Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Grade F : Unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/58008/disciplinary--match-review-panel

                                    "It started out in innocence, the way that most things do,
                                     a thousand people crammed in one place, but the only face was you"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The easiest way not be called racist is not to say racist things

The worst punishment for a Wigan player is Sine Pie.

If found guilty he'd better be ready for the worst.   I don't for one minute think he's some sort of right-wing nut job, but we've got no choice but to make an example.   Hopefully he's been in touch with Savelio who will report back that he's accepted his apology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eight was the ban for Carney, what seems quite a few years ago now. I have nothing to base it off of course because these cases are few and far between but you’ve got to look at double digits as a minimum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More brilliant publicity for the sport,then.

Not content with squirrel grips,the elite players in Super League, dependent on money from the Sky broadcaster,who are just a bit big on 'Taking The Knee' - and the anti-racism stance,now gain even more bad publicity.

I am just amazed parents aren't ensuring their children boost the participation numbers,and families aren't queuing around the block to attend rugby league games.

Right now, at a time some soccer fans may be slightly disillusioned with their sport.

Rugby League never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

  • Like 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grade F is 8+ matches. I’m not aware there’s a top limit but given there’s a precedence of 8 matches for Carney, the tribunal might find it difficult to justify more than that 

* if assumed guilty

Edited by DoubleD
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

More brilliant publicity for the sport,then.

Not content with squirrel grips,the elite players in Super League, dependent on money from the Sky broadcaster,who are just a bit big on 'Taking The Knee' - and the anti-racism stance,now gain even more bad publicity.

I am just amazed parents aren't ensuring their children boost the participation numbers,and families aren't queuing around the block to attend rugby league games.

Right now, at a time some soccer fans may be slightly disillusioned with their sport.

Rugby League never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

I think the "bringing the sport into disrepute angle" is one that aught to be explored

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Grade F : Unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/58008/disciplinary--match-review-panel

In the absence of any visual or audio evidence from the broadcasters, it is presumably going to come down to whether any other player on the pitch heard it, and then the extent to which they are prepared to testify as to what they heard/saw.

In the absence of that evidence, one man's word against another would mean that one party would be particularly miffed at the outcome, whichever way it went.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Northern Eel said:

In the absence of that evidence, one man's word against another would mean that one party would be particularly miffed at the outcome, whichever way it went.

Yes.

I think it would take a brave adjudicator to throw it out though 😬 ... Does Clubb have anything controversial on his record already?   That may influence it.

Edited by Cheshire Setter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

If found guilty he'd better be ready for the worst.   I don't for one minute think he's some sort of right-wing nut job, but we've got no choice but to make an example.   Hopefully he's been in touch with Savelio who will report back that he's accepted his apology.

It might have just been a stupid throw away comment. Even so, it’s unacceptable and I think the RFL will have to make an example with him especially after this weekend with the social media blackout 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Yes.

I think it would take a brave adjudicator to throw it out though 😬 ... Does Clubb have anything controversial on his record already?   That may influence it.

As I understand it, in a court of law, previous offences are not taken into account when deciding innocence or guilt.  However, they are or can be, I think, taken into account when determining sentence, as are mitigating factors such as remorse, guilty pleas etc.  

Given it seems to be Unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin, then players need to careful addressing each other by their nationalities. 

Maybe the best thing to do is build a wicker man,  entice Chubb inside ...etc etc...

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnM said:

As I understand it, in a court of law, previous offences are not taken into account when deciding innocence or guilt.  However, they are or can be, I think, taken into account when determining sentence, as are mitigating factors such as remorse, guilty pleas etc.  

Given it seems to be Unacceptable language based on national or ethnic origin, then players need to careful addressing each other by their nationalities. 

Maybe the best thing to do is build a wicker man,  entice Chubb inside ...etc etc...

Previous similar offences can certainly be taken into account in a court of law to show if someone would be predisposed to carry out an offence. In a one person's word against another type of case it can certainly make a difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Damien said:

Previous similar offences can certainly be taken into account in a court of law to show if someone would be predisposed to carry out an offence. In a one person's word against another type of case it can certainly make a difference. 

Thanks. Appreciated. I didn't know that. (just one of the myriad things I don't know) https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/disclosure-previous-convictions-court-proceedings/

Edited by JohnM

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Various posts removed.

If this thread goes the same way as the last one, it'll end up locked as well.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be keen to know how he has been charged.

In a legal sense, the prosecution determine if there is enough evidence to charge a citizen of a crime.

Does that mean in this instance there is enough evidence (more than the word of one person other than a referee) that he has been charged and needs to defend himself?

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Clubb is found to have made that comment he will probably get a severe punishment and deservedly so, but remember we've all heard people make racist comments and it probably wasn't the first time it was made on the playing field by other players 

Edited by fieldofclothofgold

 Soon we will be dancing the fandango
FROM 2004,TO DO WHAT THIS CLUB HAS DONE,IF THATS NOT GREATNESSTHEN i DONT KNOW WHAT IS.

JAMIE PEACOCK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sports Prophet said:

I would be keen to know how he has been charged.

In a legal sense, the prosecution determine if there is enough evidence to charge a player.

Does that mean in this instance there is enough evidence (more than the word of one person other than a referee) that he has been charged and needs to defend himself?

It is a good point. I agree you'd expect for a charge to be passed then the prosecution would be at least quietly confident they had enough evidence. However I'm not sure whether the RFL disciplinary works like that so maybe the hold out for "not enough evidence" is still a viable, if cynical, strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

It is a good point. I agree you'd expect for a charge to be passed then the prosecution would be at least quietly confident they had enough evidence. However I'm not sure whether the RFL disciplinary works like that so maybe the hold out for "not enough evidence" is still a viable, if cynical, strategy.

Yeah, not sure what he is accused of saying and whether something was misheard or not.

You would think some suitable evidence is held in order to avoid an embarrassing “he said, no I didn’t and no-one else heard me” situation that could only draw a not guilty result and potentially play out terribly in the media.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Northern Eel said:

In the absence of any visual or audio evidence from the broadcasters, it is presumably going to come down to whether any other player on the pitch heard it, and then the extent to which they are prepared to testify as to what they heard/saw.

In the absence of that evidence, one man's word against another would mean that one party would be particularly miffed at the outcome, whichever way it went.

Surely other players close by will of heard and it won’t be 1 person’s word against another. I’d of thought they’d be asked for confidential  statements or something like that.

Edited by Sir Kevin Sinfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...