Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
marklaspalmas

Castleford hit with pretty big fine

149 posts in this topic

oh ffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well done RFL, maybe Cas will take matters like this more seriously next time.

hear hear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Mark. Absolutely not.

Using the "N" word to describe someone of afro-caribbean origin, or blatant homophobic comments at the gay and lesbian community is, rightly becoming slowly more socially unacceptable! Each year I see less evidence of it though it is still there, and still needs addressing.

Now, Sunday v Widnes, "nar then ya big ginger 2@" was hurled in my direction. We all had a chortle in the lagoon and got about our business of enjoying the afternoon.

Difference??

You know the job I do Mark, and that my toleration for anyobody or any organisation negatively discriminating anyone for any reason is non-existant. But the ginger comment did make me think - tho not too seriously! Had I have been black and the word ginger substituted for "black" in the above sentence - there would have been an entirely different response don't ya think?

Back to your question - in the 21st century people ought to be able to live as they wish within the law without being subject to a barrage of abuse when doing their job. If their employers can't/won't protect them, then they deserve the wonga taking off them!

Edited by Robin Evans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castleford have already signalled their intent to appeal the decision, with chief executive Richard Wright claiming to be "shocked" by the verdict of the tribunal.

C'MON! SERIOUSLY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Mark. Absolutely not.

Using the "N" word to describe someone of afro-caribbean origin, or blatant homophobic comments at the gay and lesbian community is, rightly being slowly more socially unacceptable! Each year I see less evidence of it though it is still there, and still needs addressing.

Now, Sunday v Widnes, "nar then ya big ginger 2@" was hurled in my direction. We all had a chortle in the lagoon and got about our business of enjoying the afternoon.

Difference??

You know the job I do Mark, and that my toleration for anyobody or any organisation negatively discriminating anyone for any reason is non-existant. But the ginger comment did make me think - tho not too seriously! Had I have been black and the word ginger substituted for "black" in the above sentence - there would have been an entirely different response don't ya think?

Back to your question - in the 21st century people ought to be able to live as they wish without being subject to a barrage of abuse when doing their job. If their employers can't/won't protect them, then they deserve the wonga taking off them!

Gingers are tough though.

It's a good, strong stance by the RFL but that fine seems mighty steep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading between the lines, it appears the size of the fine (relatively high if you check through the RFL's track record, which I haven't) is due much more to the way the club inadequetely reacted to and dealt with the situation rather than the initial incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absoulutely ridiculous, what happened to freedom of speech, seriously what does Gareth Thomas expect if hes gonna come out publicly. disgracefully decision. im sure the punishment wouldnt have been as severe if it had been Wigan or Leeds fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does Gareth Thomas expect if hes gonna come out publicly.

I know, the big gay fool. How dare he want to go about his business without being abused by meatheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know, the big gay fool. How dare he want to go about his business without being abused by meatheads.

RL is a mans sport at the end of the day. Not for public schooled pansies like RU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RL is a mans sport at the end of the day. Not for public schooled pansies like RU.

I had no idea that Gareth Thomas was a Gentleman of private means. I had assumed he was a grubby professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sporting Life

"The club condemns any person who makes or chants obscene remarks towards players or officials. But the charges against the club are not that there was chanting, they are that the club failed to take its' best endeavours to prevent or stop any chanting.

"This the club refutes totally. The club has a well-established system for dealing with chanting and could not have done any more on the day."

Before the game on Sunday, Cas played the standard RFL tape/CD on abuse of players and officials but there was a constant chanted abuse of the referee throughout the game. Their only response was to play the tape again. I assume that this is their "well established system for dealing with chanting".

I know it happens elsewhere in response to individual incidents (including Bradford) but this was pretty incessant, particularly during the second half, and I can only wonder how much worse it might have been if Cas had lost the game.

I expect the usual suspects will suggest I should get a thicker skin and that it's just how people speak etc etc, but I should point out I'm not 'offended' by it at all, and can ignore any amount of foul mouthed chants (much as I would prefer not to) but it does show the club's earlier response to be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a club prevent chanting ?

I'm not defending the Cas fans or what they were chanting because there is clearly no place for that in a modern sport environment (or indeed any environment).

However, I fail to see how the club can prevent it happening. You can put up all the posters you like, play endless messages over the tannoy, write it in your programme but the bottom line is if some imbeciles decide to chant then there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

You can take action after or during the chanting against the offenders but you can not prevent it from happening in the first place, so to charge a club for failing to do so is nonsense. You may as well charge them with failing to prevent it raining. Both are impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the fine is over the top. And where do you draw the line between calling Homophobic chants and making fun of somebodies Natural hair colour, where they were born (Yorkshire, Lancashire, Australia etc)? Why is abusing officials seemingly OK and accepted by the RFL and certain players not? Just how far do Cas or any club go to stop a chant by a SMALL section of people before they do not get a fine? I cant see Cas being the only place Thomas got grief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before the game on Sunday, Cas played the standard RFL tape/CD on abuse of players and officials but there was a constant chanted abuse of the referee throughout the game. Their only response was to play the tape again. I assume that this is their "well established system for dealing with chanting".

I know it happens elsewhere in response to individual incidents (including Bradford) but this was pretty incessant, particularly during the second half, and I can only wonder how much worse it might have been if Cas had lost the game.

I expect the usual suspects will suggest I should get a thicker skin and that it's just how people speak etc etc, but I should point out I'm not 'offended' by it at all, and can ignore any amount of foul mouthed chants (much as I would prefer not to) but it does show the club's earlier response to be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Arrrrrr yes the little girl who says "please respect our match officials and players, any foul and abusive lanuage will not be tolerated"

They played it four times twice after Bradford tries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it always yawkshure clubs who have problems with their fans???, like i have always said civilised behaviour ends at saddleworth when travelling east on the m62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why is it always yawkshure clubs who have problems with their fans???, like i have always said civilised behaviour ends at saddleworth when travelling east on the m62.

One yorkshire club, of course nothing ever happens in the "land that time forgot" west of the Pennines does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can a club prevent chanting ?

I'm not defending the Cas fans or what they were chanting because there is clearly no place for that in a modern sport environment (or indeed any environment).

However, I fail to see how the club can prevent it happening. You can put up all the posters you like, play endless messages over the tannoy, write it in your programme but the bottom line is if some imbeciles decide to chant then there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

You can take action after or during the chanting against the offenders but you can not prevent it from happening in the first place, so to charge a club for failing to do so is nonsense. You may as well charge them with failing to prevent it raining. Both are impossible.

Did you read the article before typing? It's the club's inadequete response and efforts to stop the chanting that were punished.

"The tribunal was chaired by his Honour Judge Rodney Grant, who criticised the club for failing to take steps to stop the homophobic chanting, for failing to identify the perpetrators, for failing to challenge the chanting and for their failure to undertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards."

Your rain analogy is just absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can a club prevent chanting ?

I'm not defending the Cas fans or what they were chanting because there is clearly no place for that in a modern sport environment (or indeed any environment).

However, I fail to see how the club can prevent it happening. You can put up all the posters you like, play endless messages over the tannoy, write it in your programme but the bottom line is if some imbeciles decide to chant then there's nothing you can do to prevent it.

You can take action after or during the chanting against the offenders but you can not prevent it from happening in the first place, so to charge a club for failing to do so is nonsense. You may as well charge them with failing to prevent it raining. Both are impossible.

I certainly wouldn't have any particular argument with that, but if what you say is true, how can the club claim to have "a well established system for dealing with chanting"? They could, as a minimum, have told the stewards to take a more active stance, but I have to say there was no evidence of that on Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
absoulutely ridiculous, what happened to freedom of speech, seriously what does Gareth Thomas expect if hes gonna come out publicly. disgracefully decision. im sure the punishment wouldnt have been as severe if it had been Wigan or Leeds fans.

freedom of speech does not include shouting abusive remarks about someon who lives their life in a way you do not agree with.. wht about thomas' freedom to live his life (within the law) without prejudice and abuse? freedom of speech if allowed to go the lengths that we would when you hear "what about freedom of speech" shouted would be a misreable world for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
absoulutely ridiculous, what happened to freedom of speech, seriously what does Gareth Thomas expect if hes gonna come out publicly. disgracefully decision. im sure the punishment wouldnt have been as severe if it had been Wigan or Leeds fans.

Nonsense.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense.

Am i the only one that can see Thomas' presence is detracting from the tough image the game has developed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am i the only one that can see Thomas' presence is detracting from the tough image the game has developed?

One of the most outragous statements I have read on here in some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017