Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Joe Marker's busy fingers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 991657" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>On the other hand, it wasn't funny, but was badly misjudged.</p><p>It's technically sexual assault in the post #MeToo era, even though it wasn't for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation or control.</p><p>Finally, this happened in a televised match, with dozens of cameras; and the rugby worlds second most prestigious event.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>ETA to reply to a post made whilst I was typing:</p><p></p><p>20? I think you mean 10</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 991657, member: 73592"] 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: 20? I think you mean 10 [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Joe Marker's busy fingers
Top