8 Games

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Clubb could have made a perfectly fine, if foul mouthed, insult using just 2 of the 3 words he chose to use. Instead he chose to also refer to his ethnicity.

Bob on. That's the stupid thing about it, and the John Terry case before in football.

"Heat of the moment" like the idiots in football crowds who do monkey noises I guess.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

My first post on this thread was on what grounds did he deserve more than the minimum sentence for this offence and I have yet to see a reasonable answer beyond it just being opinion. Its his first offence of this type, he has a good character and good disciplinary record. For any offence in any category this would be taken into account and very likely the person involved would get a minimum ban. I think we have to be careful not to get too carried away based on the facts that we know.

Yep, if the offence carries at 8 match ban, and he has an 8 match ban, then I am perfectly cool with that. There should maybe be a conversation on whether 8 matches is enough, but that should be done outside of Clubb's individual case. 

Where I do have an issue with this is the unnecessary judgement that explains that they do not think Clubb is racist. I think it is opinion, unnecessary, and shouldn't be part of the case. They should rule on the offence. The panel do have this tendency to downplay as much as possible, and I don't see the need to judge whether he is a racist or not - people can judge him on his actions/words. It feels like they are trying to protect the game, saying it was just a heat of the moment thing and he isn't racist, when I think the panel wording should have been far stronger to show the game doesn't accept this - even with the punishment then staying the same.

Still, I seem to remember Tommy Makinson getting a charge that carries an 8 match ban and only getting 5 matches, so I suppose this is progress.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Still, I seem to remember Tommy Makinson getting a charge that carries an 8 match ban and only getting 5 matches, so I suppose this is progress.

I vaguely remember some examples from the earlier days of the lettering system where someone would be up for a minimum of X and then get X-2 because they downgraded the letter ... but the offence they'd been found guilty of wasn't included in that letter.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Bob on. That's the stupid thing about it, and the John Terry case before in football.

"Heat of the moment" like the idiots in football crowds who do monkey noises I guess.

Exactly, I really don't see what is difficult to understand about that point.

[John Drake]

Several posts removed.

A reminder (and everyone posting in this thread has been on TRL long enough to know these rules off by heart anyway, but here we go for the millionth time)...

If you want to make a political point, do it in the politics sub forum, not in this thread or any other thread in the RL section.

Do not try to bypass our swear filter by using variations of spellings on words that you know full well are not appropriate to be used on TRL at all. If in any doubt, then don't use the word. Asterisks will suffice. 

Thank you.

[fighting irish]

25 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Saying I'm wriggling is ridiculous given your stance on this thread.

I'm saying Polynesian is a widely accepted Ethno-linguistic group - there are many others - that is to say Andre Savelio is of Polynesian ethnicity and this was raised as part of Clubb's comments to him. As part of that description the most initially obvious aspects are associated physical features, including skin colour, which would make him calling someone not Polynesian (or ethnically similar), unlikely at best. That is generally how racially targeted abuse works.

I don't find anglo-saxon perjorative, polynesian isn't perjorative either. It can be used in a perjorative sense, however, and in the case of the latter was clearly used that way here.

Would you hazard a guess at what my ''stance on this thread'' is? 

Sum it up?

I've made a small number of very specific points, all of which are valid.

Your conclusions about what Clubb intended are mere speculation.

You don't know if his use of the term Polynesian was a pointed remark about his skin colour, you're just imagining that's what its about ''because that's what racists do''.

He (Clubb) might well have used the term in a pejorative sense. Whether he did, or not wasn't my point.  

[Kayakman]

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments i have ever seen and I tire of it...there is only one race; the human race....we are all the same species.

It literally is as simple as that.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Would you hazard a guess at what my ''stance on this thread'' is? 

Sum it up?

I've made a small number of very specific points, all of which are valid.

Your conclusions about what Clubb intended are mere speculation.

You don't know if his use of the term Polynesian was a pointed remark about his skin colour, you're just imagining that's what its about ''because that's what racists do''.

He (Clubb) might well have used the term in a pejorative sense. Whether he did, or not wasn't my point.  

You stated it earlier; water off a ducks back, don't see the problem, get over it.

They are now speculation backed up by a disciplinary tribunal, which makes them not speculations any more - not that they were speculations in the first place but I'll use your terminology. I am imagining nothing.

I am deeply interested to know what exactly you think Mr Clubb was intending or referencing by including "polynesian" in his insult? As you are currently performing some massive mental gymnastics to avoid accepting it was because of Savelio's polynesian racial profile.

[redjonn]

14 hours ago, Chris22 said:

Racism is a big societal issue at present. For these reasons, other sports will watch incidents such as this and it will be seen as lenient. I'll look at the full reasons for the judgement, but if 'heat of the moment' is being used as justification for a minimum recommended suspension, this is very bad.

To save clogging up the whole thread with my thoughts, I'll just link to a blog I've just posted on the subject, for those interested.

 

It wasn't just the heat of the moment context, it was also consideration for his previous "good character" with regard to racial behaviour...

We can agree or not with regard to his punishment but lets be a little more accurate or note the specifics as to why a QC has taken the decision... that is a QC whom I would assume has vast experience in deciding appropriate punishments and able to ignore whatever pressure or hysteria from a public gallery. 

[Dave T]

None of these mental gymnastics really matter. 

Accepting that Clubb did this - based on being found guilty. 

He used a slur that included a reference to race/nationality/ethnicity, and the person on the receiving end was hurt and offended. It doesn't really matter whether anybody else doesn't think it is a big issue. You can't do it, he got banned.

 

[redjonn]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep, if the offence carries at 8 match ban, and he has an 8 match ban, then I am perfectly cool with that. There should maybe be a conversation on whether 8 matches is enough, but that should be done outside of Clubb's individual case. 

Where I do have an issue with this is the unnecessary judgement that explains that they do not think Clubb is racist. I think it is opinion, unnecessary, and shouldn't be part of the case. They should rule on the offence. The panel do have this tendency to downplay as much as possible, and I don't see the need to judge whether he is a racist or not - people can judge him on his actions/words. It feels like they are trying to protect the game, saying it was just a heat of the moment thing and he isn't racist, when I think the panel wording should have been far stronger to show the game doesn't accept this - even with the punishment then staying the same.

Still, I seem to remember Tommy Makinson getting a charge that carries an 8 match ban and only getting 5 matches, so I suppose this is progress.

With regard to your 2nd paragraph

yes it is an opinion, or one would suggest an informed opinion based upon 3rd party. and by a QC I assume well versed in this context.

I would note that CPS guidance for criminal or civil punishment for racial or hate crime advise to take account of previous behaviour and character that may indicate racial or not leaning with regard to appropriate punishment.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

None of these mental gymnastics really matter. 

Accepting that Clubb did this - based on being found guilty. 

He used a slur that included a reference to race/nationality/ethnicity, and the person on the receiving end was hurt and offended. It doesn't really matter whether anybody else doesn't think it is a big issue. You can't do it, he got banned.

 

Quite correct.

[Dave T]

Just now, redjonn said:

With regard to your 2nd paragraph

yes it is an opinion, or one would suggest an informed opinion based upon 3rd party. and by a QC I assume well versed in this context.

I would note that CPS guidance for criminal or civil punishment for racial or hate crime advise to take account of previous behaviour and character that may indicate racial or not leaning with regard to appropriate punishment.

It isn't really needed though in the context of an RFL disciplinary. Taking into account previous behaviour is fine (although a bit of an easy mitigant), but these press releases don't normally go to the lengths of defending the offender - I'm not sure why it is relevant here. The QC wasn't tasked with judging whether Clubb is a racist or not. 

It is to downplay racism in the sport, which I don't find particularly helpful. We should face into these unsavoury offences.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

None of these mental gymnastics really matter. 

Accepting that Clubb did this - based on being found guilty. 

He used a slur that included a reference to race/nationality/ethnicity, and the person on the receiving end was hurt and offended. It doesn't really matter whether anybody else doesn't think it is a big issue. You can't do it, he got banned.

 

Indeed, I'm also expecting all the fans who were asking angrily and repeatedly "where's the evidence?!" and stating they wanted him "out of the club if found guilty" will now remain consistent in that stance...

[Robin Evans]

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

We have so much in common RP that I'm reluctant to cause you any offense but I simply disagree.

Whatever the intention of the abuser, I'm not insulted by being called Irish.

The fact that I'm being called Fat is hurtful (I'm on a diet), a ****, irksome (although I've been called it a lot) but Irish?

That's water of a duck's back. 

 

[Robin Evans]

Well.... ive just read through the last few pages of Hand wringing and 'intellectual' jousting.

Thank the diety of choice that John deleted some of the posts so I didn't have to read those n'all. 

Clubb made a serious error. He's been punished in the correct manner by the correct process. No amount of Hand wringing will change the outcome either way. It won't stop the fight against racism.

 

[redjonn]

Just now, Dave T said:

It isn't really needed though in the context of an RFL disciplinary. Taking into account previous behaviour is fine (although a bit of an easy mitigant), but these press releases don't normally go to the lengths of defending the offender - I'm not sure why it is relevant here. The QC wasn't tasked with judging whether Clubb is a racist or not. 

It is to downplay racism in the sport, which I don't find particularly helpful. We should face into these unsavoury offences.

Not sure I agree in why he gave the explanation in the press release. I think he gave what could be described as the extra information was because of the high level of interest and pressure from public comment to severely punish the offender... as referenced as example by some comments on this forum.  

In other words he was justifying why he came to the conclusion for the level of punishment given the pressures from many of the public.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, I'm also expecting all the fans who were asking angrily and repeatedly "where's the evidence?!" and stating they wanted him "out of the club if found guilty" will now remain consistent in that stance...

To be moderately fair, I'm seeing a fair few reasonably hardcore Wigan fans who are upset at the lightness of suspension now that he has been found guilty.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Robin Evans said:

It won't stop the fight against racism.

 

We can certainly agree that it fits entirely with the effort the RFL have shown in that regard and will no doubt show again in the future.

[Tommygilf]

Just now, gingerjon said:

To be moderately fair, I'm seeing a fair few reasonably hardcore Wigan fans who are upset at the lightness of suspension now that he has been found guilty.

I agree, though they were equally not the one's demanding "proof".

[Derwent]

In the context of Hardaker's 5 match ban for homophobic comments on the pitch then Clubb's 8 match ban doesn't appear to be lenient at all. But context always goes out of the window with some people in these situations.

[Rupert Prince]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

It is interesting to see his employer give him a character reference, suggesting they will stand by him. 

I wonder how many jobs would see an employer actively defend an employee when they made a racist slur. 

The employer includes several ethnic players and the coach.

He is not racist....  The judgement says that he was not racist, the ban was minimum and the fine reduced and the judgement says there were mitigating circumstances.

He is not racist and people should stop saying he is. He used "unacceptable language" in the "heat of the moment".  This is quite different from regular deliberate baiting an opponent or "sledging".

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, Derwent said:

In the context of Hardaker's 5 match ban for homophobic comments on the pitch then Clubb's 8 match ban doesn't appear to be lenient at all. But context always goes out of the window with some people in these situations.

It's the minimum suspension. They literally couldn't find him guilty and then give a shorter sentence.

[EagleEyePie]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

Hardaker has never been accused of racist abuse. Courts take into account past offences and much of the disciplinary process as been modelled the way it is after legal advice. It seems bizarre that the RFL wouldn't take into account past disciplinary history. You seem to want the entire process changing for one particular charge.

The charge brought against Hardaker would fall into the same category as unacceptable language/abuse based on a protected characteristic so it would be relevant if Clubb had something similar on his record.

The disciplinary takes into account past offences but also decides whether it is relevant. It's not like the NRL points based system and players who have received bans for high tackles can receive lenient punishments for offences like dangerous contact.

In this instance punishment for careless or reckless acts is of no relevance to the charge of racially motivated abuse and the absence of any previous is not mitigation. If he was charged with a Grade B high tackle having a good record and no prior bans for the same offence is mitigation because there's a reasonable expectation that over the course of a season a player would commit some form of foul play. There is no reasonable expectation that over the course of a season a player would engage in some form of racist abuse, so a clean record for such an offence is not significant mitigation.

It would not be changing the entire process. It would be using common sense.

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Not sure I agree in why he gave the explanation in the press release. I think he gave what could be described as the extra information was because of the high level of interest and pressure from public comment to severely punish the offender... as referenced as example by some comments on this forum.  

In other words he was justifying why he came to the conclusion for the level of punishment given the pressures from many of the public.

The Hardaker example has been brought up - interestingly, in that finding 7 years ago the panel also said they believe that Hardaker is not homophobic.

I absolutely think it is a bit of the game covering its own ass.