Joe Marler Punishment

by Steffan Wed 6 Apr - 7:23

What is your opinion on it?

by yappysnap Wed 6 Apr - 7:26

Cheers Stevan.

That's what we needed, lots of threads AND a pole on it...

Welcome to the modern world!

by Steffan Wed 6 Apr - 7:28

You're welcome

Regards

Stevan

by Hoonercat Wed 6 Apr - 7:28

Slightly harsh, considering the media attention. Had it been handed out at the time (or thereabouts) I'd have said very harsh.

by whocares Wed 6 Apr - 7:29

Shame there ain't a voting option such as " I don't give a flying f..k about it".

by yappysnap Wed 6 Apr - 7:36

Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14... Wink

by Cardiff Dave Wed 6 Apr - 8:10

yappysnap wrote:Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14...

Like winding up the oppo by criticising their region's wine at the breakdown?

by TightHEAD Wed 6 Apr - 18:23

£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 6 Apr - 18:28

He wasn't cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Ns though.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 6 Apr - 18:30

Is there any precedent for the fine? Is it even permitted within the laws?

2 match ban about what I expected.

by doctor_grey Wed 6 Apr - 18:32

TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

I thought players were not paid during their suspensions. So the actual loss of money is greater, am I right?

by Gooseberry Wed 6 Apr - 18:38

Can we have one about Jimpys hearing?

by yappysnap Wed 6 Apr - 18:51

I think on the Quins forum someone worked out the fines about the same as he'd be paid for a 6Ns game. So they really didn't think he should have played that GS decider!

by GunsGerms Wed 6 Apr - 18:51

doctor_grey wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.
I thought players were not paid during their suspensions. So the actual loss of money is greater, am I right?

He would have earned roughly £20k for wrongly being allowed play for England v France so I presume that how they came to that figure.

by GunsGerms Wed 6 Apr - 18:52

TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

Do you really think racial abuse is banter?

by doctor_grey Wed 6 Apr - 20:10

Cardiff Dave wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14...

Like winding up the oppo by criticising their region's wine at the breakdown?

A comment recorded during a Top 14 match wrote:You fetid scum. Your brie tastes like cammenbert.
You piece of merde, you cannot talk to me like that. Your escargot tastes like 10 day old underwear
Well, you kisser of cow anuses, your pâté de foie gras tastes like waste from a pig farm.
You know my sister?

by doctor_grey Wed 6 Apr - 20:22

GunsGerms wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.
I thought players were not paid during their suspensions. So the actual loss of money is greater, am I right?

He would have earned roughly £20k for wrongly being allowed play for England v France so I presume that how they came to that figure.

Good point - I didn't think of that. Would certainly agree with the logic.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 6 Apr - 21:15

GunsGerms wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

Do you really think racial abuse is banter?

He was not charged with racial abuse. If he had, and been found guilty, the ban would have been appreciably longer.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 6 Apr - 21:19

doctor_grey wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.
I thought players were not paid during their suspensions. So the actual loss of money is greater, am I right?

He would have earned roughly £20k for wrongly being allowed play for England v France so I presume that how they came to that figure.
Good point - I didn't think of that. Would certainly agree with the logic.

Except there is nothing in the laws, or the regulations that permit the panel to fine someone. Now recommending he make a voluntary payment to charity would have been fine.

As the only reason World Rugby say they are allowed to re-adjudicate on a case is if the relevant authority did not follow their own rules (see Horwill and Sempere) it is then crazy that they then proceed to break their own rules. Thus we run the risk of the whole process becoming a kangaroo court, and mob justice prevailing.

However wrong I feel the application of the fine to be, I hope MArler sticks to his word and, having pleaded guilty, accepts the punishment so we can hopefully put the whole thing to bed.

by TightHEAD Wed 6 Apr - 21:23

The world has gone mad, lets just hope we never have to face any real dangers in the world otherwise our civilization and way of life is finished.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 6 Apr - 21:44

LondonTiger wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

Do you really think racial abuse is banter?

He was not charged with racial abuse. If he had, and been found guilty, the ban would have been appreciably longer.

What was he done for then? BBC article not too clear.

by Gooseberry Wed 6 Apr - 21:47

No 7&1/2 wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

Do you really think racial abuse is banter?

He was not charged with racial abuse. If he had, and been found guilty, the ban would have been appreciably longer.

What was he done for then? BBC article not too clear.

"Misconduct"

I suspect this was actually their way of fudging the issue even further, and to be fair it does help protect Marlers reputation a bit. He wont be forever branded a racist, just a misconducter(?)

by No 7&1/2 Wed 6 Apr - 21:50

I don't think anyone would have been shouting racist at him too loudly. Clearly a stupid thing to do though, and at least it reinforces that a blind eye won't be turned.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 6 Apr - 21:51

It was a misconduct charge, and he was found guilty of "using unsporting and discriminatory language", but they shied away from specifically stating what kind of discrimination.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 6 Apr - 21:54

LondonTiger wrote:
Except there is nothing in the laws, or the regulations that permit the panel to fine someone. Now recommending he make a voluntary payment to charity would have been fine.

As the only reason World Rugby say they are allowed to re-adjudicate on a case is if the relevant authority did not follow their own rules (see Horwill and Sempere) it is then crazy that they then proceed to break their own rules. Thus we run the risk of the whole process becoming a kangaroo court, and mob justice prevailing.

I retract this statement. The ability to fine is present on page 332 of the regulations.

by mikey_dragon Wed 6 Apr - 21:57

Even my grandparents said this was a ridiculous punishment, and they're more racist than anyone I know.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 6 Apr - 22:01

Cheers LT.

by Hoonercat Thu 7 Apr - 0:41

mikey_dragon wrote:Even my grandparents said this was a ridiculous punishment, and they're more racist than anyone I know.

Ridiculous as in too harsh or too lenient?

by robbo277 Thu 7 Apr - 1:29

Slightly lenient in my book, but hopefully the whole thing is resolved now so we can get on with our lives.

by GunsGerms Thu 7 Apr - 1:32

LondonTiger wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:£20000 fine for a bit of Banter, these guys are not footballers!

OTT from world rugby and would never hold up if he appeals it as he was cleared of any wrong doing by the 6Nations.

Do you really think racial abuse is banter?

He was not charged with racial abuse. If he had, and been found guilty, the ban would have been appreciably longer.

What was he charged with? In any case that's what it was regardless of whatever World Rugby chose to call it.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 7 Apr - 1:44

What he was charged with was covered above, I will let you find it.

The reason they chose not to go with Racial abuse, is probably due to the increased likelihood of Marler not being found guilty. There was sufficient debate among the legal fraternity, and enough case law precedence to suggest that the British legal system would not view this as racial abuse.

Anyone who has seen the current furore about "passive racism" in a Gap advert will know that this is a highly emotive subject with no clear line in the sand. If we then add in all the current renaming shenanigans, safe space rules etc - we are talking about a highly emotive subject. By removing the race element, World Rugby removed some of the emotion and we were left with a fairly simple case to which Marler admitted his wrong doing.

I would love to hope we can all move on, but we will not and I full expect to see another similar case very soon as every dog and his wife use lip readers etc to discern the level of abuse between players.

by GunsGerms Thu 7 Apr - 1:49

LondonTiger wrote:What he was charged with was covered above, I will let you find it.

The reason they chose not to go with Racial abuse, is probably due to the increased likelihood of Marler not being found guilty. There was sufficient debate among the legal fraternity, and enough case law precedence to suggest that the British legal system would not view this as racial abuse.

Anyone who has seen the current furore about "passive racism" in a Gap advert will know that this is a highly emotive subject with no clear line in the sand. If we then add in all the current renaming shenanigans, safe space rules etc - we are talking about a highly emotive subject. By removing the race element, World Rugby removed some of the emotion and we were left with a fairly simple case to which Marler admitted his wrong doing.

I would love to hope we can all move on, but we will not and I full expect to see another similar case very soon as every dog and his wife use lip readers etc to discern the level of abuse between players.

Haha. Grumpy today?

by **LondonTiger** Thu 7 Apr - 1:52

Nope, not grumpy, but much easier not to have written things out again. Admittedly that sounded grumpy - but that is the joy of text.

by Hoonercat Thu 7 Apr - 2:08

LondonTiger wrote:The reason they chose not to go with Racial abuse, is probably due to the increased likelihood of Marler not being found guilty. There was sufficient debate among the legal fraternity, and enough case law precedence to suggest that the British legal system would not view this as racial abuse.

Interesting, I read a comment by a UK solicitor who was convinced that Marler would not have been found guilty in a court of law, though didn't go in to much detail as to why. Could have just been trying to get themselves 5 minutes of limelight though Erm

by Guest Thu 7 Apr - 2:32

Why do some not think WR charged Marler for making a racist comment?

This was the charge:

- That Marler had used unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee

Discriminatory:

making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 7 Apr - 2:53

Because with all the furore, they would have been explicit. As it is, it can be implied but until the written report is out - that is all.

If they have indeed found him guilty of making a racist comment - then yet again Rugby is shown to be worse than football in dealing with these things.

by Guest Thu 7 Apr - 3:18

I disagree, LT, and why would they need to be more explicit than they have been?

In what other sense could Marlers comment have been considered discriminatory, if not racially?

by Sin é Thu 7 Apr - 3:53

The misconduct charge was brought by World Rugby against Marler in relation to a breach of Regulation 20 and the code of conduct, for comments made towards Lee during their clash with Wales in the 6 Nations.

"Regulation 20 and the code of conduct both cover statements that are unsporting and/or insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin, which bring or have the potential to bring the game into disrepute" World Rugby said today in a statement.

The statement provided the following reasoning for the ban:

1. That Marler had used unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee
2. That by his actions, Marler had breached World Rugby Regulation 20 and the code of conduct and brought the game into disrepute
3. That Marler was proactive in apologising to Lee at half-time during the match and that he subsequently issued a public and unreserved apology for his comments
4. That Marler is a person of good character and had no similar misconduct charges

It continues: "In respect of the sanction, pursuant to Regulation 20.10.1 (c), the committee determined the breach was serious and imposed a two-match suspension, and pursuant to Regulation 20.10.1 (b) that Marler pay a fine in the form of a donation of £20,000 to a suitable equality charity in the UK."

by aucklandlaurie Thu 7 Apr - 4:05

Munchkin wrote:Why do some not think WR charged Marler for making a racist comment?

This was the charge:

- That Marler had used unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee

Discriminatory:

making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Unsporting:

Weve just gone the last decade with Richie McCaw being called a cheat after every game he played, and no one from the IRB/World Rugby said boo.

by Guest Thu 7 Apr - 4:55

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Why do some not think WR charged Marler for making a racist comment?

This was the charge:

- That Marler had used unsporting and discriminatory language towards Lee

Discriminatory:

making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Unsporting:

Weve just gone the last decade with Richie McCaw being called a cheat after every game he played, and no one from the IRB/World Rugby said boo.

Yeah, but that was true Run

by Cardiff Dave Thu 7 Apr - 4:59

doctor_grey wrote:
Cardiff Dave wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14...

Like winding up the oppo by criticising their region's wine at the breakdown?
A comment recorded during a Top 14 match wrote:You fetid scum. Your brie tastes like cammenbert.
You piece of merde, you cannot talk to me like that. Your escargot tastes like 10 day old underwear
Well, you kisser of cow anuses, your pâté de foie gras tastes like waste from a pig farm.
You know my sister?

Lol!
So what's the diff between Brie and Camembert? I need to know.

by exile jack Thu 7 Apr - 5:20

Cardiff Dave wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Cardiff Dave wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14...

Like winding up the oppo by criticising their region's wine at the breakdown?
A comment recorded during a Top 14 match wrote:You fetid scum. Your brie tastes like cammenbert.
You piece of merde, you cannot talk to me like that. Your escargot tastes like 10 day old underwear
Well, you kisser of cow anuses, your pâté de foie gras tastes like waste from a pig farm.
You know my sister?

Lol!
So what's the diff between Brie and Camembert? I need to know.

Camembert is a soft,creamy,surface ripened cow's milk cheese originating in Normandy around 1800.Brie is also a soft cow's milk cheese named after the Seine-et-Marne region of France(including Paris) formerly known as Brie dating back to the 8th century.Doesn't seem to have the same impact as our terms of endearment like Gogs,Taffs,Jacks,Turks,Gwenters and Shebonkins!!!

by mikey_dragon Thu 7 Apr - 6:10

Hoonercat wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Even my grandparents said this was a ridiculous punishment, and they're more racist than anyone I know.

Ridiculous as in too harsh or too lenient?

Too harsh - I could understand a ban, but not the fine. We also agreed it was not a racist slur, but then again we are realists not caught up in the world of PC.

by Guest Thu 7 Apr - 7:18

mikey_dragon wrote:
Hoonercat wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Even my grandparents said this was a ridiculous punishment, and they're more racist than anyone I know.

Ridiculous as in too harsh or too lenient?

Too harsh - I could understand a ban, but not the fine. We also agreed it was not a racist slur, but then again we are realists not caught up in the world of PC.

The fine was the correct decision. WR have considered Marlers comments to be worthy of a ban in the following game. A game that earned him over £20k. Not much of a punishment if he gets a couple of weeks off, but is allowed to keep money for a game in which he shouldn't have been playing, is it?

So anyone who has an opinion you don't share, isn't a realist? Very Happy

by Sin é Thu 7 Apr - 7:21

Outside of England & Wales, the term 'gypsey' is seen as a negative. For instance, no Irish media would refer to an Irish Traveller or Roma as a 'gypsey' whereas in the UK it seems to be widely used (My Big Fat Gypsey Wedding etc which shows Travellers, Roma in a poor light) and used a lot in the Red Tops.

All very surprising as English people are usually very PC.

by Cardiff Dave Thu 7 Apr - 7:30

exile jack wrote:
Cardiff Dave wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Cardiff Dave wrote:
yappysnap wrote:Tbf WhoCares you're probably used to much worse in the T14...

Like winding up the oppo by criticising their region's wine at the breakdown?
A comment recorded during a Top 14 match wrote:You fetid scum. Your brie tastes like cammenbert.
You piece of merde, you cannot talk to me like that. Your escargot tastes like 10 day old underwear
Well, you kisser of cow anuses, your pâté de foie gras tastes like waste from a pig farm.
You know my sister?

Lol!
So what's the diff between Brie and Camembert? I need to know.

Camembert is a soft,creamy,surface ripened cow's milk cheese originating in Normandy around 1800.Brie is also a soft cow's milk cheese named after the Seine-et-Marne region of France(including Paris) formerly known as Brie dating back to the 8th century.Doesn't seem to have the same impact as our terms of endearment like Gogs,Taffs,Jacks,Turks,Gwenters and Shebonkins!!!

So no diff then really.
Like their wine, i'm convinced the Frogs export their rubbish to us and keep the best quality stuff for themselves. Bastards!

by Scottrf Thu 7 Apr - 7:31

Sin é wrote:Outside of England & Wales, the term 'gypsey' is seen as a negative. For instance, no Irish media would refer to an Irish Traveller or Roma as a 'gypsey' whereas in the UK it seems to be widely used (My Big Fat Gypsey Wedding etc which shows Travellers, Roma in a poor light) and used a lot in the Red Tops.

All very surprising as English people are usually very PC.

Gypo/gypsy was certainly one of the most common insults on the English playgrounds I grew up on. It's seen as a negative in England.

by Sin é Thu 7 Apr - 7:58

But 'gypsey' is used so much in British media, I'm really surprised. 'Tinkers' is the derogarty term used in Ireland for Travellers, no media outfit would dare use it.

by Heaf Thu 7 Apr - 8:28

There is nothing wrong with the word Gypsy itself - there is even a Gypsy Roma Traveller Police Association ... there are some terms that are offensive on their own but Gypsy isn't one of them.

by mikey_dragon Thu 7 Apr - 8:38

Munchkin wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Hoonercat wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Even my grandparents said this was a ridiculous punishment, and they're more racist than anyone I know.

Ridiculous as in too harsh or too lenient?

Too harsh - I could understand a ban, but not the fine. We also agreed it was not a racist slur, but then again we are realists not caught up in the world of PC.

The fine was the correct decision. WR have considered Marlers comments to be worthy of a ban in the following game. A game that earned him over £20k. Not much of a punishment if he gets a couple of weeks off, but is allowed to keep money for a game in which he shouldn't have been playing, is it?

So anyone who has an opinion you don't share, isn't a realist?

I kinda stated the reason I consider us realists. Surely it isn't that hard to decipher.

by Sponsored content

Poll