Job Marler racially abusing a Welsh player? No Sanction

[biffer]

A clear analysis of what went wrong, and why a sanction was correct, in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... een-a-mes/

Interesting to note that 75% of people who took the survey dismissed what Marler said as "banter". As the article makes clear, Marlers half time apology is unusual, and an indication that he knew that what he had said was wrong and against the rules.

He got what, in law, and under the rules of the game, he deserved.

This, absolutely this. Marler doesn't come out of this badly, but the Six Nations does. It looks like it's completely out of touch - which could also be said of the 1970s vibe coming from a few posters on here.

[strawclearer]

A clear analysis of what went wrong, and why a sanction was correct, in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... een-a-mes/

Interesting to note that 75% of people who took the survey dismissed what Marler said as "banter". As the article makes clear, Marlers half time apology is unusual, and an indication that he knew that what he had said was wrong and against the rules.

He got what, in law, and under the rules of the game, he deserved.

This, absolutely this. Marler doesn't come out of this badly, but the Six Nations does. It looks like it's completely out of touch - which could also be said of the 1970s vibe coming from a few posters on here.

Not just the Six Nations. The RPA and World Rugby were at least as poor. It should have been done and dusted by the players and the 2 managers over a beer at the end of the game.

[Roly]

A clear analysis of what went wrong, and why a sanction was correct, in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... een-a-mes/

Interesting to note that 75% of people who took the survey dismissed what Marler said as "banter". As the article makes clear, Marlers half time apology is unusual, and an indication that he knew that what he had said was wrong and against the rules.

He got what, in law, and under the rules of the game, he deserved.

This, absolutely this. Marler doesn't come out of this badly, but the Six Nations does. It looks like it's completely out of touch - which could also be said of the 1970s vibe coming from a few posters on here.

No, it's most likely a tongue-in-cheek sense of proportion to what most sensible people see as a pretty minor infraction.

[Roly]

A clear analysis of what went wrong, and why a sanction was correct, in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... een-a-mes/

Interesting to note that 75% of people who took the survey dismissed what Marler said as "banter". As the article makes clear, Marlers half time apology is unusual, and an indication that he knew that what he had said was wrong and against the rules.

He got what, in law, and under the rules of the game, he deserved.

This, absolutely this. Marler doesn't come out of this badly, but the Six Nations does. It looks like it's completely out of touch - which could also be said of the 1970s vibe coming from a few posters on here.

Not just the Six Nations. The RPA and World Rugby were at least as poor. It should have been done and dusted by the players and the 2 managers over a beer at the end of the game.

Don't be ridiculous, that wouldn't have given the frothing busy-bodies anything to get upset about. This was the only logical course of action.

[Soggypitch]

There will be a few Irish, Welsh and Scottish players feeling relieved things they have said to us nasty English haven't been picked up on a ref mic.

Don't be naïve TV don't you know there is no such thing as racism towards the English. We are the great colonial satan and fair game for any insult!!!!

[Soggypitch]

This thread started with a disproportionate post.

I unlike some here think that this would have been a different story if the comments had been the other way round and not tinged with the taste of sour grapes. I believe we should target genuine rascist behaviour and not try to use rascism laws to justify other agendas as it weakens the good work carried out elsewhere.

Completely agree with this Tyzot.

[strawclearer]

There will be a few Irish, Welsh and Scottish players feeling relieved things they have said to us nasty English haven't been picked up on a ref mic.

Don't be naïve TV don't you know there is no such thing as racism towards the English. We are the great colonial satan and fair game for any insult!!!!

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

[Soggypitch]

The other day I called a spade a spade. The spade knew he was a spade, but the fork alongside took exception to my remark. The spade said that in fact that he didn’t mind being called a spade, but the fork took no notice whatsoever of his views and sought the opinion of a higher authority. The higher authority decided that to call a spade a spade was indeed, a wholly objectionable state of affairs, and the person who called a spade a spade should be suspended and fined.
What can we learn from this? These are the rules:
1. We must never call a spade a spade.
2. If the spade does not mind being called a spade, we must ignore the spade’s opinion, as the spade’s opinion of his own self-worth is of no value.
3. What is more important, therefore is not what the spade thinks, but what other people think.
4. So, if what other people think about what we say is more important than our own view, then we should all refresh our own readings of George Orwell’s 1984, where,
5. The thought police will tell you what to think, and say, and if you don’t toe the line, well………
6. You know what to expect, don’t you?

I was going to post something similar but this is spot on, well said Phil. You could even add the spade was proud of being a spade and made it no secret that he was a spade.

Agree with all of this as well.

Presumably I'm not the only person to be genuinely confused as to what constitutes banter on the playing field and what constitutes racist/offensive material?

For example the sledging that goes on in cricket is vicious, particularly the Aussies on the English - Pomme ***** etc...
But I am not aware of anyone in cricket being pulled up for racist/offensive comments.

Now Samson Lee clearly says he comes from Gypsy stock, but it is regarded as racist to call him "Gypsy boy". Would it have been racist to have said "taffy"? Could Watson have called him "white boy"? Could Warburton have called Watson "black boy"? The Aussies frequently refer to us as Poms usually with a choice adjective to accompany it!!
I would say the English are possibly the most racially insulted people generally, but do we usually complain and are there ever actions taken against the "perpetrators"? No and neither should there be on the whole.

So when is something racist/offensive and when is it not?? Most of us recognise genuine racist/offensive behaviour/language when we see it, but Marler was not guilty of that. He apologised, it was accepted - move on. Those that disagree actually weaken the whole race debate and create even more confusion and ultimately resentment.

I am really bored living in such PC times when standards of general behaviour are seriously deteriorating, (eg attitudes to referees at local football matches), what we need is a determined effort to make everyone more polite and considerate, rather than overt lazy political correctness.

[strawclearer]

I am really bored living in such PC times when standards of general behaviour are seriously deteriorating, (eg attitudes to referees at local football matches), what we need is a determined effort to make everyone more polite and considerate, rather than overt lazy political correctness.

Someone once said (correctly imho) that "Paranoia is just another word for indolent ignorance".

[h's dad]

The problem with your analogy, Phil, is that Marler didn't call a spade a spade. Had he done so, he would have referred to Lee as a 'Romany boy' or a 'Traveller boy' - neither of which being any worse than if Lee had called Marler an 'English boy'.

The problem is that he used the word 'Gypsy' - which is seen by the Romany / Traveller community (and others) as a racial slur.

Except that, hypocritically in my opinion, many Romani organisations use the G word in their own organisational names.

It is also worth noting that Gypsy has a number of different meanings in law. Also regarding Gypsies being recognised as an ethnic group, I'm not sure that this is strictly correct as the legal ethnic group is 'Gipsies of Romany origins. I can't help but think that in court WR are on a very sticky wicket indeed. Having said that, if Marler should appeal and win no doubt they will make him pay another way.

[kend]

The other day I called a spade a spade. The spade knew he was a spade, but the fork alongside took exception to my remark. The spade said that in fact that he didn’t mind being called a spade, but the fork took no notice whatsoever of his views and sought the opinion of a higher authority. The higher authority decided that to call a spade a spade was indeed, a wholly objectionable state of affairs, and the person who called a spade a spade should be suspended and fined.
What can we learn from this? These are the rules:
1. We must never call a spade a spade.
2. If the spade does not mind being called a spade, we must ignore the spade’s opinion, as the spade’s opinion of his own self-worth is of no value.
3. What is more important, therefore is not what the spade thinks, but what other people think.
4. So, if what other people think about what we say is more important than our own view, then we should all refresh our own readings of George Orwell’s 1984, where,
5. The thought police will tell you what to think, and say, and if you don’t toe the line, well………
6. You know what to expect, don’t you?

I was going to post something similar but this is spot on, well said Phil. You could even add the spade was proud of being a spade and made it no secret that he was a spade.

Agree with all of this as well.

Presumably I'm not the only person to be genuinely confused as to what constitutes banter on the playing field and what constitutes racist/offensive material?

For example the sledging that goes on in cricket is vicious, particularly the Aussies on the English - Pomme ***** etc...
But I am not aware of anyone in cricket being pulled up for racist/offensive comments.

Now Samson Lee clearly says he comes from Gypsy stock, but it is regarded as racist to call him "Gypsy boy". Would it have been racist to have said "taffy"? Could Watson have called him "white boy"? Could Warburton have called Watson "black boy"? The Aussies frequently refer to us as Poms usually with a choice adjective to accompany it!!
I would say the English are possibly the most racially insulted people generally, but do we usually complain and are there ever actions taken against the "perpetrators"? No and neither should there be on the whole.

So when is something racist/offensive and when is it not?? Most of us recognise genuine racist/offensive behaviour/language when we see it, but Marler was not guilty of that. He apologised, it was accepted - move on. Those that disagree actually weaken the whole race debate and create even more confusion and ultimately resentment.

I am really bored living in such PC times when standards of general behaviour are seriously deteriorating, (eg attitudes to referees at local football matches), what we need is a determined effort to make everyone more polite and considerate, rather than overt lazy political correctness.

It's about social meanings and negative stereotyping. Marler's insult carries force because it taps into negative constructions around traveller ethnicity, otherwise there would be no point in him saying it; it just wouldn't have any effect. If I call you an 'English boy', you wouldn't be offended because there aren't really any negative social associations with being labelled 'English'. The same is true of being called an 'English @#@#' on the field; you might be offended by the '@#@#' bit, but not really by being called 'English'.

The regs say you can't use language that is 'insulting and/or discriminatory by reason of race or ethnic origin' and Marler did just that. The real losers here are Quins, who lose a key player at a critical point in their season. If the RFU/Six nations had dealt with it immediately and banned him for a couple of games (mitigated by the apology) he probably wouldn't have picked up the fine!

[tigercaspian]

So would didicoy boy have been alright then ?

[Will S]

I've heard many Australian players refer to the English as Poms, even in interviews, but this has never even created a ripple.

Look at the meaning behind the word .....

There are several folk etymologies for Pommy or Pom. The best-documented of these is that pommy originated as a contraction of "pomegranate". According to this explanation, "pomegranate" was Australian rhyming slang for "immigrant". Usage of "pomegranate" for English people may have been strengthened by a belief in Australia that sunburn occurred more frequently among English immigrants, turning those with fair skin the colour of pomegranates.

[h's dad]

It's about social meanings and negative stereotyping. Marler's insult carries force because it taps into negative constructions around traveller ethnicity, otherwise there would be no point in him saying it; it just wouldn't have any effect. If I call you an 'English boy', you wouldn't be offended because there aren't really any negative social associations with being labelled 'English'. The same is true of being called an 'English @#@#' on the field; you might be offended by the '@#@#' bit, but not really by being called 'English'.

Disagree profoundly. As examples, English milord or English pouf are pejorative terms that are based on, possibly false, stereotypes where the 'English' is integral to the abuse. Just because we English are more tolerant than Johnny foreigner (and I don't include the Taffs or the Jocks in that because they're basically English as well despite their protestations) it doesn't reduce the integrity of the term of abuse.

[kend]

It's about social meanings and negative stereotyping. Marler's insult carries force because it taps into negative constructions around traveller ethnicity, otherwise there would be no point in him saying it; it just wouldn't have any effect. If I call you an 'English boy', you wouldn't be offended because there aren't really any negative social associations with being labelled 'English'. The same is true of being called an 'English @#@#' on the field; you might be offended by the '@#@#' bit, but not really by being called 'English'.

Disagree profoundly. As examples, English milord or English pouf are pejorative terms that are based on, possibly false, stereotypes where the 'English' is integral to the abuse. Just because we English are more tolerant than Johnny foreigner (and I don't include the Taffs or the Jocks in that because they're basically English as well despite their protestations) it doesn't reduce the integrity of the term of abuse.

Not certain I agree with you - in my view the perjoritive is in the qualifier in both cases (although I confess I have never heard or read the term 'English Milord' before. If I do I shall know I have been insulted!) Besides, even if your point is right, neither term implies similar generalised social meanings about being 'English' in the way the term 'Gypsy' does. Marler's intent was in that rather than the qualifying 'boy'. The Telegraph article is right when it says that only Lee emerges with any credit from the whole episode.

I suspect nothing offends the Welsh or Scots more than being called English...