England v Wales
-
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@Catogrande said in England v Wales:
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@Hooroo said in England v Wales:
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@Hooroo I still don’t get your point.
So far the list of justification includes Vinnie Jones (psycho), Gazza (drunk),Willie Mason and Piers Morgan (certifiable dickheads).I just don’t get the outrage and big deal being made of it.
I guess I’m not that insecure that I would fall to pieces if someone did that to me in a rugby game.
The outrage and big deal isn’t being made on here.
There are certainly some of us that don’t want it seen as an acceptable part of the game though.
Nothing to do with insecurities either.Video during rounds on social media of Joe Marler's hand all over AWJ's privates. Disgusting.
Not going to post the video. There might be kids on this forum. It is definitely NSFW.
Sexual assualt missed too
He could possibly also face a criminal charge for sexual assault?
It was a really fucking weird thing to do too. Like the boxer who bit the other guy's ear or the League player who stuck his fingers up the opponents' bums.
I hope World Rugby punish Marler and his team severely:
IMHO Marler should get a 6 months ban and made to have counselling before he can go on a Rugby field again. England should forfeit the match and be docked 12 points.
It's a sexual assault. Rugby won't be regarded as a credible sport for long if it allows grown men to grope other men without consent.
Think there's a big difference between a dangerous tackle or throwing a punch in the heat of the moment and thinking it a good idea to go over and start fondling another players genitals in full view.
the whole Marler thing creeps me out big time. Throw the book at him and get this nonsense out of rugby
If you are going to go through the thread for quotes you could also read the thread and put things into context.
My “outrage and big deal” quote was made after many posters on this thread had discussed the topic and views had mellowed a bit from the initial reactions. My own posts changed in tone as well after reading others. Generally speaking this thread was not calling for blood, it actually ended up in a pretty sane place.
If you are going to call out inaccuracies, maybe you should look at your own posts ? Without looking back for the quote I am pretty sure that you argued that Marlers action was merely a little tap. It is plain to see that he grabbed with his fingers and even looks like he gives things a little shake.
I d say that things ended up were they should. Those rules are there for a reason, and that is that most players would find this unacceptable (plenty would retaliate). Marler broke those rules and was punished accordingly.
Good point made above that these rules apply across all grades.Mate, I was responding to your quote "The outrage and big deal isn’t being made on here.", which was a direct statement, made without looking at each particular thing in context, certainly not in reply to @Hooroo post. Yes people's views may have mellowed but I wasn't calling out their views, just your statement in reply to Hooroo.
However, as it happens I did look through pretty much the whole thread from the point the Marler story appeared, including my own posts and although I didn't say "only" I would stand by view that it was a "cock tickle" or "a flick on the todger" I do not see that to was a grab and a little shake and to be honest by the wtf look on Jones' face it would seem that there wasn't any actual physical discomfort.
You might also want to quote me saying it was stupid, a dick move, invasive and by all means cite him and even sanction him.
Context.
-
Aaaand, the French prop gets three weeks for a punch to the jaw.
-
@Catogrande said in England v Wales:
Aaaand, the French prop gets three weeks for a punch to the jaw.
Nothing unusual there. Even Marler got a reduction based on 'remorse' and 'good character' yet had an increase based on previous record. Good character but a recidivist? Go figure.
The rugby judiciary works in very odd ways but the baseline punishments are well known before you commit the 'crime' -
"Due to mitigating factors including “good character” and “remorse”, three weeks were knocked off the ban but an extra week was added because of his poor disciplinary record. " How can you have good character when you have poor disciplinary record? What a farce the system is EDIT I sound like Yoda: *The system is farcical
-
@Machpants Because. Judiciary. Do not look for logic in the outcome.
-
@Catogrande said in England v Wales:
Aaaand, the French prop gets three weeks for a punch to the jaw.
WHAT!!!!
I am filled with dismay. The world is fucked. Perhaps this virus is for the best
-
@mariner4life said in England v Wales:
@Catogrande said in England v Wales:
Aaaand, the French prop gets three weeks for a punch to the jaw.
WHAT!!!!
I am filled with dismay. The world is fucked. Perhaps this virus is for the best
On which basis? The sentence is too light or too heavy?
-
the sentence is right, maybe a little light.
but 3 weeks for a smack to the face, and 10 weeks for Marler is a fucking outrage.
Nothing for Lawes is shit too
-
@Catogrande said in England v Wales:
Aaaand, the French prop gets three weeks for a punch to the jaw.
He got leniency because the Scot was so slow.
They were both cocked ready to go, but the French guy was too quick.
Panel obviously saw it was a mutual throwdown and couldn't penslise the French prop for being faster than his number.
-
@mariner4life said in England v Wales:
the sentence is right, maybe a little light.
but 3 weeks for a smack to the face, and 10 weeks for Marler is a fucking outrage.
Nothing for Lawes is shit too
Nothing to do with comparisons of those actual actions though. More to do with comparisons of the sentence start points (which were there beforehand). Once RC threshold has past then that's the rub.
WR have decided that unwanted genital contact is worse than assault, which is in line with societal rules as well.
I don't disagree that I might rather be touched on the junk than punched in the face but then you start getting into degrees of touching arguments. Easier to say don't go there at all. -
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@mariner4life said in England v Wales:
the sentence is right, maybe a little light.
but 3 weeks for a smack to the face, and 10 weeks for Marler is a fucking outrage.
Nothing for Lawes is shit too
Nothing to do with comparisons of those actual actions though. More to do with comparisons of the sentence start points (which were there beforehand). Once RC threshold has past then that's the rub.
WR have decided that unwanted genital contact is worse than assault, which is in line with societal rules as well.
I don't disagree that I might rather be touched on the junk than punched in the face but then you start getting into degrees of touching arguments. Easier to say don't go there at all.What would have been very interesting - and a normal, reflex action from this poster (and why I'm an amateur spectator not a professional player) - is what if AWJ had floored Marler?
What would have unfolded there? Pandora you have the floor.
-
@MiketheSnow That would have been 2 reds, cos the TMO would have at least looked then. But maybe that was a rhetorical question
-
@Machpants said in England v Wales:
@MiketheSnow That would have been 2 reds, cos the TMO would have at least looked then. But maybe that was a rhetorical question
Not at all.
I'm sure the ref and TMO wouldn't have needed to officiate on a Marler incident before.
And if they'd both been given reds would the post-match hearing have resulted in AWJ getting his red card waived?
-
@MiketheSnow said in England v Wales:
@Machpants said in England v Wales:
@MiketheSnow That would have been 2 reds, cos the TMO would have at least looked then. But maybe that was a rhetorical question
Not at all.
I'm sure the ref and TMO wouldn't have needed to officiate on a Marler incident before.
And if they'd both been given reds would the post-match hearing have resulted in AWJ getting his red card waived?
No because retaliation is specifically not OK. You're supposed to take it and let the ref deal with it. He probably would have got a much shorter ban than Marler, if you get 3 weeks like the French prop he might well have got 0 and the red would be enough.
-
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@Bones said in England v Wales:
@Machpants is there another AWJ reaction than the post match presser?
The look on his face when it happened?
You mean the slightly bemused look that almost looks a bit like a grin?
People keep going on about AWJs reaction and comments apparently slamming Marler. If that's just off the post match presser I didn't hear anything of the sort. All he said was they need to look at the incident.
-
Excellent sanction - sends totally the right message.
No doubt, that a bit of boys dicking is much much more worthy of being dealt a hard suspension that straight hits to the head from the shoulder and punches to the face.
At the moment my thoughts are with AWJ testicle. I hope it recovers.
-
Comparing this incident with a punch to the head makes no sense. Why can't it be a stand alone offence?
We don't compare tax fraud jail time with murder jail time. Both are illegal acts dealt with in their own sentencing guidelines.
Should we compare steroid use or match fixing offences to a shoulder charge to get the right penalty?
It's simply a clear message from the authorities about which behaviours are acceptable or not, no different to tackling in the air - if you do it we will punish you. The message is clear
-
@Bones said in England v Wales:
@Crucial said in England v Wales:
@Bones said in England v Wales:
@Machpants is there another AWJ reaction than the post match presser?
The look on his face when it happened?
You mean the slightly bemused look that almost looks a bit like a grin?
People keep going on about AWJs reaction and comments apparently slamming Marler. If that's just off the post match presser I didn't hear anything of the sort. All he said was they need to look at the incident.
“I have won 138 Tests for my country, but if I react I get a red card so it’s tough. Hopefully World Rugby have a look at it.
He's talking about punching Marler as primary response to the incident in a press conference straight after the game before untold video analysis that people could reference .
Safe to say he wasn't saying "it's all good"
-
@Siam said in England v Wales:
Comparing this incident with a punch to the head makes no sense. Why can't it be a stand alone offence?
We don't compare tax fraud jail time with murder jail time. Both are illegal acts dealt with in their own sentencing guidelines.
Should we compare steroid use or match fixing offences to a shoulder charge to get the right penalty?
It's simply a clear message from the authorities about which behaviours are acceptable or not, no different to tackling in the air - if you do it we will punish you. The message is clear
The message in World Rugby is very rarely clear and the outcome is, to many people often disproportionate. I'm not just talking about the Marler incident, you can pick apart so many decisions. Tell me which is more a blight on rugby and is more dangerous, a no arms tackle with a shoulder to the head or a nut tickle.
Here's the answer: In that game there were several incidences of no arm, shoulder first, high tackles - as there are in many games and they were not dealt with as harshly as the nut tickle. Furthermore, i can't think in recent times where such an action as Marler's has been highlighted.
I'm not defending the bloke or his action but in all honesty, which is worse and which is more prevalent?
