Talking points from England v Wales V2

[Rich_NL]

It seems that they couldn't even bring themselves to say that Marler's conduct was unacceptable, the strongest thing they seem to have said is that it is "aware of the seriousness of Mr Marler's comment and does not in anyway condone what was said" Note that they don't actually say that Marler's remark was an offence under the rules.
I am guessing that
- they can't admit that it was a breach, because they would then have to explain why 4-week ban doesn't apply
- they don't want to say it wasn't a breach because, well, it was.

It's a pretty poor show. (but I stand to be corrected if the full text says anything different)

Possibly they considered the word itself borderline, and they don't want to get into the "yes but is 'English twat' racist?" arguments so they backed away and hoped it would all die down.

I thought it was far more likely to get a sanction than the forearm incident.

 

[DocY]

So,take England vs Wales out of it, as refs if you had seen in real time the forearm /elbow strike to face /head as we see on the replays what would your decision have been. Do you deem it not worthy of a red card?

To me, it was borderline YC, so would have depended on the nature of the game. At least a penalty and an admonishment and a YC if there's been a fair bit of niggle or other previous incidents.

The Francis incident, though, I wouldn't have penalised. Clearly an accidental hand in an unfortunate place as he tried to bind with no harm done. You've got to show a bit of empathy and not C&O enough for a penalty, let alone a RC in my book.

 

[crossref]

yes, but almost every case up before a disciplinary panel is in some way borderline (was it an offence, how serious exactly was it, is it low-end, mid-end, high end, was it intentional, reclkess, dangerous etc etc). The WHOLE POINT of the panel is to consider the borderline issues and come down off the fence with a decision.
Either no it wasn't illegal abuse
OR yes it was illegal abuse, so low end = four weeks - y for apologising and remorse - z for biscuits + x for whatever = result z weeks.

Instead they have said they 'cannot condone' it.
But it seems that they cannot condemn it either.
Which seems to imply it wasn't really a breach, which seems to imply that rugby players are free to say 'Hey [xxx] boy' to wind each other up.
Which is not really where we want the game to be, is it?

 

[RobLev]

...

Clearly an accidental hand in an unfortunate place as he tried to bind with no harm done. You've got to show a bit of empathy and not C&O enough for a penalty, let alone a RC in my book.

Silly question, I know, but upon exactly what was he trying to bind?

 

[Rich_NL]

yes, but almost every case up before a disciplinary panel is in some way borderline (was it an offence, how serious exactly was it, is it low-end, mid-end, high end, was it intentional, reclkess, dangerous etc etc). The WHOLE POINT of the panel is to consider the borderline issues and come down off the fence with a decision.

No, most of what they do is to extend sanctions for acts (or repeated behaviour) that a red card alone doesn't cover, into further sanctions like match bans. What they're increasingly being asked to do is to judge on punishment for acts that the match officials don't (or only barely) punish on the day.

Instead they have said they 'cannot condone' it.
But it seems that they cannot condemn it either.

It does smack of weasel words, I agree completely.

 

[FlipFlop]

For me - the entire hand in face Ref v TMO thing is yet more proof of why this conversation needs to be taken ot of the public domain. I clearly heard the frustration in CJ's voice, and that eh wanted to say - "You've told me hand to face/eyes, you've told me foul play. That is a RC. What mitigation is there to downgrade?". The TMO didn't give him mitigation, the TMO gave him nothing other than a cop-out. And to downgrade from a RC offence worth 8 weeks, to a PK only (2 steps down the on field sanction), without mitigation is crazy. The better cop-out would have a been a YC. Especially given the time on the clock. YC on field, doesn't come back, citing officer deals with if a RC or not.

Offline CJ could have done a Steve Walsh and got annoyed at the TMO and come to the right answer without "embarrassing" anyone in the public domain.

 

[crossref]

I think this from Robert Kitson is interesting, I think the bit I have boldened contains a little window into thought processes

The incident has prompted an increasing furore and raised many questions. Had Marler received a ban for addressing Lee in derogatory terms, what would happen to players if they swear pointedly at their opposite numbers in future? Now he has escaped a sanction what does that say about rugby union’s views on minority groups and/or casual racism? Does using a conversational tone of voice rather than a threatening manner when uttering such comments make any difference or are words all that matters?

The implication being that JM's conversational tone of voice was a mitigating factor.

For me it was an excarbating factor, as his calmness, and tone of voice suggested that - far from being heat of the moment thing - perhaps it was actually a calculated (even planned?) remark, at a moment when LS was already steamed up, to steam him up some more.

I thought the tone of voice might have been JM's undoing, but Kitson suggests it might have saved him.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/16/engalnd-joe-marler-cleared-gypsy-boy

 

[DocY]

Silly question, I know, but upon exactly what was he trying to bind?

It looked to me like he was trying to wrap his arm around a couple of players in the heap of bodies. I admit I may have seen it through daffodil-tinted beer goggles though.

 

[DocY]

For me - the entire hand in face Ref v TMO thing is yet more proof of why this conversation needs to be taken ot of the public domain. I clearly heard the frustration in CJ's voice, and that eh wanted to say - "You've told me hand to face/eyes, you've told me foul play. That is a RC.

I heard the frustration, too. I think he was showing empathy though and probably felt like he'd been backed into a corner - he clearly didn't think it was worthy of a RC, even if, in factual terms, it should have been, but once however many million people heard the conversation, he had to do something.

I really don't think a YC would have been a better decision though - it's either serious foul play and a RC, or nothing. A YC would have looked more like a compromise. Maybe the sanctions should be changed so that clumsy contact with the 'eye area' is a YC, but that's not what they say at the moment. I agree that there should be serious sanctions for gouging, but this (and Ashton's incident) weren't gouging and should be treated more sensibly.

Sorry to talk in hypotheticals, but I can't help wondering if the result would be any different had the TMO said "We have potential foul play", rather than "potential eye gouge".

 

[RobLev]

It looked to me like he was trying to wrap his arm around a couple of players in the heap of bodies. I admit I may have seen it through daffodil-tinted beer goggles though.

I think we've identified the problem...

 

[crossref]

Possibly they considered the word itself borderline, [...] so they backed away and hoped it would all die down

well, if so, it hasn't gone to plan

“What’s going to happen now today in a schoolyard when somebody ruffs up a gypsy kid or upsets him or her? A teacher may well think, ‘It’s just a bit of banter’. It’s not banter. It’s never banter.

“It’s not banter if you’re black, it’s not banter if you’re Chinese, it’s not banter if you’re a Muslim, and it’s bloody well not banter if you’re a gypsy either"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...stitutional-racism-after-immoral-decision-to/

 

[didds]

But it is banter of you are white from a developed nation however it seems ;-)

Its hilarious !

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

A complete farce. I disagree with the idea that it is not damaging to English rugby.

When Chabal criticized referees he had to do X number of hours of refereeing to see how he liked it.
I suggest that Joe Marler be asked to do X hours of community service with Travellers to get an appreciation of how difficult the institutional racism makes their lives.

 

[Dan_A]

I suggest that Joe Marler be asked to do X hours of community service with Travellers to get an appreciation of how difficult the institutional racism makes their lives.

Why would Travellers need community service?

 

[SimonSmith]

Compare and contrast this to how the FA handled John Terry.