Oh I'm grown up. Been playing rugby for over 30 years. To demand a player is banned for 24 weeks for that is stupid and childish and you know it.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Joe Marker's busy fingers
- Thread starter Leonormous Boozer
- Start date
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,590
- Reaction score
- 653
wow you been held back for 30 years? stupid and childish is what marler did. if he's gonna be an offensive childish idiot then he doesnt deservce to play with the grown ups. thats why youve been held back cos youre a childish git.
this is unacceptable behaviour in grown up world fool.
Held back?
This thread has turned out nicely...
Well, I guess I'm the last guy to comment here, because I have been a victim of the grabbing of privates. It was a game at at Uni where the opposition no. 8 grabbed my junk out of frustration after they collapsed the maul for the 4th time.
But he grabbed me so hard, I had to go to hospital as a blood vein burst in my scrotum, Had to get a minor operation to stop the bleeding and had an itchy crotch while the stitches was still in.
I just think that most of us guys would agree that the crotch area, is a sacred place and unless you are gay or bi-sexual, you are the only man to touch that area (oh and your doctor).
I'm surprised AWJ didn't assasinate him right there. I know I would
But he grabbed me so hard, I had to go to hospital as a blood vein burst in my scrotum, Had to get a minor operation to stop the bleeding and had an itchy crotch while the stitches was still in.
I just think that most of us guys would agree that the crotch area, is a sacred place and unless you are gay or bi-sexual, you are the only man to touch that area (oh and your doctor).
I'm surprised AWJ didn't assasinate him right there. I know I would
Yeah if someone does that to you they deserve a dig . Bonus points if you get to punch the grown man version of the teenage girl who prides in telling everyone how weird and quirky she is. Hopefully he gets smacked (badum tsh) with a ban of some sort as well. No idea what the precedent is in terms of length though.
It lasted about 20 posts before descending, which is more than i expected!
I'm really not sure where I stand on this one. But it won't be alongside the internet hard-men looking to show how toxicly masculine they are.
On the one hand, it was clearly intended as a joke; and was clearly the equivalent of a friendly punch on the arm, as opposed to the Tyson-Roundhouse that some are equating it to.
On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.
It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.
Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.
Those "mitigations" also end up not mattering one jot. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault.
He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else. I simply don't know how much of a ban "feels" right. 12 weeks seems unproportionately harsh for something that so clearly WAS intended in jest. On the other hand, sexual assault is a erm... dodgy area to jest in, whilst rugby laws don't really differentiate between "done in jest" and "done with malicious intent".
It could viably be seen as anything from "a joke between Lions team mates" to "sexual assault". One requires a slap on the wrist for misjudging the timing / publicity; the other deserves a custodial sentence and his name on a register. Neither seems "right".
ETA to reply to a post made whilst I was typing:
On the one hand, it was clearly intended as a joke; and was clearly the equivalent of a friendly punch on the arm, as opposed to the Tyson-Roundhouse that some are equating it to.
On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.
It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.
Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.
Those "mitigations" also end up not mattering one jot. "It's just a joke" "intent" "purpose" only matter if everyone involved thinks of it that way - otherwise it's bullying / assault.
He absolutely deserves a ban - for sheer dumb stupidity if nothing else. I simply don't know how much of a ban "feels" right. 12 weeks seems unproportionately harsh for something that so clearly WAS intended in jest. On the other hand, sexual assault is a erm... dodgy area to jest in, whilst rugby laws don't really differentiate between "done in jest" and "done with malicious intent".
It could viably be seen as anything from "a joke between Lions team mates" to "sexual assault". One requires a slap on the wrist for misjudging the timing / publicity; the other deserves a custodial sentence and his name on a register. Neither seems "right".
ETA to reply to a post made whilst I was typing:
20? I think you mean 10
Last edited:
IMO Marler should get banned, there is no place for that kind of behaviour being broadcasted to millions watching the game. The 4 years length is clearly for if you've ripped someone's cock off or done what trf heineken described (sounds horrible btw TRF_h, hope all is ok down there in the long run!). Marler's offence was obviously not malicious or intended to hurt, and therefore should be entry level, if that. But an entry level ban of 12 weeks would send the right message.
That said, the hysteria over this perplexes me, and is an indication of the society we live in where people take far more offence on other people's behalf than the wronged people themselves. AWJ, to his credit, seemed more surprised on the pitch and while he wants action to be taken, it doesn't appear to me that he wants to cry sexual assault, or get the police involved or anything like that. And let's face it, he was wronged so he is the one to dictate how offended we should all be.
That said, the hysteria over this perplexes me, and is an indication of the society we live in where people take far more offence on other people's behalf than the wronged people themselves. AWJ, to his credit, seemed more surprised on the pitch and while he wants action to be taken, it doesn't appear to me that he wants to cry sexual assault, or get the police involved or anything like that. And let's face it, he was wronged so he is the one to dictate how offended we should all be.
I have never appreciated the comedy of the "bangkok" jokes or kick to the groin or anything else associated with making it funny while touching another person's groin area. Maybe it's just the conservative-reformed-church-going in me, but the groin area is sacred. So yeah, I too see this as sexual assault/harassment.
In hindsight, no everything isn't okay down there, as I have had troubles with having abnormal sperm, more than normal sperm, and suffer from terratatozoa spermi
Not that I think that sole incident was the only cause...
Honestly I dunno about 'just in jest' I am happy to entertain 'done to provoke a reaction'. My only concern is the wording of the citing is clearly about intent to cause pain "grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals" where as marler did none of those things.
So he's only going to get entry level 12 weeks (24 weeks would be completely disproportionate) but it does feel like he's getting longer than he should simply because the law book doesn't contain his offence.
He needs a ban, genitalia needs the same no nonsense approach that eyes do, I just think they might want to revise the time off for actions clearly not intended to cause pain/harm.
So he's only going to get entry level 12 weeks (24 weeks would be completely disproportionate) but it does feel like he's getting longer than he should simply because the law book doesn't contain his offence.
He needs a ban, genitalia needs the same no nonsense approach that eyes do, I just think they might want to revise the time off for actions clearly not intended to cause pain/harm.
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,590
- Reaction score
- 653
Tallshort started it
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,822
- Reaction score
- 350
If you touch someone without their consent on their tits or their ass or their dick or their vagina it's sexual assault, there are no technicalities.
I love Joe Marler but if he gets a 24 week ban or more for this than so be it. The times have progressed and it's time the game does as well.
I love Joe Marler but if he gets a 24 week ban or more for this than so be it. The times have progressed and it's time the game does as well.
Question for those advocating for 24 weeks.
When entry level is 12 weeks, what is your justification for that length based on Marler's offence?
When entry level is 12 weeks, what is your justification for that length based on Marler's offence?
I think 24 weeks is OTT harsh. But perhaps they are saying that based on Marler's previous indiscretions, and how he is taking this as a joke, and can't see the seriousness of his actions. As in he's not showing remorse...
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 7,571
- Reaction score
- 5,288
Yeah, I think 12 weeks would be perfectly sufficient but he really isn’t helping himself.
Okay that's fair enough I was thinking they were suggesting it as the point of adjuding the offence itself. Not thing like guilty plea (should be removed IMO), remorse and previous indiscretions.
I'm expecting 12 weeks, guilty plea unless he's utterly insane (6 weeks) then bought back up by his lack of remorse and bad boy credentials.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,756
- Reaction score
- 1,198
Without reading the thread, can I vote for neither as both are really hot takes?
It is a bit of both; it's a wind up it's how forwards play (see Sinckler talking about AWJ stamping on him at rucks as an example) but it's a bit questionable and doesn't look good, perhaps a bit too far for me. I would have kicked off - I have done for less, to be fair and a minor ban should suffice.
It is a bit of both; it's a wind up it's how forwards play (see Sinckler talking about AWJ stamping on him at rucks as an example) but it's a bit questionable and doesn't look good, perhaps a bit too far for me. I would have kicked off - I have done for less, to be fair and a minor ban should suffice.
Hard to see Marler getting anything less than the 12 weeks with his record, he can hardly claim to deserve to have it cut in half for a previously good past, and he's chucked any chance of getting the benefit for showing remorse.
I'd say anything more than that is pretty harsh, you'd have to imagine that the higher end sanctions are intended for more aggressive actions of the same type, this was probably low end. That said, the factors I mentioned above (like his poor record and complete and utter lack of any sort of remorse) could well see it go up.
Either way, I don't see how anyone can claim that he doesn't deserve to be punished. No matter how many club games it's happened in, the laws are pretty clear about it (and with respect, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people playing in an event watched by millions to behave better than angry internet man did in some random junior third division game 20 tears ago).
I'd say anything more than that is pretty harsh, you'd have to imagine that the higher end sanctions are intended for more aggressive actions of the same type, this was probably low end. That said, the factors I mentioned above (like his poor record and complete and utter lack of any sort of remorse) could well see it go up.
Either way, I don't see how anyone can claim that he doesn't deserve to be punished. No matter how many club games it's happened in, the laws are pretty clear about it (and with respect, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people playing in an event watched by millions to behave better than angry internet man did in some random junior third division game 20 tears ago).
Similar threads
