Twitter can be the worst of places at times, as moronic buffoons spout their ill-considered and at times offensive opinions. But every now and then, it can be an excellent barometer of how wrong a decision is.
Such was the case on Sunday night when the disciplinary report from the weekend’s Six Nations matches was released by the citing commissioner. Tomas Francis was rightly to be hauled in front of the committee in some stuffy hotel for his ill-advised flirtation with Dan Cole’s eyes.
Given the length of Chris Ashton’s ban for a similar offence earlier in the season, Francis should ready himself for some time on the touchline.
But there was even more outrage surrounding a player conspicuous by his absence. Joe Marler was nowhere to be seen in the report, neither called to answer a case for his aggressive forearm to the face of Rob Evans, nor his vile verbal deluge in the direction of Samson Lee.
Now, in this writer’s opnion, neither are as heinous a crime as Francis’ dalliance with Cole’s ocular area, but to decide that neither of Marler’s incidents even warrant a second look is negligent at best. Cue Twitter going into overdrive.
Tomas Francis being cited for hand to Cole's face is understandable. Joe Marler not being cited for elbow to Rob Evans' face is a disgrace
— Simon Thomas (@simonrug) March 13, 2016
Joe Marler's notifications pic.twitter.com/OCwsk4FdCD
— Dai Lama (@WelshDalaiLama) March 14, 2016
Shame on citing officer who cleared Joe Marler of punching. Where do they get these guys from? A Tier 2 unknown would have got a month ban
— Stephen Jones (@stephenjones9) March 14, 2016
But there was a twist in the tale – the following morning, there was another disciplinary update announcing a further citing for Marler, and you genuinely could not make up how it was worded:
This citing of Joe Marler follows the citing of Tomas Francis and the Citing Commissioner Warning issued to James Haskell, each from the same match, which were announced yesterday evening following the citing commissioner’s initial review of the match. The citing commissioner continued his review of the match overnight and considered that the incident in the 15th minute involving Mr Marler should also be the subject of a citing (the relevant disciplinary rules provide that the deadline for citing complaints is ordinarily 48 hours after the end of the match in question).
48 hours is the limit for citings after a game so there is no problem in terms of timing – but to suggest that the commissioner “continued his review overnight” is hilarious. Clearly, someone at World Rugby, or the Six Nations (one and the same, in reality), has decided that the level of outcry was such that they better do something about it and haul Marler forward too. Why else would they fail to mention him in the initial disciplinary update?
It makes zero sense to release them as two separate updates, particularly when there is no mention in the first that the commissioner would indeed be “continuing his review over night”. Missing Marler’s name off the citing list initially was clearly wrong, and the grounds for most of the anger – but to change the stance later makes the whole process seem so much weaker, as if it has taken into account the whims of public opinion. That is a dangerous and unacceptable road to go down.
In reality though, this is not the first time a governing body has reacted retroactively in recent times. The manner in which World Rugby hung Craig Joubert out to dry after the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the Scotland vs Australia World Cup quarter final – instead of, perhaps, accepting that there was something wrong with the whole referee/TMO process and announcing that they would be reviewing it – was nothing short of a disgrace.
World Rugby do a lot of things right, but the disciplinary process – from the way the TMO and referee interact on the pitch, to the way the citing commissioner works – is not one of them.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
I think a player should be judged by his peers, not administrators!
“Now, in this writer’s opnion, neither are as heinous a crime as Francis’ dalliance with Cole’s ocular area, ”
Do you know what, I’m honestly getting sick of this relativism whenever Marler’s name is mentioned. If one player does something awful in a match (Francis) does this somehow lessen the awful stuff another player does? No – and if it doesn’t, why is what else happened in the match relevant? The cynic in me can’t help notice you’ve chosen 3 Welsh tweets about Marler — seen a lot of jingoistic rubbish on Twitter from misguided England fans defending Marler, usually accompanied with the “any anyway, Francis should have been sent off…” rubbish that is similar to the comparisons tweeted here. Here’s the simple facts
– Francis should have been sent off
– Francis will be banned
– Marler smashed a guy in the face, the jury will decide on intention, etc.
– I’m still mystified as to why Marler currently has no case to answer for the racism.
As a sidenote all citings, if any, should be announced at the exact same time, not drip fed as each one is considered.
Agree, Brighty. Each case must be considered in isolation.
OK I regret making the comparison now because it seems to have detracted from the overall point of the article – that the whole disciplinary process is a mess. I hope you haven’t taken that comparison and applied it to the whole article and come out with the conclusion that I think Marler doesn’t deserve a ban – quite the opposite. Marler will quite rightly face a ban for his forearm smash, but the whole thing should have been handled much better, which is what I am driving at.
As for his comments to Lee, it sounds like there might be more going on behind the scenes there so we’ll have to wait and see (see Pablito’s comment below). There absolutely should be further disciplinary action against Marler for it.
And while I’m here I’ll add my tuppence on Francis’ 8 week ban – that it is 2 weeks shorter than Ashton’s makes little sense to me. Where is the consistency?
Jamie, I agree completely with the thrust of your article i.e. that trial by twitter is a farce. I have to admit my reply here was fired up by your article being the latest in a line of points I’ve heard where for some reason what Francis did is always mentioned in relation to what Marler did.
Agree that the 8 weeks makes very little sense to me … one of those “and he brought excellent biscuits” judgements again.
He only got 8 weeks? Ashton must have been seriously unlikeable at his hearing…
No he just forgot to bring biscuits while Francis brought chocolate hobnobs.
To be fair, I thought Ashton’s was worse. Francis just got his hand in the wrong place, Ashton got his hand in the wrong place doing something stupid! Not denying that he’s unlikeable mind!
Jamie, I didn’t think we were having a pop at you. Thought your original comment as quoted was meant to be a criticism of the social media witch-hunt.
The citing commissioners are a law unto themselves. It’d be interesting to know what sort of oversight of them there is.
There have been a number of incidents where the referee and/or TMO look at an incident, decide it’s not even a penalty, then the citing commissioner pops his head up saying they were wrong and it should have been a red card!
At least they’ve wound their necks in a bit since the world cup, but maybe that because there are no pacific islands in the 6 nations.
Jamie – with regards Marler’s comments – to quote today’s Telegraph
“Six Nations disciplinary chiefs spent a second day yesterday investigating the Lee incident as his comments fall under the disciplinary code of misconduct, which means any potential disciplinary action is not restricted by the 48-hour time frame associated with foul play on the pitch”
So they have more time to consider the comments made.
As for the forearm, I’m not sure why it was cleared in the first place, but to ‘reconsider’ it due to an outcry is clearly wrong. As you say, trial by Twitter should not be acceptable
BTW – Marler’s comment to Lee was patronising, infantile and stupid. But to describe it as a ‘vile verbal deluge’ is hyperbole of the highest order.
Can’t agree with you on the last point there Pablito. Imagine the situation if something similar had been said to Itoje. Don’t want to write it here but you can guess what.
Would have been, and should be, unacceptable and vile. I know it isn’t your intent to lessen the situation, I’m just getting a bit wound up by some of the rubbish I’m seeing from self-identified English fans on Twitter defending Marler e.g. the “it was a factually correct statement” type of rubbish coupled with the “and it’s not as bad as gouging” irrelevance.
I’m in two minds with regards to this whole thing
As far as insults go its pretty lame and barely racist. Gypsy boy is the same as English boy or Welsh boy. Apparently he is proud of his Gypsy heritage so like me if called English boy he would probably laugh it off, Samson Lee is a big boy I doubt it upset him much
Once you introduce shades of grey its dangerous ground. How do you judge if something would be offensive to the recipient. Punishment is already inconsistent enough without adding in impacted feelings. The intention was to upset him and that is what really matters can you punish someone less for being not very good at being an arse.
In short I think he should be punished and possibly even made an example of to prevent future issues but I think everyone (especially the media) should stop banging on about it as though it was the worse thing in the world. Judging by how he likes to play the clown he probably thought he was being witty
Repeating my reply to Molly … the whole point is whether the term was used in the pejorative, not whether Lee is or isn’t a gypsy. You could factually refer to a person as black in a conversation … if you screamed “black boy” at them as part of an aggressive confrontation then you can see it has a whole different connotation. The same thing applies here.
As for whether it’s the same as Welsh/English – it utterly and totally isn’t. Welsh/English don’t have a history of violent persecution based on them being members of those countries. There is a history, a weight to using terms like Marler used and it goes beyond the 20 seconds of stupidity on Saturday. That is why it’s not acceptable.
I agree that whether Lee was offended or not is irrelevant. The statement was heard on TV and has been widely reported since. Therefore the issue now is the image of the game, the image of English rugby (like it or not, what he’s said reflects on the whole team, which isn’t fair on them), etc. It needs to be dealt with well to ensure it’s made clear it is unacceptable, etc, and I’m afraid he can’t apologise it away. I also think whether Marler thought it was witty or not doesn’t really matter – it’s great he realised it was a stupid thing to have done, great he realised it was offensive and he shouldn’t have done it, but he still did it and I’m afraid a punishment is needed in the same way that remorse from throwing a punch that missed wouldn’t excuse the assailant from a punishment, it just affects the severity of it.
sorry maybe wasn’t clear as i was trying to present both sides of the argument in separate paragraphs I agree the intent was to be abusive and hence I conclude he should be banned.
However I categorically don’t buy the argument that because one group of people have suffered more persecution than another determines if its racist. If a Welshman calls an Englishman an “English wanker” i.e. using English as a pejorative term, then they are being racist. Same can be said for singling out a white man for the colour of his skin its no less wrong than singling out a black man for the colour of his skin.
Understood Leon and to clarify my point – what I meant was in two parts – technically English/Welsh isn’t “race” so it’s not racism but that’s just semantics (and I think also part of the legal framework?).
I get your point though.
I do though genuinely think that someone using Welsh as a pejorative is a whole different level of abuse to using “Jew” for example, because of the history of it, but that’s probably just a personal thing then. Again, I understand your point.
“How do you judge if something would be offensive to the recipient. ”
The views of the recipient don’t matter, there are plenty of people ready to be offended on his behalf whether he wants it or not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35816178
I presume that for some reason you don’t want to write the word ‘black’. If someone had called Itoje ‘black boy’ then it would have been the same situation. Patronising, infantile, stupid and unacceptable – but not vile. And not by any stretch of the imagination a ‘deluge’
Vile is an extremely strong and emotive word and to use it for an example like this is to water its meaning down so that when we do truly have a situation that is vile, the word has lost all impact or meaning.
This for example is vile
http://news.sky.com/story/1572260/bus-abuse-woman-admits-racist-rant-at-muslim
Calling someone ‘gypsy boy’ is not
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this Pablito. “black boy” was used extensively as an insulting term in earlier decades – it carries a weight and a history that to me is vile. It’s the juxtaposition of the two words I was nervous of using, just because it is such a nasty, demeaning and intentionally reductive insult because of the emphasis on the second part.
I get your point though – overuse of superlatives leads to a linguistic dead end where any adult who can kick a ball in a net can be referred to as a “genius”, so the word genius loses all meaning. However, for me the word vile is partly a personal thing, more ambiguous because as well as having an absolute part it also encapsulates your own personal reaction to the thing, like taste, so for me it still stands as vile.
I fear I’ve strayed as off topic from rugby as I can possibly get – another reason Marler’s idiocy annoys me.
Fair enough Brighty. Utterly agree about the straying off-topic
Presumably if he had called him Welsh boy or Francis English boy that would have also have been unacceptable.
Oh dear – Welsh/English, neither of them are races, neither of them have a long and recent history of persecution based on the individual being a member of that race. If you truly think that “Welsh” being used in the pejorative deserves the same defence/outrage as “gypsy” being used as an insult then you need to have a good word with yourself.
Well the guidelines for sanctions put them in the same bracket, even though “Welsh boy” is one of the highest compliments there is!
Brighty, the whole point of racist insults, or so we are told, is the mere ‘possibility’ of causing offense. There is no test of ‘reasonable possibility’ with the result that almost any comment can be deemed racist. Personaly I have worked with lots of Taffys, am married to a Jock (female I hasten to add) and have relatives who admit to being Paddys. None of them has ever taken offense at being so addressed and I am never offended by being referred to as a Limey, a Pom, a Tyke or a Sassenach in fact I feel a certain superiority in being so addressed although I did once take offense when mistaken for an Aussie
The whole issue of PC offenses is a complete mess and Marler was at best foolish and deserves to be disciplined. His mistake was probably to use both words – Boy and Gypsy – together. Had he used either in isolation it would probably not have been remarked on.
“Brighty, the whole point of racist insults, or so we are told, is the mere ‘possibility’ of causing offense.”
Who tells you this Ray? That’s not what it means to me. The offence is almost by the by – it’s the stereotyping and the effect this has on a group of people’s standing in society that is important. Language matters – referring to a whole group of people with unchallenged pejorative statements has the overall effect of reducing that groups standing in society.
“almost any comment can be deemed racist” – uh, no. That is completely illogical. For instance none of the terms you’ve mentioned can be as there is no Welsh race, etc. Nationality and race are not the same thing.
I think you and I will need to agree to stop discussing this as you seem to be coming from the “it’s political correctness gone mad” side of things? That’s an argument I have zero tolerance or time for. It’s great you and your friends just let this stuff slide off, take no offence from it. That’s your prerogative, but you can’t extend it to expecting everyone else to do the same, that’s not your choice.
I swear to now shut up about this, I’ve made my point.
Back to the issue at hand in the original point – the whole citing system needs sorting out so it at least has the appearance of a professional system, not random decisions made by blazers in wood paneled rooms.
That’s about the 4th time you have said English/Welsh is not a Nationality or race.
Why are we allowed our own rugby teams then?
I certainly consider myself an English Brit as much as you would consider yourself a Welsh Brit. To deny me my nationality would be “_____” (please fill in the blanks)
Leon, I’ve not said English/Welsh isn’t a nationality – on the contrary, I’ve said the opposite. They are nationalities, but they are not races.
Sadly Brighty we are told this by various judicial or quasi judicial bodies. You may recall the review into possible racism in the Metropolitan Police. The report was quite clear that the Police’s interpretation of racialy offensive remarks was ‘ something which a reasonable person would find offensive’ was wrong. The report made it clear that ‘reasonableness was no defense’ and concluded that the police were institutionaly racist.There are other examples.
I was trying to make the point that holding any kind of debate in these circumstances is pointless without a reasonable measure of commonsense or reason.
Understood Ray, thanks for clarifying.
In fairness to Marler, his comments sound a lot worse in super slow motion, played in realtime…
In short my two pennyworth is that he shouldn’t have said it, but it has been overblown. If he’d used words like “pikey” or “gypo” that truly would have been vile and warranting this level of condemnation. Nothing offensive in the term “gypsy boy” per se but the inference is by using it as an insult or slur is that there is something wrong with Mr Lee’s culture and community, which is wrong and he should get some sort of sanction for, just not sure the response thus far has been proportionate.
Oh dear brighty, English and Welsh are not races. I think you need to buy yourself a dictionary! And whilst the Welsh might not have been persecuted as an Irishwoman I have always thought Welshmen think they have been.
Feel free to look it up. Race is about genetics, ethnicity, etc not nationality. That’s how you can have African Americans etc. Most people on these isles are ethnically Anglo Saxon or Celtic and even calling those a race is a stretch.
You can, and you definitely are, however be prejudiced against people of a certain nationality by, for example, making lovely ignorant sweeping generalisations about them.
Being a retired London teacher, and a Taff, I once had to take issue with a Yank who used the expression BOY to one of my black pupils on a ski trip in France. His tone of voice and his assertion that he didn’t need, or intend, to “stand in line” behind an inferior being left me incensed. There is no doubt that “boy” is a deliberate slur when uttered by some mutants. Mr Marler needs to be taught this, if he didn’t know it beforehand.
Isn’t your assertion, “when uttered by some mutants”, the very definition of discrimination?
There seems to be as many justifications based around historical context or some fanciful (if, admittedly, legally sound) idea regarding race, despite it being as nebulous a concept as fluency, as there are justifications of Marler’s behaviour.
Is it not simply true that, regardless of what he actually said, he was seeking only to offend and provoke, and thus was being a wanker? Surely the content is irrelevant. Calling me ‘Scottish boy’ isn’t inherently offensive. Neither is ‘black boy’. Neither is ‘Tory boy’. It’s the intent. Would people be upset if Marler had called Samson “fat boy”?
I think Samson Lee comes out of the whole episode with flying colours. A good prop who will only get better & with his on field demeanour suggesting to me a level headed and reliable character. A credit to his family. He has further stated he was not offended by remarks aimed at him. Marler is not in a good place at the moment its difficult not to have some sympathy with him. However he is going to be suspended for some time.
The mount of hypocrisy regarding the Samson Lee slur is astounding. Yes it was stupid and yes for all I know Joe Marler may be a closet fascist,but I seriously doubt it.
Given the admirable lack off fuss made by Lee,both at the time and afterwards,it’s worth noting that had the comment not been picked up on mic and highlighted with glee by Mr Inverdale,himself no stranger to a verbal faux pas, none of us would have been any the wiser.
Now we have all the sanctimonious hand wringers and the professionally offended pc brigade manning the barricades lest civilisation crumbles and Samson Lee be too psychologically scarred ever to pull on a rugby shirt again.
Marler apologised AT HALF TIME, no blood was spilt and nobody died.
I wonder how many of the “outraged” sit in front of the tv every night making less than affectionate comments about asylum seekers and refugees,benefits claimants and the LGBT community,safe in the knowledge that their spoutings won’t be broadcast to the nation?
C’mon people ,grow up FFS.
I’m relieved to find that there’s someone left on here who hasn’t completely taken leave of his senses over this. “Sanctimonious hand wringers and the professionally offended” is a perfect description of the total collapse in our collective common sense.
People need to remember that offence is taken, not given. Samson Lee was arguably taken aback, but that’s about it. He has stated that he did not find it offensive and Marler offered his apology at the earliest opportunity of his own volition.
Right. Here’s my summary of the three incidents, taken with no reference to each other:
1. “Gypsygate” – literally the LEAST offensive thing I’ve heard to be taken so seriously. I suspect a lot of people are commenting on this without having even seen the footage. On this clip – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/13/joe-marler-apologises-for-gypsy-boy-comment/ – it’s completely clear that he’s just trying to wind the bloke up a bit and, by the way, he also did a very effective job of getting Lee to stop manhandling his captain. Racist? Do me a favour.
2. Forearm smash by Marler, (footage also available on that Telegraph link above) – come on, it’s hardly a “smash” is it?? Jesus wept. However, it is foul play and an unnecessary cheapshot. Not happy about it, but this sort of sly dig happens any number of times during a match. This is basically a yellow card offence; as such, it should be dealt with the same as the Haskell neck roll.
3. Francis “contact with the eyes or eye area” – let’s remember this is the actual wording of the offence. Intent to gouge or poke fingers into the eye is not part of the law. By the letter of the law and precedent set by other similar sanctions, eight weeks seems a bit lenient to me. Having said that, my impression at the time was that the eye contact was accidental – looked to me like he was trying to execute a slapstick nose-tweak! – but, as we know, intent or otherwise is irrelevant.
Nobody expects professional rugby players in the heat of battle to be furry and friendly towards each other. That said the world we now operate in and this includes sport quiet rightly does not accept racial abuse. It is as simple as that and Joe M knew this. So a ban is the correct decision and we can all move on.
Brilliant, we’re into classic Daily Mail phase 2. Once the original offence is cooling down lets abuse those who find it racist because if they don’t agree with us that it’s not racist then they’re sanctimonious, etc. It’s political correctness gone mad! Nobody was killed! It was only words! Shut down the debate with abuse because I disagree!
The fact you seem to think the only thing that is important is whether Samson Lee himself was offended just sums it up.
Teecee your prejudices are clear and bizarre. You’ve gone from thinking it’s ok to then accusing those of us who have an issue with it of being closet everything-phobes using nothing more than your tiny imagination. By all means put forward a decent case for there being no ban but your need to include abuse and imagined failings of others with it just proves that you don’t really have a point.
Yeah, but Brighty, a lot of the outcry and condemnation of Joe Marler has indeed been very sanctimonious and preachy.
Look at what Marler said in the context provided by the video footage and this really is a case of making a mountain from a molehill.
Aye Stroudos, but loony fringes on either sides of the argument can’t be used, as Teecee has done, as a basis to deny the whole thing.
I’ve seen the video footage and do think where a person stands on the severity of it is a personal thing, I’m fine with that and will continue to disagree with those who think it’s not an issue. What I don’t like is Teecee’s attempt to be absolute and say it is categorically fine, everyone who disagrees is just one of the “professionally offended” etc.
At the moment I think the whole vacuum around the issue is unhelpful – it’s obviously caught the authorities unawares (which I guess in some ways is a good sign, as it’s so uncommon) but while they dither about what to do about it you just get the extremes on both sides trying to outshout each other.