Joe Marker's busy fingers

[klitarris]

Incidentally, how does it work given that it's a 10 week ban, but there is unlikely to be any rugby going on for some, if not all of that time?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Incidentally, how does it work given that it's a 10 week ban, but there is unlikely to be any rugby going on for some, if not all of that time?

Bans are usually done by playing weeks. I remember the kiwis trying to use a mitre 10 cup match for one of their star players who'd never play in that competition to shorten a ban but getting turned down.

 

[klitarris]

Bans are usually done by playing weeks. I remember the kiwis trying to use a mitre 10 cup match for one of their star players who'd never play in that competition to shorten a ban but getting turned down.

Ah ok, that makes sense. Thanks. I wonder why they don't just do in number of games though!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Bans are usually done by playing weeks. I remember the kiwis trying to use a mitre 10 cup match for one of their star players who'd never play in that competition to shorten a ban but getting turned down.

who was that? i thought domestic comp games did count if it was in a week without international games

unfortunately these guys who hardly ever play domestic rugby are all registered to mitre 10 cup team, take up a spot on the roster and get paid by them even if they dont pay very often

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

who was that? i thought domestic comp games did count if it was in a week without international games

unfortunately these guys who hardly ever play domestic rugby are all registered to mitre 10 cup team, take up a spot on the roster and get paid by them even if they dont pay very often

Think is was someone during the Lions tour. Could even have been a lower level than mitre 10 again, its only the fact that playing weeks are what's counted rather than calender weeks that triggers the memory.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

fair enough, claiming a club rugby game would be taking the mickey

 

[bertiec]

Toats agree. I dunno what rugby some y'all been playing but this kind of behaviour never happened at any of my games. Guys never fondled each other "just for a laugh" when u played. Save that sht for the privacy of your bedroom

I would have tried to pull his head off and poo down his neck hole.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Just to put things in perspective a little, Duncan McRae beating the living **** out of O'Gara on the Lions tour got him a 7 week ban.


Are we really going to claim what Marler did was worse?

 

[McTallshort]

Just to put things in perspective a little, Duncan McRae beating the living **** out of O'Gara on the Lions tour got him a 7 week ban.


Are we really going to claim what Marler did was worse?

Martin Johnson broke McRae's rib in a club game when McRae was playing for Sarries I think? Although Johnno would never admit it I'm sure that incident was in his head when he dropped that knee...

 

[mania]

Think is was someone during the Lions tour. Could even have been a lower level than mitre 10 again, its only the fact that playing weeks are what's counted rather than calender weeks that triggers the memory.

wasnt that SBW ? for when he got red carded and then suspended in the BIL Lions game. NZRFU claimed that a warm up match where the ABs played 3 different teams, kinda of trial match, be counted. from memory NZRFU won and it was counted.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

wasnt that SBW ? for when he got red carded and then suspended in the BIL Lions game. NZRFU claimed that a warm up match where the ABs played 3 different teams, kinda of trial match, be counted. from memory NZRFU won and it was counted.

"A game being played by New Zealand against Counties Manukau and Taranaki on 11 August that had been excluded from the suspension by the original disciplinary committee, has now been deemed to comply with the regulations' definition of a 'match'," read a statement issued on behalf of World Rugby."

Yeah you're right!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Just to put things in perspective a little, Duncan McRae beating the living **** out of O'Gara on the Lions tour got him a 7 week ban.

Are we really going to claim what Marler did was worse?

If you are sincerely trying to put things in perspective maybe you wanna chose an example that is not 7 years old.
Maybe. I mean, I am inclined to believe that not only rugby but the world as a whole has made quite a few changes since then.

And no one is saying what Marler did was worse. They are saying that what he did, as things stand right now, is unacceptable and his case should be set as an example given a) the exposure b) the blatant disregard he had towards his opponents, the ref, the rules and the audience on what is for many a serious issue.

Again, some coherence, please. A guy goes posting stuff on social media and all the rugby community wants him never to set foot on a rugby union field again, but Marler goes ( easter) egg hunting a month ahead of schedule, on a six nations game and we should let it go?
Hell no.

 

[anderton46]

If I got caught on CCTV/Camera going up to some lass or lad and grabbing their genitals I'd be on the sex offenders register. So I find it odd that when it happens in sport it doesn't really count or matter ?

Not that I think it was malicious or that it really bothered AWJ. It happens round the country, and is probably more a sign of how PC we are over 'sexual assault'. But the laws are the laws, and I find it strange 10 weeks was all he got.

 

[big ginger 8]

If you are sincerely trying to put things in perspective maybe you wanna chose an example that is not 7 years old.
Maybe. I mean, I am inclined to believe that not only rugby but the world as a whole has made quite a few changes since then.

And no one is saying what Marler did was worse. They are saying that what he did, as things stand right now, is unacceptable and his case should be set as an example given a) the exposure b) the blatant disregard he had towards his opponents, the ref, the rules and the audience on what is for many a serious issue.

Again, some coherence, please. A guy goes posting stuff on social media and all the rugby community wants him never to set foot on a rugby union field again, but Marler goes ( easter) egg hunting a month ahead of schedule, on a six nations game and we should let it go?
Hell no.

Not 7 years, 19 years ago!

Comparing situations which don't involve the same offence is pretty pointless. Rugby definitely has issues in how it punishes physical violence but it's a completely different conversation.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Not 7 years, 19 years ago!

Comparing situations which don't involve the same offence is pretty pointless. Rugby definitely has issues in how it punishes physical violence but it's a completely different conversation.

It's not though is it? There were 2 serious offenses in the same weekend and a massive difference in the level of punishment. It is very much the same conversation, namely how good are the current levels of punishment for various offenses. Offenses meant to harm a player should always carry harsher sentences that offenses where harm was either not intended or did not occur at all.

I'd say Marlers punishment is about right, although he clearly wasn't trying to harm AWJ, which the law appears to be written for. It's the fact the French prop had such a small punishment in comparison for a proper smack to the face that is stupid.

 

[anderton46]

It's not though is it? There were 2 serious offenses in the same weekend and a massive difference in the level of punishment. It is very much the same conversation, namely how good are the current levels of punishment for various offenses. Offenses meant to harm a player should always carry harsher sentences that offenses where harm was either not intended or did not occur at all.

I'd say Marlers punishment is about right, although he clearly wasn't trying to harm AWJ, which the law appears to be written for. It's the fact the French prop had such a small punishment in comparison for a proper smack to the face that is stupid.

To be honest. In British law, I think sexual assault is deemed more serious than a single punch.

 

[big ginger 8]

It's not though is it? There were 2 serious offenses in the same weekend and a massive difference in the level of punishment. It is very much the same conversation, namely how good are the current levels of punishment for various offenses. Offenses meant to harm a player should always carry harsher sentences that offenses where harm was either not intended or did not occur at all.

I'd say Marlers punishment is about right, although he clearly wasn't trying to harm AWJ, which the law appears to be written for. It's the fact the French prop had such a small punishment in comparison for a proper smack to the face that is stupid.

Had stuff written out but I'm not sure I fully understand what you are arguing. So for clarity's sake what is coming across to me is, you agree with the length of Marler's ban but because of Haouas' comparatively lenient ban you think Marler should also have a lesser suspension and you feel they are directly comparable offences.

What I believe is:
Marler deserved his ban
Haouas deserved a longer ban
Haouas' and McRae's punishments have nothing to do with Marler's punishment, partially as one is from a completely different era of the game but mainly because
They are different offences which have different sentencing guidelines.
Just because one punishment was bad does not mean the other is invalidated.

As an aside I dislike bringing in the criminal law into rugby. The courts have been very clear on how actions on a pitch are not punishable by them. However, assault and sexual assault are treated under different pieces of legislation for a reason. The criminal law also recognises that harm has a far greater scope than physical harm.

 

[mania]

in the end the correct decision was made. joes been made a bit of a scape goat, but then he did put himself in this situation to start with.
i dont wanna see this kinda stuff. i dont want the kids i coach exposed to this kinda stuff. and i especially dont want it to become acceptable at any level.
sure im a prude but grabbing genitalia in any context on a rugby field is just off limits.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Had stuff written out but I'm not sure I fully understand what you are arguing. So for clarity's sake what is coming across to me is, you agree with the length of Marler's ban but because of Haouas' comparatively lenient ban you think Marler should also have a lesser suspension and you feel they are directly comparable offences.

What I believe is:
Marler deserved his ban
Haouas deserved a longer ban
Haouas' and McRae's punishments have nothing to do with Marler's punishment, partially as one is from a completely different era of the game but mainly because
They are different offences which have different sentencing guidelines.
Just because one punishment was bad does not mean the other is invalidated.

As an aside I dislike bringing in the criminal law into rugby. The courts have been very clear on how actions on a pitch are not punishable by them. However, assault and sexual assault are treated under different pieces of legislation for a reason. The criminal law also recognises that harm has a far greater scope than physical harm.

No, I think the length of Marler's ban was correct but I think the difference in length between a highly inappropriate but ultimately not harmful action and a quite rare violent action needs to be questioned. A punch to the face should not end up as 3 weeks even with mitigation. The guidance in the law Marler was punished by is clearly written with the emphasis on a player attempting to cause harm through a sexual assault and just as punching and sexual assault are very different, a fondle and a tight grab are also very different. I'd say a non-sexual but violent offense should be pretty comparable to a sexual but non-violent offense in terms of punishment. Sexual assaults should have minimal room for mitigation though as it would always be a conscious and calculated decision by a player to do that whereas a violent act could be done in the heat of the moment.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You keep comparing it to punching, which doesn't make a lot of sense when you have a much better benchmark at hand: eyes. Going to or near the eye area is a big no-no. The same should go for people's genitals. No go, no excuses, no exceptions, period. You go there, i want the player to be made an example of.
When a player purposely goes towards an opponent's eye area not many will care if it was in jest or not.

I dont want Marler in jail, i want him outside a field for a long time.