Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

From BBC

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

And so it goes on

The correct decision.

Which surely means 6N should now face a disrepute charge for the way they have handled this disgrace.

Apparently not everyone considers the matter closed.

Don't think this is a bad thing, think it was kind of... an inexplicable decision really. I mean if you hit a guy on the pitch, it's one incident and you might be treated leniently if it's an isolated incident. But you don't get away with it altogether because it was in the heat of the moment and you feel sorry, and apologised at half time. You still are held responsible. So I just didn't understand the logic of the Six Nations decision one bit.

Really makes the 6Nations authorities look rather silly.
All they needed to do was issue a citing commissioner's warning in the days after and this could all have been put to bed.

Why is this still going on?

Surely this is just World Rugby Bowing to out side pressure.

If the 6ns board considers that their is nothing to answer for, why this now?

And surely if Samson Lee ( belives the Gypsy boy statement by Joe Marler) was said as "BANTER" I just do not see why this is still going on.

So if World Rugby now find him guilty and over rule the 6 nations should England face a charge of fielding a player who should have been banned

majesticimperialman wrote:Why is this still going on?

Surely this is just World Rugby Bowing to out side pressure.

If the 6ns board considers that their is nothing to answer for, why this now?

And surely if Samson Lee ( belives the Gypsy boy statement by Joe Marler) was said as "BANTER"  I just do not see why this is still going on.

Samson isn't the only gypsy in the world. He may have shrugged it off but evidently many gypsies who got wind of the incident are offended by it. That's why it was such a stupid comment to make. The rightness or wrongness of it doesn't hinge on whether or not the targeted individual is offended; it's the fact that it references a specific group of people and was therefore bound to risk offending many in that group.

For example, if you walked up to a black person tomorrow and called him 'black boy' there's always a chance that individual wouldn't be offended. But that's never been an excuse for doing it.

GLove39 wrote:Really makes the 6Nations authorities look rather silly.
All they needed to do was issue a citing commissioner's warning in the days after and this could all have been put to bed.

Yup - that would have been the right and sensible thing to do. Now it just gets messy

majesticimperialman wrote:Why is this still going on?

Surely this is just World Rugby Bowing to out side pressure.

If the 6ns board considers that their is nothing to answer for, why this now?

And surely if Samson Lee ( belives the Gypsy boy statement by Joe Marler) was said as "BANTER"  I just do not see why this is still going on.

Because the 6N decision was clearly wrong - both morally and by the rules of the game. But as above - a citing commissioners warning ( the equivalent of a yellow card) and its over to be forgotton.

So badly handled, why was this not dealt with a week ago? Was there not a luncheon that week to discuss it?

yappysnap wrote:So badly handled, why was this not dealt with a week ago? Was there not a luncheon that week to discuss it?

That was the issue. the panel comprised of a Frenchman (who brought the wine), a Scot (who broughtg the whiskey) and an Irishman (who brought guiness). by the end the were far too pickled to be rational.

yappysnap wrote:So badly handled, why was this not dealt with a week ago? Was there not a luncheon that week to discuss it?

Yup - the blazers decided it was all "banter" between good chaps so nothing more need be said.

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:So badly handled, why was this not dealt with a week ago? Was there not a luncheon that week to discuss it?

That was the issue. the panel comprised of a Frenchman (who brought the wine), a Scot (who broughtg the whiskey) and an Irishman (who brought guiness). by the end the were far too pickled to be rational.

Whisky

oops, sorry

My only excuse is I have been teetotal now for almost 20 years

Tea

bumble wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

yappysnap wrote:So badly handled, why was this not dealt with a week ago? Was there not a luncheon that week to discuss it?

That was the issue. the panel comprised of a Frenchman (who brought the wine), a Scot (who broughtg the whiskey) and an Irishman (who brought guiness). by the end the were far too pickled to be rational.

Whisky

Guinness.
Anyway, a Frog and a Jock and a Micker walk into a bar....

Wonder what the consequences of this furore will be.

Absolute farce.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Absolute farce.

AGREE 100%.

yappysnap wrote:Tea

OI. Seems teetotal was one of the few things I speld correctaly

On further inspection you are correact

You win this round...

Correct decision really. Idiotic for him to not have had some kind of sanction already

Knowsit17 wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Why is this still going on?

Surely this is just World Rugby Bowing to out side pressure.

If the 6ns board considers that their is nothing to answer for, why this now?

And surely if Samson Lee ( belives the Gypsy boy statement by Joe Marler) was said as "BANTER"  I just do not see why this is still going on.

Samson isn't the only gypsy in the world. He may have shrugged it off but evidently many gypsies who got wind of the incident are offended by it. That's why it was such a stupid comment to make. The rightness or wrongness of it doesn't hinge on whether or not the targeted individual is offended; it's the fact that it references a specific group of people and was therefore bound to risk offending many in that group.

For example, if you walked up to a black person tomorrow and called him 'black boy' there's always a chance that individual wouldn't be offended. But that's never been an excuse for doing it.

And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

Racism is a serious business. I do have some limited understanding of what it means and the consequences. This isn't shouldn't be.

Maybe these are a disadvantaged people whose problems need more of an airing, and that is happening now but this is the wrong reason. Its getting closer to the type of moral pressure that charities too often apply which I like to summarize as 'Give us some money or the cute puppy will die'

lostinwales wrote:
And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

'

Marler did it in an inflammatory way to insult a person's heritage. He racially abused someone. If you think that's fine, then you clearly belong in the stone age.

Added to this that there is now footage emerging this morning of additonal insults, that really are inexusable and should merit months ban not weeks.

I'm glad of the hearing because it gives the media and forums another opportunity to say the same old things over again. And when WR finally come to some sort of (in)decision, we can start all over. It's good to talk.

Regardless of any further action or not, it still doesn't change my opinion that Marler was a douche.

bedfordwelsh wrote:So if World Rugby now find him guilty and over rule the 6 nations should England face a charge of fielding a player who should have been banned

I see a path to a moral 6 Nations Championship victory for Wales......

The merits of the original decision and the culpability and consequences of Marler's actions have been done to death on here so I won't rehash my views on those, but the whole administration of this matter by the various rugby authorities and bodies has been nothing short of a disgrace. I was going to use the word amateur but that would be extremely unkind and unfair on those amateur organisations that are well run.

I feel particularly sorry for Samson Lee who has expressed a clear desire for this matter to be closed. It appears that the feelings and views of the victim in this matter carry absolutely no weight at all.

Knowsit17 wrote:Samson isn't the only gypsy in the world. He may have shrugged it off but evidently many gypsies who got wind of the incident are offended by it.

I've only heard of one who was offended, that being Shay Clipson who has a habit of shouting 'racism' whenever she needs a bit of publicity. Who are all these others? And were they gypsies or travellers?

funnyExiledScot wrote:I feel particularly sorry for Samson Lee who has expressed a clear desire for this matter to be closed. It appears that the feelings and views of the victim in this matter carry absolutely no weight at all.

Because making a spectacle is now more important than anyone's feelings, even the supposed 'victim' who is just being used as a puppet so the WRU can be seen to be doing the right thing by placating the few who are shouting the loudest.

Hoonercat wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I feel particularly sorry for Samson Lee who has expressed a clear desire for this matter to be closed. It appears that the feelings and views of the victim in this matter carry absolutely no weight at all.

Because making a spectacle is now more important than anyone's feelings, even the supposed 'victim' who is just being used as a puppet so the WRU can be seen to be doing the right thing by placating the few who are shouting the loudest.

I'm not accusing them of using Lee as a puppet, I just don't think they really care about him at all. It just seems to have been badly handled all round - it should certainly not be news more than 10 days after the incident.

The farce drags on and on.

Some posters I am sure are pleased at this. I am not.

If he was to be punished it should have been done by now. It is not fair on Samson Lee as FES says.

Take out the word Gypsy and put in the word - "Welsh Boy" and no one would bat an eyelid.

lostinwales wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Why is this still going on?

Surely this is just World Rugby Bowing to out side pressure.

If the 6ns board considers that their is nothing to answer for, why this now?

And surely if Samson Lee ( belives the Gypsy boy statement by Joe Marler) was said as "BANTER"  I just do not see why this is still going on.

Samson isn't the only gypsy in the world. He may have shrugged it off but evidently many gypsies who got wind of the incident are offended by it. That's why it was such a stupid comment to make. The rightness or wrongness of it doesn't hinge on whether or not the targeted individual is offended; it's the fact that it references a specific group of people and was therefore bound to risk offending many in that group.

For example, if you walked up to a black person tomorrow and called him 'black boy' there's always a chance that individual wouldn't be offended. But that's never been an excuse for doing it.

And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

Racism is a serious business. I do have some limited understanding of what it means and the consequences. This isn't shouldn't be.

Maybe these are a disadvantaged people whose problems need more of an airing, and that is happening now but this is the wrong reason. Its getting closer to the type of moral pressure that charities too often apply which I like to summarize as 'Give us some money or the cute puppy will die'

I'm pretty sure context counts for a lot here. I used the term in describing my analysis of the incident. I didn't just saunter up to a traveller and call him 'gypsy boy' for the sake of riling him in the moment.

bumble wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

'

Marler did it in an inflammatory way to insult a person's heritage. He racially abused someone. If you think that's fine, then you clearly belong in the stone age.

Added to this that there is now footage emerging this morning of additonal insults, that really are inexusable and should merit months ban not weeks.

OK I'll slow down. If Marler had called Lee a fat ginger 'ladygarden' that would have apparently been fine. I don't know what other words he used because I haven't heard what was said, but then I am sure that a lot of choice words get used in rugby and almost all of the time people get over it. If he had used words like gypo or pikey then I would have thought that those would have crossed the line into racial abuse.

Context is everything. Am I supposed to get upset if someone calls me an English man? I am sure it can be used as a form of 'racial abuse' in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet its all trivial compared to the actual mechanics of what discrimination actually means and does.

Language can be a symptom of 'problems' - and language can be very damaging but some perspective is needed. It is also easier to tell someone to stop using certain words than to persuade them to stop thinking the thoughts that lead to those choice of words. Plenty of evidence that Marler wanted to wind Lee up. Little if any to say that he has a problem with race.

Lee wasn't hurt, but now it feels like a lot of people are telling him he should have been. Lots of people have said its a storm in a tea cup (and then told off). Lots more have joined the moral outrage brigade who use the magic 'race' word to justify an unassailable position

bumble wrote:The correct decision.

Which surely means 6N should now face a disrepute charge for the way they have handled this disgrace.

6 nations have been ridiculously lenient on everything this year. Its no surprise the team with the worst discipline won the tournament. No disrespect to England who deserved to win anyway.

Jonny Sexton had to endure countless cheep shots before someone got carded and that was only after he did a Willem Dafoe impression from Platoon.

lostinwales wrote:

OK I'll slow down. If Marler had called Lee a fat ginger 'ladygarden' that would have apparently been fine. I don't know what other words he used because I haven't heard what was said, but then I am sure that a lot of choice words get used in rugby and almost all of the time people get over it. If he had used words like gypo or pikey then I would have thought that those would have crossed the line into racial abuse.

Context is everything. Am I supposed to get upset if someone calls me an English man? I am sure it can be used as a form of 'racial abuse' in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet its all trivial compared to the actual mechanics of what discrimination actually means and does.

Language can be a symptom of 'problems' - and language can be very damaging but some perspective is needed. It is also easier to tell someone to stop using certain words than to persuade them to stop thinking the thoughts that lead to those choice of words. Plenty of evidence that Marler wanted to wind Lee up. Little if any to say that he has a problem with race.

Lee wasn't hurt, but now it feels like a lot of people are telling him he should have been. Lots of people have said its a storm in a tea cup (and then told off). Lots more have joined the moral outrage brigade who use the magic 'race' word to justify an unassailable position

God you keep digging a bigger hole in trying to justify such stupid comments by MArler. Why do you find it so difficult to admit what he did was wrong?

Is anyone suggesting that what Marler did wasn't wrong?

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is anyone suggesting that what Marler did wasn't wrong?

Yes. There are plenty of posters attempting to justify his comments with fairly paper thin arguments.

He should definitely be punished, I just don't understand how the 6N came to their initial decision.

He was caught on video and over the microphone saying something which according to the very clear rule surrounding it, is against the rules of the game. Should have been a very clear punishment and he shouldn't have played against France. Glad it's come up again because he deserves punishment, but this whole thing has been so poorly dealt with. Whether or not 'Gypsy boy' is an insult worth punishing is another matter.

beshocked wrote:The farce drags on and on.

Some posters I am sure are pleased at this. I am not.

If he was to be punished it should have been done by now. It is not fair on Samson Lee as FES says.

Take out the word Gypsy and put in the word - "Welsh Boy" and no one would bat an eyelid.

I agree, but the word Gypsy is now offensive to some. Words and meanings change and there are lots of different versions of travelers. It's like being caught saying Eskimo boy vs Iceland rugby match.

I think international Sport needs to restrict this to the IP only and that's final.

Offended on behalf of will see pitch mics banned

damage_13 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The farce drags on and on.

Some posters I am sure are pleased at this. I am not.

If he was to be punished it should have been done by now. It is not fair on Samson Lee as FES says.

Take out the word Gypsy and put in the word - "Welsh Boy" and no one would bat an eyelid.

I agree, but the word Gypsy is now offensive to some. Words and meanings change and there are lots of different versions of travelers. It's like being caught saying Eskimo boy vs Iceland rugby match.

I think international Sport needs to restrict this to the IP only and that's final.

Offended on behalf of will see pitch mics banned

Just for the record, if someone called me "Welsh boy" I would be offended.

lostinwales wrote:

bumble wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

'

Marler did it in an inflammatory way to insult a person's heritage. He racially abused someone. If you think that's fine, then you clearly belong in the stone age.

Added to this that there is now footage emerging this morning of additonal insults, that really are inexusable and should merit months ban not weeks.

OK I'll slow down. If Marler had called Lee a fat ginger 'ladygarden' that would have apparently been fine. I don't know what other words he used because I haven't heard what was said, but then I am sure that a lot of choice words get used in rugby and almost all of the time people get over it. If he had used words like gypo or pikey then I would have thought that those would have crossed the line into racial abuse.

Context is everything. Am I supposed to get upset if someone calls me an English man? I am sure it can be used as a form of 'racial abuse' in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet its all trivial compared to the actual mechanics of what discrimination actually means and does.

Language can be a symptom of 'problems' - and language can be very damaging but some perspective is needed. It is also easier to tell someone to stop using certain words than to persuade them to stop thinking the thoughts that lead to those choice of words. Plenty of evidence that Marler wanted to wind Lee up. Little if any to say that he has a problem with race.

Lee wasn't hurt, but now it feels like a lot of people are telling him he should have been. Lots of people have said its a storm in a tea cup (and then told off). Lots more have joined the moral outrage brigade who use the magic 'race' word to justify an unassailable position

you said it far better than I. All we can hope is this is done quickly and the mics are adjusted for gain as you can bet your granny things are said in every international that someone would find offensive or breach the WR regs.

Anyway... there's a FAR more serious issue going on atm... did anyone see Matt McGahan take a dive against the Reds...

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is anyone suggesting that what Marler did wasn't wrong?

Yes. There are plenty of posters attempting to justify his comments with fairly paper thin arguments.

It's extremely off-putting but yes, a lot of people have been trying to sweep the discussion under the carpet from the start.

Knowsit17 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is anyone suggesting that what Marler did wasn't wrong?

Yes. There are plenty of posters attempting to justify his comments with fairly paper thin arguments.

It's extremely off-putting but yes, a lot of people have been trying to sweep the discussion under the carpet from the start.

Ok. I haven't read a single post suggesting that Marler was wrong to apologise and therefore did nothing wrong.

Knowsit17 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is anyone suggesting that what Marler did wasn't wrong?

Yes. There are plenty of posters attempting to justify his comments with fairly paper thin arguments.

It's extremely off-putting but yes, a lot of people have been trying to sweep the discussion under the carpet from the start.

Samson Lee for one.

Knowsit17 wrote:
Samson isn't the only gypsy in the world. He may have shrugged it off but evidently many gypsies who got wind of the incident are offended by it.

I'm curious as to how you know many gypsies were offended by it. I've seen nothing on Traveller forums, and the head of the gypsy council if anything sounded sympathetic to Marler. Other than Shay Clipson, who has a habit of seeing racism whenever it suits her, I haven't seen a single comment from a gypsy or traveller saying they felt offended, though I did see one ask 'How is it racist? I'm a gypsy boy and proud of it'.

lostinwales wrote:

bumble wrote:

lostinwales wrote:
And there you go. The above post uses gypsy numerous times and nobody has an issue. And why should they? There are variations which I would consider to be offensive but if what Marler said was just 'gypsy boy' then, as all the way through, I just don't get it.

'

Marler did it in an inflammatory way to insult a person's heritage. He racially abused someone. If you think that's fine, then you clearly belong in the stone age.

Added to this that there is now footage emerging this morning of additonal insults, that really are inexusable and should merit months ban not weeks.

OK I'll slow down. If Marler had called Lee a fat ginger 'ladygarden' that would have apparently been fine. I don't know what other words he used because I haven't heard what was said, but then I am sure that a lot of choice words get used in rugby and almost all of the time people get over it. If he had used words like gypo or pikey then I would have thought that those would have crossed the line into racial abuse.

Context is everything. Am I supposed to get upset if someone calls me an English man? I am sure it can be used as a form of 'racial abuse' in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet its all trivial compared to the actual mechanics of what discrimination actually means and does.

Language can be a symptom of 'problems' - and language can be very damaging but some perspective is needed. It is also easier to tell someone to stop using certain words than to persuade them to stop thinking the thoughts that lead to those choice of words. Plenty of evidence that Marler wanted to wind Lee up. Little if any to say that he has a problem with race.

Lee wasn't hurt, but now it feels like a lot of people are telling him he should have been. Lots of people have said its a storm in a tea cup (and then told off). Lots more have joined the moral outrage brigade who use the magic 'race' word to justify an unassailable position

Nobody is trying to argue the case for a tea party. The physicality in rugby is bound to make it an abrasive sport as everyone knows. I've previously gone on record to say I couldn't care less if Marler had made a strictly individual comment on Samson's weight or appearance. If players aren't mentally tough enough to take that they shouldn't be playing the sport.

But as in any sport, any presence of discriminatory treatment based on someone's racial/cultural/social background (even isolated incidents) needs to be strictly discouraged. The leniency by the 6N's committee sends out the message that you can say whatever you like to an opponent in order to get under their skin... so long as you make a show of being remorseful after the fact. It's the sort of precedent that encourages similar incidents in the near future. A precedent any sensible rugby supporters shouldn't want as part of the sport.

Do Marler's motives for saying what he did really not bother people? The fact that he used a carefully selected buzzword with the sole intent of getting under Lee's skin if only momentarily? Or are people seriously suggesting he was just politely reminding Lee of his heritage in case he'd forgotten?

And btw I don't hold any personal grudge against Marler and wasn't trying to argue for a harsh penalty. Something cursory would have sufficed frankly given that he apologised unprompted. My gripe is more with the precedent it sets and the people who dismiss such incidents only when it suits them.

the difference between 'welsh boy' and 'gypsy boy' is thus:

Wales is a country, of which numerous races of people can call home and be welsh. (e.g. there are white welsh people, black welsh people, gypsy welsh people, muslim welsh people, see where im going with this...?)

Gypsys are a race of people, they dont have a country/territory, so you can be a gypsy and still be welsh. Racisim and xenophobia are different things entirely, that concept shouldnt be hard to comprehend.

Unfortunately this situation wasnt handled correctly at the first time of asking (as per the laws of the game/the law in general, any racial slurs are illegal in the UK and in the laws of rugby), hence it has been reviewed by World Rugby. The level of offence the insult causes has no relevance to it being against the rules of the game.

I understand Samson Lee doesnt want it to be a big deal, Gatland even came out on his behalf to try and play it down, it doesnt matter though as Marler broke the rules of the game, thus the incident needs to be looked at again. Personally i think its a mess, but one that needs to be dealt with so we can all close the lid on it and move on with a precedant set.