Joe Marker's busy fingers

[Ragey Erasmus]

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.

You keep talking as if I've advocated Marlers punishment being reduced or leniency being shown towards sexual assault. I have not anywhere asked for Marlers punishment to be reduced, all I've asked for is an INCREASE in the punishment for punching. Why do you keep ignoring this?

 

[mania]

i cant believe these articles that are blaming AWJ for marlers suspension. talk about putting the cart before the horse. what dik heds.

only person to blame here is marler

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...gby-ban-inflated-by-alun-wyn-jones-complaints

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/lawrence-dallagio-blames-alun-wyn-17936407

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...n-law-with-joe-marlers-testicle-grab-reaction

 

[Scotty]

Cannot be arsed to read through the entire thread to see of these points have been made already but here are my thoughts .

It was meant in good fun with someone who knows and he prob expected a different reaction, no intent to prevoke violence or make the situation worse IMO and had AWJ laughed it off or took it as a joke it would have been forgotten about.

BUT AWJ didnt take it as a joke therefor it had to be looked at and was technically foul play indended or not, as for the punishment 10 weeks is very heavy for what it was as i believe the laws about grabbing twisting squeezing testicals are meant as intending to cause pain which this wasnt. I believe this should be more not playing in the values of the game or bringing it into disrepute.

I dont want to see this sort of thing but i do want to see joking and banter between mates but then its the risk you run.

So deserves the ban but not near 10 weeks

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You keep talking as if I've advocated Marlers punishment being reduced or leniency being shown towards sexual assault. I have not anywhere asked for Marlers punishment to be reduced, all I've asked for is an INCREASE in the punishment for punching. Why do you keep ignoring this?

Well, the ***le of the thread is "Joe's Marker's busy fingers" and there is not a single mention of punching in the original post so i have to ask, other than relativizing Marler's actions, why on earth would you bring that up on this thread?

If your point is to sincerely discuss raising the punishment for punching, maybe it's a bit smarter to start a new and distinct thread.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well, the ***le of the thread is "Joe's Marker's busy fingers" and there is not a single mention of punching in the original post so i have to ask, other than relativizing Marler's actions, why on earth would you bring that up on this thread?

If your point is to sincerely discuss raising the punishment for punching, maybe it's a bit smarter to start a new and distinct thread.

Because the conversation was about the length of the ban and it just so happened another citable offense happened at the same time and thus a comparison could have been drawn between the two?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well, the ***le of the thread is "Joe's Marker's busy fingers" and there is not a single mention of punching in the original post so i have to ask, other than relativizing Marler's actions, why on earth would you bring that up on this thread?

If your point is to sincerely discuss raising the punishment for punching, maybe it's a bit smarter to start a new and distinct thread.

you're coming across like you just want an argument, its a choice to just take @ragerancher at face value

 

[TRF_heineken]

Cannot be arsed to read through the entire thread to see of these points have been made already but here are my thoughts .

It was meant in good fun with someone who knows and he prob expected a different reaction, no intent to prevoke violence or make the situation worse IMO and had AWJ laughed it off or took it as a joke it would have been forgotten about.

BUT AWJ didnt take it as a joke therefor it had to be looked at and was technically foul play indended or not, as for the punishment 10 weeks is very heavy for what it was as i believe the laws about grabbing twisting squeezing testicals are meant as intending to cause pain which this wasnt. I believe this should be more not playing in the values of the game or bringing it into disrepute.

I dont want to see this sort of thing but i do want to see joking and banter between mates but then its the risk you run.

So deserves the ban but not near 10 weeks

I guess this is where people will have a disagreement on your take.

I for one have never found the touching of another man's genitals as a joke/funny/banter. That's just how I was brought up and that particular area of the human anatomy is a no-no, no matter the gender of the person.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

you're coming across like you just want an argument, its a choice to just take @ragerancher at face value

Course I am argumentative. I disagree with him.
You wanna take his word at face value? Fine, but let's at least agree that's an act of faith and not reason.
I'd rather look at the evidence and when I do, he's relativizing the issue and cherry-picking.

Because the conversation was about the length of the ban and it just so happened another citable offense happened at the same time and thus a comparison could have been drawn between the two?

So hep me understand here: in order to demonstrate your point you had no better idea than to pick another incident, completely unrelated, 19 years ago, and bring that up.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Course I am argumentative. I disagree with him.
You wanna take his word at face value? Fine, but let's at least agree that's an act of faith and not reason.
I'd rather look at the evidence and when I do, he's relativizing the issue and cherry-picking.


So hep me understand here: in order to demonstrate your point you had no better idea than to pick another incident, completely unrelated, 19 years ago, and bring that up.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I don't actually know how to respond...you seem lost in an argument when no one is arguing with you...ragerancher hasn't said the punishment wasn't deserved...YOU are the only one that seems to bring that up....it's weird

ragerancher Has only tried to use it as an example of how inconsistent the punishments are

 

[TheOvalBall]

Being a man means being respectful to all human beings, and animals. Marler is a disgrace with his behaviour.

 

[bertiec]

Unfortunately Marler has proved to be childish in the past. Mock punches to the face etc. he needs to play rugby not the tw**. The punch, this seems to have raised some heckles, I think the bans are disproportionate. How can a punch in the face be taken as lesser of the two offences?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Number of reports suggesting that Marler's thinking about totally walking away from the game. If those are right it would be a shame for it to end like this, Good player, big character, intermittent plank.

 

[ncurd]

Worth resurrecting the thread for this bit of nonsence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52424599

Show players should be banned for eligible games rather than weeks.