Jump to content

Tonka

Coach
  • Content Count

    1,466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

810 Excellent

About Tonka

  • Birthday 10/12/1978

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chester

Recent Profile Visitors

5,553 profile views
  1. Salford needs saving? Is it that time of the decade already!?
  2. Yes, under the Equality Act, "Race" is a "Protected Characteristic" i.e. you can't discriminate on grounds of "Race" and this is your definition of "Race", which covers the things at 9(1)(a) to (c). So "English ****" and "Polynesian ****" are as bad in law.
  3. From the Equality Act (2010): 9Race (1)Race includes— (a)colour; (b)nationality; (c)ethnic or national origins. So by law, a reference to nationality is as bad as ethnic origin, assuming you take Polynesian to be an ethnicity and not just a geographical descriptor. But either's as bad for legal purposes.
  4. It won't just be the character reference that led to the punishment. I wasn't there, but I expect that not having any previous and showing contrition may have gone a long way, as well as being convincing in saying he doesn't actually harbour racist views, which can be quite plausible even when someone's made a one-off (heat-of-the-moment?) racist comment.
  5. 8 games seems about right to me. I imagine it was a heat of the moment stupid thing to say, but that he doesn’t actually hold negative views about Polynesians or anyone else and that was accepted by the tribunal.
  6. Maybe I'm showing my age but I feel really uncomfortable watching an already morbidly obese guy stuff himself with an entire loaf filled with an English breakfast and a side of pancakes. And in fact half of it ends up untouched anyway. And he doesn't really do any jokes, other than the over-eating. He may be a lovely guy but - Leeds Rhinos gilet or not - I'm just not seeing an angle for the sport here.
  7. I'm actually happy with a policy that says pick the best on eligibility and form or an exclusionary one like Wane's suggesting. The only difference is that the latter's a policy aimed at long term development. There's certainly a history of Aussie players playing for Eng/GB for a handful of games, often when their Aussie chances have passed them by, which has a downside even if they give their all. But I don't per se object to exclusion. (Suspect he'll end up picking him anyway )
  8. Well it is "discriminatory", but so what? By which I mean, it's a policy decision to select and develop home grown talent. It's not founded in anything sinister like racism. With Hastings who - let's face it - is a born and bred Aussie albeit with an English grandparent - and wants to go back to Australia. I bet he'd jump at an Australia cap if he got the chance. I don't object to the discrimination here, all things considered.
  9. It doesn’t really matter if he’s 2nd or 3rd man in, everyone’s judged by the same criteria. Plus I’d want about 7 bloody tacklers before I tried stopping a Super League prop on the charge.
  10. It's a bit tangential this, but Farrell's achievements are something else really. 370 games for Wigan, over 3000 points, 45 GB/Eng caps, youngest ever GB captain, lord knows how many trophies at Wigan, 8 caps in union, coached Saracens, England, the Lions Munster, and Ireland in union. He's still only 45 and looks like he could turn out for a Championship club! I'm not arguing for him being anybody's best ever SL era player, but by any standards he's bloody prolific at the highest level. I barely saw him play a bad game for Wigan, although the Aussies got to him a few times at
  11. I've gone Farrell. Marginally above Cunningham, Sculthorpe, Burgess and Roby for me.
  12. It's actually worse than neutral because you go from having two just-missers from the semi-finals to one just-misser and one worse just-misser.
  13. As far as the game in its own right goes, I feel like changing the names is trying to solve a problem that isn't really there. In terms of distinguishing it from Union, name changes don't really achieve this on their own. The sad thing is Union and League are too close to peacefully coexist and too different to re-merge. The latter is the logical route, but like most fans I'd never want it because we'd end up with Union rules (although ironically Union would probably become more League-like over the next 100 years as a result). But I wouldn't bother tinkering with the positional n
×
×
  • Create New...