8 Games

[Derwent]

26 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

Yes I know that, but the 8 match ban for “unacceptable language” is not lenient in itself when taking into account established precedents. Some people are clamouring for it be more than that. Given that Hardaker got 5 games then I think it’s entirely consistent that Clubb got the minimum to be as close to that precedent as possible. If the minimum is harsh enough then why shouldn’t they apply it ? Surely consistency is what we want from the disciplinary ?

People seem to get hung up on this “minimum” concept.
So let me put it this way - had there been no stipulated minimum and the panel gave him 8 games would you think that was a fair punishment ? If so then the fact it is the minimum is irrelevant.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

Call me a virtue signaller, but I have never directed a racist slur at anyone, even at my very angriest. 

Now stop splitting hairs Browny I never singularly mentioned 'racist slurs' I made my post in direct response to your :-

"Should be ok as long as any comments are made in the heat of the moment"

I commented that I don't know anyone or would believe anyone if they told me that in moments of anger, stress, under the influence or whatever that they had said something/commented to someone that they later wished they had kept their gobs shut.

 

[Clogiron]

42 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.

 

Agree entirely with your points but would again ask does anyone think the game has come out of this looking good? As soon as the incident happened, it was a car crash, in the prevailing circumstances it couldn't have been worse if Clubb had bitten his ear off whilst wearing a Prince Phillip mask, the way it has been managed by all has been shocking, bringing the game into disrepute, which it has, should have been the charge levied and considered in the punishment. It will take a long time for the games reputation to recover from this as once again it provides the ammunition for it's detractors to fire at it.

[redjonn]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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.

maybe, but if he was proven homophobic or another person racist then the punishment would have to be much longer or permanent as in banned for good.  As many people were suggesting the persons are or were homophobic or racist then the QC/panel needed to say whether they thought the case was proven or not.

I don't see it as covering anything just answering what many voices were pressing for even if not what the specific charge is/was.

Anyway we are both assuming and so on a bit of a roundabout... 

[redjonn]

3 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

Agree entirely with your points but would again ask does anyone think the game has come out of this looking good? As soon as the incident happened, it was a car crash, in the prevailing circumstances it couldn't have been worse if Clubb had bitten his ear off whilst wearing a Prince Phillip mask, the way it has been managed by all has been shocking, bringing the game into disrepute, which it has, should have been the charge levied and considered in the punishment. It will take a long time for the games reputation to recover from this as once again it provides the ammunition for it's detractors to fire at it.

I personally think the situation has been handled better that what your comment suggests.  The person to whom the comment was made felt able to highlight to the ref (surely something that many would not feel comfortable doing and certainly would suggest that he would have the support of his colleagues, club and RFL administration given he immediately spoke up).   It was put on report, charges brought, investigated and punishment given very quickly and all transparently.

The only reputational damage for the sport as distinct than the individual would be around the punishment.  Whether severe enough or not, although seems reasonable to me.

The RFL and clubs now need to redouble efforts plus players in communicating to each other in educating each other.

  

[daz39]

Can imagine all the racists after this weekend's campaign thinking 'phew they didn't mean it and we can carry on'

 

Should have made an example of him for the sport, any sport and society in general after what this weekend was all about - i don't care about the factors, the player's 'character' etc he was found guilty of it and should have been made an example of so people can finally see and take the lead of the RFL in that it will not be tolerated in this society and hopefully do the same in their sports but no we gave him a slap on the wrist and sent him to bed witrh no supper cos he's always been a good boy before 

As Mr Morgan would say - YOU BOTTLE-LESS GETS!!!!

[redjonn]

2 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Can imagine all the racists after this weekend's campaign thinking 'phew they didn't mean it and we can carry on'

 

Should have made an example of him for the sport, any sport and society in general after what this weekend was all about - i don't care about the factors, the player's 'character' etc he was found guilty of it and should have been made an example of so people can finally see and take the lead of the RFL in that it will not be tolerated in this society and hopefully do the same in their sports but no we gave him a slap on the wrist and sent him to bed witrh no supper cos he's always been a good boy before 

As Mr Morgan would say - YOU BOTTLE-LESS GETS!!!!

It seems you object to the level of punishment... what do you suggest it should have been/should be.

[daz39]

6 minutes ago, redjonn said:

It seems you object to the level of punishment... what do you suggest it should have been/should be.

Something that would have made society look and think wow they are serious about tackling racism, we had a chance as a sport to send a positive message out regarding the whole discrimiation business and we chose not to !!!

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

Don't accuse me of wriggling Tommy, my argument has been simple, succinct and consistent throughout.

My reference to water off a duck's back, was in relation to my feelings, about being called Irish (as if that's a terrible thing to say about someone who comes from Ireland). I didn't say, Savelio ought not to be hurt by being called Polynesian, you imagined that's what I meant. 

So that comment doesn't sum up my ''position'' on this case at all. It is though quite revealing about your own judgemental processes.

You've ignored the points I have made (seemingly blinded by the unsubstantiated conclusions you habitually jump to, when you think you know you're right) and instead have created a fictitious ''stance'' and attributed it to me.

That is the nature of my complaint about your comments Tommy.

Now, I did say that being called a pikie would be more insulting (to me, because its a well known derogatory term, often used in reference to Irish people abroad) and I suspect that's how Mr Savelio, viewed Clubb's reference to him being Polynesian.

That's why I asked if Tony Clubb knew it was used as a pejorative term in Australia.

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, I don't know that's why I wondered about it.

I then wondered/speculated that if he did know, he might have chosen not to use it.

In an attempt to judge whether he's a racist or not, and the measure of his character, his prior knowledge is relevant in this instance.

I accept that the panel found him guilty (of something) and also that they concluded he's not a racist.

To answer you're last question, I've no clear idea, what was going through Tony Clubbs head at the time, you however, had concluded he is a racist even before the judgement was announced and spoke with an air of absolutely certainty (see paragraph 3 above).  

 

 

 

 

[Hela Wigmen]

In the statement, it appears that they were all for giving Clubb more than the minimum but downgraded it based on his record and his character references. How much their initial ban dropped by will be interesting. 

[redjonn]

25 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Something that would have made society look and think wow they are serious about tackling racism, we had a chance as a sport to send a positive message out regarding the whole discrimiation business and we chose not to !!!

what would that punishment be...

[JohnM]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

what would that punishment be...

[Davo5]

https://wiganwarriors.com/blog/2021/05/05/wigan-warriors-disciplinary-outcome-tony-clubb/?fbclid=IwAR0byCcOd1jiGYDNXfuYG14HYPOG8AM7S488TSuFm1H6HqOgSX37LFgL3Bc

[fighting irish]

I promised a couple of posters, I'd respond to them regarding totalitarianism but I'm sorry to say I can't find your original posts, asking for some kind of explanation. I'm not sure if John has deleted them? Anyway, if you'd care to contact me I'll give you some more detail about the nature of the comments. 

[daz39]

19 minutes ago, redjonn said:

what would that punishment be...

I've no idea as i am thinking about the bigger picture in the sport and society and not just the player involved.

Something to make the news and make others think that we're not scared as a sport to stand up for what we have been trying to get thorugh for the last 12 months, it's no good launching campaigns and kneeling/standing for 13 seconds and boycotting social media if we are just going to dish out the minimum punishment available when someone is caught doing it, it's double standards and at the moment seems to me that all the stuff we do is just for show.

[Eddie]

6 minutes ago, daz39 said:

I've no idea as i am thinking about the bigger picture in the sport and society and not just the player involved.

Something to make the news and make others think that we're not scared as a sport to stand up for what we have been trying to get thorugh for the last 12 months, it's no good launching campaigns and kneeling/standing for 13 seconds and boycotting social media if we are just going to dish out the minimum punishment available when someone is caught doing it, it's double standards and at the moment seems to me that all the stuff we do is just for show.

The minimum punishment doesn’t mean insufficient though does it? 

[Jim Prendle]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The minimum punishment doesn’t mean insufficient though does it? 

Beauty is the eye of the beholder!

Most people seem satisfied enough with an 8 match ban, and some people clearly won’t be happy until Clubb is dragged behind the East Stand and summarily shot.

he’s made a mistake, he will miss a huge chunk of the season, he has also been further sanctioned by the club, and will have to carry this self-inflicted stain on his character around for the rest of his life.

I think that is appropriate enough.

[Tommygilf]

31 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Don't accuse me of wriggling Tommy, my argument has been simple, succinct and consistent throughout.

My reference to water off a duck's back, was in relation to my feelings, about being called Irish (as if that's a terrible thing to say about someone who comes from Ireland). I didn't say, Savelio ought not to be hurt by being called Polynesian, you imagined that's what I meant. 

So that comment doesn't sum up my ''position'' on this case at all. It is though quite revealing about your own judgemental processes.

You've ignored the points I have made (seemingly blinded by the unsubstantiated conclusions you habitually jump to, when you think you know you're right) and instead have created a fictitious ''stance'' and attributed it to me.

That is the nature of my complaint about your comments Tommy.

Honestly then, what point have you made? Because all else I've seen is deflective points about the equivalence of being called a fat this or that, which if I'm honest don't really warrant the time of day as a debating position in 2021.

32 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Now, I did say that being called a pikie would be more insulting (to me, because its a well known derogatory term, often used in reference to Irish people abroad) and I suspect that's how Mr Savelio, viewed Clubb's reference to him being Polynesian.

That is a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the language. The term you just used for Travellers is an offensive one regardless of context.

By contrast, the word Polynesian is perfectly fine in the majority of daily discourse anywhere in the world to refer to the islands it describes or the ethno-linguistic group of cultures and peoples that live and descend from there. Indeed in Australia, it is actually one of the proper terms for those people/places, as opposed to the outright racist terms akin to the one you describe above.

I hope that removes the confusion for you.

39 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

That's why I asked if Tony Clubb knew it was used as a pejorative term in Australia.

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, I don't know that's why I wondered about it.

Its not a perjorative term in and of itself anywhere in the world, please move on from this. Only by using the words around it in an obviously derogatory manner did Clubb made it a perjorative.

42 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I accept that the panel found him guilty (of something) and also that they concluded he's not a racist.

Guilty of making a comment based on a players ethnicity or race. Cleared that up for you. Him not being judged to be generally a racist person (which is fine for me) doesn't lesson the racism of the comment.

43 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

To answer you're last question, I've no clear idea, what was going through Tony Clubbs head at the time, you however, had concluded he is a racist even before the judgement was announced and spoke with an air of absolutely certainty (see paragraph 3 above).  

I didn't conclude he is a racist at all, you've mixed up somewhere there. 

I stated on numerous occasions that I judged his comment to be a racist one - unequivocally - which is different from stating Mr Clubb is a racist, and was in fact a judgement vindicated by the judgement of the disciplinary tribunal. 

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The minimum punishment doesn’t mean insufficient though does it? 

Now we're talking about the sports PR really. 

It can be presented as "Racist comment against opponent results in 8 game/quarter season ban".

Or "Racist comment against opponent receives minimum punishment". 

From a purely PR perspective for the sport, a massively important aspect for a sport that already has a certain image and diversity problem, which should have been the way this was released? And which would suggest the sport is doing all it can on this issue most?

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

https://wiganwarriors.com/blog/2021/05/05/wigan-warriors-disciplinary-outcome-tony-clubb/?fbclid=IwAR0byCcOd1jiGYDNXfuYG14HYPOG8AM7S488TSuFm1H6HqOgSX37LFgL3Bc

A pretty good statement that answers plenty of questions in my opinion. I did think that the character statements were probably provided by Leuluai and Lam. If they are happy enough and comfortable enough to testify that Clubb is not racist then that is good enough for me.

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

https://wiganwarriors.com/blog/2021/05/05/wigan-warriors-disciplinary-outcome-tony-clubb/?fbclid=IwAR0byCcOd1jiGYDNXfuYG14HYPOG8AM7S488TSuFm1H6HqOgSX37LFgL3Bc

I'm pleased that they've made that statement and that they've both imposed further sanction and provided a positive outcome in terms of diversity awareness.

[Jim Prendle]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Now we're talking about the sports PR really. 

 

So you want him to be made an example of then?

[Tommygilf]

6 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

So you want him to be made an example of then?

Not got strong feelings on that tbh, but I would note that either course of action carries with it a PR responsibility.

[Davo5]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

A pretty good statement that answers plenty of questions in my opinion. I did think that the character statements were probably provided by Leuluai and Lam. If they are happy enough and comfortable enough to testify that Clubb is not racist then that is good enough for me.

I agree,but the fact Clubb hasn’t been publicly stoned in Wigan town centre will continue to rankle some.

[Exiled Wiganer]

30 minutes ago, daz39 said:

I've no idea as i am thinking about the bigger picture in the sport and society and not just the player involved.

Something to make the news and make others think that we're not scared as a sport to stand up for what we have been trying to get thorugh for the last 12 months, it's no good launching campaigns and kneeling/standing for 13 seconds and boycotting social media if we are just going to dish out the minimum punishment available when someone is caught doing it, it's double standards and at the moment seems to me that all the stuff we do is just for show.

I have been reflecting on this, and on balance I think I agree with you. Having initially thought that his character ought to be a factor in the sentence, I have changed my mind. The point is not “does a lot of good work for chariddy, doesn’t like to talk about it...”, the point should be looked at entirely from the recipient’s perspective - and, indeed, any other potential recipient. The RFL may have had felt its hands were tied by precedent, but I think that there should be a very long fixed tariff - say a 20 game ban. No messing, no “it’s a one off, he’s not sort of player”. People are responsible for what comes out of their mouths.