in other words he didn't realise the offence it would cause and immediately recognised that it was wrong. Marler has never disputed that. What he does dispute is the charge of being racist, and that his comments were motivated by racism.

Still, I'm sure there are some on here that don't believe the apology to the relevant, either as to whether a crime/breach of IRB rules has been committed, or whether it is relevant to the question on sentencing. Given the nature of the word itself and the ambiguity as to whether it is offensive or not, as well as the actual words used by Marler, I think it has to feature in the analysis for both and certainly as a mitigation on the second (it obviously being well established in the legal system that remorse and an early plea of guilty can have an impact on the sentence).

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter. Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

I agree with a lot of that and don't think Marler is a racist but he does acknowldge he's overstepped the mark. I don't think saying sorry after the event should get you off though.

Oh lord, now they're calling it "Gypsy-gate"

It gets better and better

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.

A mix of 3 & 4.....it's really not that bad. I get called worse on a daily basis and it's water off a ducks back. If the subject of the taunt isn't offended I can't see the problem.

I worry for this world of ours when people get so wound up by something so small.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.
5. He's English - Throw him in the tower and get him on the rack!!!

You forgot that one!

I think you are being over sensitive Geordie. I have nothing much against Marler or the England rugby team who I have always admired. Its more the debate around what he said and how things of that nature should be dealt with that interests me.

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

Guns

An on-field yellow would almost certainly have been the end of it, as a YC does not merit a suspension.

I think what we can hear Marler said ('Gypsy boy') just trips over the line into racism, at least in the context he said it (as a way of winding up an opponent and using their cultural identity as a means of doing so). If he said (as reported on here) 'get back to your caravan, gypsy boy', then I would consider that rather further over the line and meriting greater sanction (as it links a stereotype to the potentially offensive phrase).

Just using the word gypsy is not in itself racist (as in the Rob Evans quote, context plays a part). I'll set aside the fact that it's an inaccurate description of Lee, from an Irish Traveller background rather than Roma Gypsy, as both groups are explicitly covered under UK anti-discrimination legislation.

Marler's apology at the earliest possible opportunity should certainly count as partial mitigation, but I do think the 6Ns disciplinary committee have made an absolute Horlicks of this case - should have had a formal hearing and report like the one that cleared Marler of striking (or convicted Francis) so that the decision-making process was open and transparent. Still think a short ban would have been justifiable, especially in light of the increased awareness that this whole case has brought up.

Oh, and if someone really did call Marler a 'posh English cnut', they should serve at least an equal punishment. Using the broad definition of racism given in Law (which included reference to discrimination based on nationality), then this is clearly at least as bad as anything Marler said.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree with a lot of that and don't think Marler is a racist but he does acknowldge he's overstepped the mark. I don't think saying sorry after the event should get you off though.

Neither do it, but I do think it should be a factor taken into consideration. Had Marler said after the game that he wasn't sorry, and that he stands by what he said, I would imagine the 6 Nations Panel would have taken a different view as to the appropriate punishment.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

And it's the torygraph.

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.

I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case. If 6N's had acted appropriately this would mostly be forgotten about by now.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree with a lot of that and don't think Marler is a racist but he does acknowldge he's overstepped the mark. I don't think saying sorry after the event should get you off though.

Neither do it, but I do think it should be a factor taken into consideration. Had Marler said after the game that he wasn't sorry, and that he stands by what he said, I would imagine the 6 Nations Panel would have taken a different view as to the appropriate punishment.

Yup. I guess for me some sort of ban would have been sufficient, 4 weeks minimum is it? Reduce it to 3 say. Having nothing but a 'tut tut' has simply made things worse.

Munchkin wrote:
I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case.

What would he have had to say for it to be very serious then? Is there a sliding scale of creeds / colours and backgrounds on this with "Gypsies" at the bottom of the scale? Who's at the top? Maoris? Eskimos?

You don't think there are more serious racist statements etc that can be made bumble? Or everything insult is the same?

There is no minimum. 4 weeks is the low entry point.  I would have reduced it by 50% (the maximum) to 2 weeks, due to the apology and no previous issues.

But I still think that if the comment had been 'Welsh boy' absolutely nothing would have been made of it, even though under the IRB regulations and UK law there is no distinction between comments based on race or nationality.

bumble wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case.  

What would he have had to say for it to be very serious then? Is there a sliding scale of creeds / colours and backgrounds on this with "Gypsies" at the bottom of the scale? Who's at the top? Maoris? Eskimos?

There are several clearly insulting terms for gypsies/travellers that could have been used. That would be worse.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

I was a bit surprised myself. The Tele has obviously been infiltrated by the Welsh and Irish

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't think there are more serious racist statements etc that can be made bumble? Or everything insult is the same?

I don't see how "Oi gypsy boy, get back to your caravan" is "not very serious", sorry.

If you say that abusing other races is a more serious offence, then you're in danger of making equality inequal, which defeats the point. That is why this is a serious matter and not just banter. Because it is all covered by the same law.

HammerofThunor wrote:There is no minimum. 4 weeks is the low entry point.  I would have reduced it by 50% (the maximum) to 2 weeks, due to the apology and no previous issues.

But I still think that if the comment had been 'Welsh boy' absolutely nothing would have been made of it, even though under the IRB regulations and UK law there is no distinction between comments based on race or nationality.

Instead of thinking what the comment wasn't. Think about what the comment was.

bumble wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case.  

What would he have had to say for it to be very serious then? Is there a sliding scale of creeds / colours and backgrounds on this with "Gypsies" at the bottom of the scale? Who's at the top? Maoris? Eskimos?

I agree with bumble to a certain extent in so far as it is problematic to pick and mix what racial/ethical/religious slurs should carry more weight than others.

However, where I think the sanction should or could be reduced or deemed less severe is in the fact that Joe Marler is generally a good character and in all probability this was a mistake on his part rather than some ingrained prejudice/s he holds against Lee. I think it would be reasonable for a citing commissioner to take this into account or come to this conclusion and give him a one match ban.

No I'm saying there can easily be more offensive things to say in relation to this one case rather than bring other races into at all. I don't think it's banter, I don't think an apology makes it all go away as you can probably see from my posts. Neither do i think it's at the higher end of offence or racist language.

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

I was a bit surprised myself. The Tele has obviously been infiltrated by the Welsh and Irish

Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

bumble

It's not that different groups deserve different protection either in Law or under the laws of rugby, but more to do with the actual phrase used and the context in which it was said. Calling Samson Lee 'Gypsy Boy' to wind him up is a bit crass but if that's all Marler said, it's hardly the crime of the century. Change it to (for example) 'thieving gypsy barsteward' and it's much more of a racial insult.

Similarly, if someone called Itoje 'black...' it would be crass and merit sanction, call him a 'n*gger' and it's way further over the line and the perpetrator would clearly deserve having the book thrown at them.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

I was a bit surprised myself. The Tele has obviously been infiltrated by the Welsh and Irish

Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

...and what about us Scots? Are you suggesting that we can't/don't read broadsheet newspapers?? I'm offended.

GunsGerms wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Should Marler have received a ban:

1. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur and that is a serious offense.
2. Yes, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he should have been given the benefit of the doubt and received a small sanction only.
3. No, what he said constitutes a racial slur but he is not a racist and it was said in the heat of the moment. No sanction required.
4. No, what he said should not be considered a racial slur and is nothing more than banter amongst players. Racial taunting should be permitted.
5. He's English - Throw him in the tower and get him on the rack!!!

You forgot that one!

I think you are being over sensitive Geordie. I have nothing much against Marler or the England rugby team who I have always admired. Its more the debate around what he said and how things of that nature should be dealt with that interests me.

On the contrary, im the one saying everyone calling for bans etc are over sensitive.

Im making a bit of fun about it being an English thing, but it does make me wonder if there would have been the same outcry had it been during a game of say Ireland v Wales or Scotland v Ireland.

GunsGerms wrote:

bumble wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case.  

What would he have had to say for it to be very serious then? Is there a sliding scale of creeds / colours and backgrounds on this with "Gypsies" at the bottom of the scale? Who's at the top? Maoris? Eskimos?

I agree with bumble to a certain extent in so far as it is problematic to pick and mix what racial/ethical/religious slurs should carry more weight than others.

However, where I think the sanction should or could be reduced or deemed less severe is in the fact that Joe Marler is generally a good character and in all probability this was a mistake on his part rather than some ingrained prejudice/s he holds against Lee. I think it would be reasonable for a citing commissioner to take this into account or come to this conclusion and give him a one match ban.

I agree in a way. But just think that for Marler to say what he said - he would have had to have this pre-conceived idea in his head that he would wind Lee up in this way. He'll have gone through Lee's character the night before and analysed it. If it was a spur of the moment thing, then I very much doubt that the words "gypsy" and "caravan" are things that enter your head as you square up to someone infront of 80,000 people. It's very early on in the game. Marler has had hardly any interaction with Lee in the previous minutes. I believe it was pre-meditated to get under Lee's skin. I don't think Marler is inherently racist. Just absolutely thick and deserves a ban for being totally ignorant about the law.

bumble wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
I would pick 2. Racial slurs can be very serious, depending on context, but not in this case.  

What would he have had to say for it to be very serious then? Is there a sliding scale of creeds / colours and backgrounds on this with "Gypsies" at the bottom of the scale? Who's at the top? Maoris? Eskimos?

By 'context' I include environment, occasion, frequency, intent and how it was worded. If it was in an office/workplace, and Lee happened to be on the receiving end of repeated racial abuse, then I would judge the comment to be a more serious case of a racial slur, and one that was intentionally racist.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

I was a bit surprised myself. The Tele has obviously been infiltrated by the Welsh and Irish

Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

...and what about us Scots? Are you suggesting that we can't/don't read broadsheet newspapers?? I'm offended.

Well, I didn't want to go down that road but the implication is clear.

When exactly was the incident bumble, thought it was nearer the end of the first half than the start.

No 7&1/2 wrote:When exactly was the incident bumble, thought it was nearer the end of the first half than the start.

After 8 minutes

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

bumble wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It would be interesting to add a poll to the OP.

Have a look at the poll on the Telegraph site that 27,000 people have taken part in. Half way down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/27/joe-marler-also-insulted-in-gyspy-gate-row-while-new-video-alleg/

When I saw it, it was 25% Ban, it's racist: 75% No Ban, just banter.  Just for those that didn't want to vote or access the telegraph.

Hardly surprising really. If it was an Irish player, and an Irish paper, I would expect something similar.

I'm slightly amazed that as many as 25% of Telegraph readers think a ban is appropriate!!

I was a bit surprised myself. The Tele has obviously been infiltrated by the Welsh and Irish

Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

You didn't read my previous post? The one in bold?

It's ok. I forgive you You have been infected with the 'preciousness' virus that seems to spreading on these threads.

bumble wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:When exactly was the incident bumble, thought it was nearer the end of the first half than the start.

After 8 minutes

Really? Thought Coles disallowed try came later than that, the GS already fading from memory.

The elbow came in the 15th minute thought the abuse came much later?

HammerofThunor wrote:Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

There fixed that for you.

Seriously, there are some properly precious people about these days, I have been called a lot worse than gypsy boy on this very forum. 

I'll tell you what, some of you on here would not want to go on a night out with my mates, we call each other a lot worse things than gypsy boy, if half of you spent a night out with us lot you would have us all clapped in irons before the night was over.

Lets all take a breather, lets all stop trying to win the internet, it is what it is, we will see what happens on April the 5th and we can all go into melt down after this whole blown out of proportion debacle is decided.

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

There fixed that for you.

Seriously, there are some properly precious people about these days, I have been called a lot worse than gypsy boy on this very forum. 

I'll tell you what, some of you on here would not want to go on a night out with my mates, we call each other a lot worse things than gypsy boy, if half of you spent a night out with us lot you would have us all clapped in irons before the night was over.

Lets all take a breather, lets all stop trying to win the internet, it is what it is, we will see what happens on April the 5th and we can all go into melt down after this whole blown out of proportion debacle is decided.

+1

This is getting some run. Remember what we were thought as kids. Sticks and stones etc. Well it seems som adults need reminding of that piece of common sense advice.

profitius wrote:This is getting some run. Remember what we were thought as kids. Sticks and stones etc. Well it seems som adults need reminding of that piece of common sense advice.

Exactly, I could not agree more with this post.

profitius wrote:This is getting some run. Remember what we were thought as kids. Sticks and stones etc. Well it seems som adults need reminding of that piece of common sense advice.

To be fair to Lee he pretty much did follow that advice.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Why? Because English people are all racists? Only the Irish and Welsh are bastions of moral correctness?

There fixed that for you.

Seriously, there are some properly precious people about these days, I have been called a lot worse than gypsy boy on this very forum. 

I'll tell you what, some of you on here would not want to go on a night out with my mates, we call each other a lot worse things than gypsy boy, if half of you spent a night out with us lot you would have us all clapped in irons before the night was over.

Lets all take a breather, lets all stop trying to win the internet, it is what it is, we will see what happens on April the 5th and we can all go into melt down after this whole blown out of proportion debacle is decided.

+1

We all take the p1ss out of each other, and calling one of us gypsy boy would be one of the milder one's. We are all different sizes, creeds, sexuality, and we all use this as a tool to wind each other up. If you did not know us and saw us all together, you would think we all hated each other, but we have all grown up together, and have been through hell and high water together, but we can be quite cutting to each other also.

Incidentally, there's nothing modern about a front row racism dispute making the headlines. It happened in the amateur era too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby-union-fitzpatrick-refutes-accusation-of-racism-1507585.html

There was the Ulster v Saints one from a pre-season warm up (I think). Ulster used the term 'baboon' (or perhaps the Africaans word for it) as a scrum call. Mujati got irate because that is a racial slur in South Africa.