8 Games

[EagleEyePie]

You do have to wonder what a player has to say in order to receive more than the minimum amount. I mean it's very unlikely that any player has any previous similar offences on their record so does everyone get the minimum suspension for not saying something racist? Or is it based on prior disciplinary record? In which case why would committing two high tackles in the previous year mean someone gets a bigger suspension for racist abuse? Or is it because he got good character references from team mates? Pretty much any player can get good character references from their team mates. It just seems like they need to revise 8 games as the minimum and just deem it the standard suspension because it seems unlikely anyone can get suspended for longer for such an offence.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The whole point of a grading system is to categorise offences and punishments. There is no reason for this not to be the minimum for that grade based on Clubbs record. He is missing a quarter of a season which isn't an insignificant punishment. 

Indeed I think the response to this will be determined by phrasing and it seems to have been gotten quite badly wrong imo.

As you and others have said, 8 games, or a quarter of a season, sounds like a significant punishment. The minimum punishment possible however doesn't sound as impactful.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, EagleEyePie said:

You do have to wonder what a player has to say in order to receive more than the minimum amount. I mean it's very unlikely that any player has any previous similar offences on their record so does everyone get the minimum suspension for not saying something racist? Or is it based on prior disciplinary record? In which case why would committing two high tackles in the previous year mean someone gets a bigger suspension for racist abuse? Or is it because he got good character references from team mates? Pretty much any player can get good character references from their team mates. It just seems like they need to revise 8 games as the minimum and just deem it the standard suspension because it seems unlikely anyone can get suspended for longer for such an offence.

Very well put.

[Old Frightful]

25 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Are we going to have a separate thread for every stage of this?

If the others keep getting locked because people can't help themselves when posting then I guess so.

[lucky 7]

41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Depends on your perspective - 8 games is a lot undoubtedly, but it was also the minimum for the charge laid out.

Lets no forget the £500 fine as well. Possibly the fine should have been more

[Tommygilf]

Just now, lucky 7 said:

Lets no forget the £500 fine as well. Possibly the fine should have been more

Indeed, the minimum there too I believe...

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, the minimum there too I believe...

I think individual player fines are fixed now depending on the division you play in

[EagleEyePie]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, the minimum there too I believe...

I don't think fines should be variable. A player like Sam Tomkins would probably be less affected by a £1,000 fine compared to say, Lee Kershaw. The fines should only be to cover certain costs rather than being considered part of the punishment.

[Exiled Wiganer]

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think the minimum tariff aspect, and as of yet no public apology or acceptance of wrongdoing, will jar many people.

“As yet”. They have to get back across the Pennines. People are easily jarred. You can even read the judgement in due course.

If, say, and I don’t know this, Clubb was able to call character witnesses and point to, for example, cross community charitable or civic actions, then that would be pertinent to his character. Which, in many cases, is a factor which would be taken into account in sentencing him. There comes a point at which a statement of this kind could be seen as a one off appalling aberration I suppose.

I have no strong feelings either way, they could have suspended him for the season and I wouldn’t have thought it wrong. I generally trust the disciplinary to do its job fairly and objectively. 

[JohnM]

I'd go with the opinion and judgement of His Honour Judge Guy Kearl QC. I think he is more qualified, experienced and capable, with a proven track record than some posters.  I think also that the RFL have acted with speed and resolve in taking this seriously, not shying away from the issue. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'd go with the opinion and judgement of His Honour Judge Guy Kearl QC. I think he is more qualified, experienced and capable, with a proven track record than some posters.  I think also that the RFL have acted with speed and resolve in taking this seriously, not shying away from the issue. 

So we should cease passing opinions on RL subjects and just agree with our learned colleagues. If only society was based on morals like that, thank god they aren't. 

[Damien]

For context the longest ban for racism in English football is also 8 games. As a proportion of the season that is a fair bit less than 8 games in Rugby League. I don't think the punishment given to Clubb compares badly.

[EagleEyePie]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I'd go with the opinion and judgement of His Honour Judge Guy Kearl QC. I think he is more qualified, experienced and capable, with a proven track record than some posters.  I think also that the RFL have acted with speed and resolve in taking this seriously, not shying away from the issue. 

It's a valid point, but I'd argue Judge Kearl QC can only make these judgements based on the guidelines set by the RFL. It doesn't appear that the RFL have changed their grading of such offences, and with a precedent already set (Justin Carney) and leniency allowed for a good disciplinary record it may be that this was the only likely outcome. I think the question should be asked as to whether the guidelines the RFL put in place are sufficient. The judge can only operate within the RFL's guidelines after all. Is 8 games really sufficient for such offences? Should a good disciplinary record based on physical offences really be mitigation for racial abuse? Should character references really carry such weight in a sport where being active in supporting the community is pretty much mandatory?

[Impartial Observer]

Not sure how the RFL have bottled it as an independent panel probably of two ex players lead by a high court judge made the judgement

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

So we should cease passing opinions on RL subjects and just agree with our learned colleagues. If only society was based on morals like that, thank god they aren't. 

I've just re read my post. I can't find anywhere that says people should not comment.  

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

For context the longest ban for racism in English football is also 8 games. As a proportion of the season that is a fair bit less than 8 games in Rugby League. I don't think the punishment given to Clubb compares badly.

Apart from the bloke from Slavia Prague who got ten games last month for racially abusing a Rangers player. 

[Damien]

Just now, Hela Wigmen said:

Apart from the bloke from Slavia Prague who got ten games last month for racially abusing a Rangers player. 

What part of English football was so difficult to understand? 

[DEANO]

Had this happened in the street I’m sure the police would have been involved 

[Hela Wigmen]

Just now, Damien said:

What part of English football was so difficult to understand? 

Why are we using selective stats to try and justify the suspension of Clubb? Bit strange, that. 

[JohnM]

9 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

It's a valid point, but I'd argue Judge Kearl QC can only make these judgements based on the guidelines set by the RFL. It doesn't appear that the RFL have changed their grading of such offences, and with a precedent already set (Justin Carney) and leniency allowed for a good disciplinary record it may be that this was the only likely outcome. I think the question should be asked as to whether the guidelines the RFL put in place are sufficient. The judge can only operate within the RFL's guidelines after all. Is 8 games really sufficient for such offences? Should a good disciplinary record based on physical offences really be mitigation for racial abuse? Should character references really carry such weight in a sport where being active in supporting the community is pretty much mandatory?

Re the guidelines. That's a valid point. I think (and I'd expect) that the guidelines are based on input from expert opinion in the area, otherwise they'd perhaps be challenged. 

[Hela Wigmen]

Seems a lot of the RL journalists aren’t best pleased either. A lot of comparisons to George Flanagan’s ten games for knacker grabbing, which I don’t necessarily agree with. 

[LeeF]

53 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Two aspects, 1 its an old minimum so is possibly outdated, and 2 its a case bringing the sport into disrepute - a point noted.

A third angle could be that as far as I'm aware no public or private apology has been made to Savelio either.

The QC suggests Clubb's previous record and character testimonies have lead him to reduce the severity of the punishment, which does indicate he considered a lengthier ban.

The tariffs etc were reviewed & revised about 3-4 seasons ago so not old nor outdated. 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Why are we using selective stats to try and justify the suspension of Clubb? Bit strange, that. 

Not as strange as failing to comprehend posts that you reply to.

I'm also not, comparing with other UK governing bodies isnt strange, its quite normal. Otherwise we could start spouting selective examples from all over the world. I'll leave that to you.

[Impartial Observer]

5 minutes ago, DEANO said:

Had this happened in the street I’m sure the police would have been involved 

If you went and tackled someone around the legs in the street and two mates helped push the person to the ground I'm sure the police would be involved also

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Not as strange as failing to comprehend posts that you reply to.

I'm also not, comparing with other UK governing bodies isnt strange, its quite normal. Otherwise we could start spouting selective examples from all over the world. I'll leave that to you.

Aye, let’s compare to an aged ban, when there’s been a high profile case less than a month ago. You’ve used selective examples. It was an unnecessary comparison because the sports and their disciplinary processes are completely different.