Disciplinary Panel

[Desert Skipper]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

You were arguing that the limbic system takes over and players can't control themselves as a defence. That is, frankly, ludicrous in this scenario.

Don’t take my word for it then, google Professor Steve Peters. 

He’ll explain why some people might get a bit of road rage and mouth obscenities whilst being cut up by another driver, but be completely different when challenged over a work issue in an office environment.

 

[Griff]

54 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

One poster I think, way back at the start of the thread.

FWIW, my youngest is autistic. If someone came up and targeted them with a derogatory term, I think I’d be justified in wanting some sort of serious action against  them.

If I saw a RL player (who is known for doing a lot of good stuff off the field) use the s-word in a heated argument, I’d probably be a bit p**ed off that he lost his cool and used it, but I’m smart enough to know that it’s a totally separate issue from targeted abuse, and I wouldn’t expect the same punishment. If anything I’d probably ask him to publicly apologise and donate a chunk of his hard earned match pay to an applicable charity.

But you know what, I’d be more hurt by people accusing me of condoning such a term, than I am by McGuire using the s-word in an on-field spat.

But hey, that’s just me. 

Plenty of posts on here supporting him in some way, ranging from the ban's too much to he shouldn't be banned at all.

I won't be naming these posters nor will I be posting on this thread again.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Don’t take my word for it then, google Professor Steve Peters. 

He’ll explain why some people might get a bit of road rage and mouth obscenities whilst being cut up by another driver, but be completely different when challenged over a work issue in an office environment.

 

Cos they can get away with it and think its acceptable (or not) in their current situation. 

That isn't revolutionary. It is literally how people have always acted differently in different scenarios.

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Desert Skipper said:

Nope, we’re not. 

The point I picked up on was not the valid one of - ok, it’s wrong, but what is the appropriate punishment. It’s that you characterised people calling it out as PC. That suggests to that, actually, you just don’t get it. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Exiled Wiganer

[Desert Skipper]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On this specific bit, I think that's fair. The grade for this is F, which can award a far more serious punishment than the stating level. 

I'd expect an instance like the above to be treated even more seriously. 

Well maybe it’s my fault for not making it clear enough, but my whole argument is whether the use of this term in this context, can be a punishment of minimum 8 matches, when a different player gets 5 for squeezing someone’s penis. Maybe 8 matches is indeed the going rate, just not compared to the grades of (in my opinion only) worse offences such as targeted abuse, ‘fiddling’ and targeted violence.

[Dave T]

Just now, Desert Skipper said:

Well maybe it’s my fault for not making it clear enough, but my whole argument is whether the use of this term in this context, can be a punishment of minimum 8 matches, when a different player gets 5 for squeezing someone’s penis. Maybe 8 matches is indeed the going rate, just not compared to the grades of (in my opinion only) worse offences such as targeted abuse, ‘fiddling’ and targeted violence.

I think had your point simply been that you think this incident should be around 4 games and physical foul play more it wouldn't have been so heated. 

Once your point starts being that nobody said anything about sexual assault (untrue), saying that people are virtue signalling for likes, and trying to mitigate through psychology then it's no surprise you got strong disagreement. 

[Desert Skipper]

1 minute ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

The point I picked up on was not the valid one of - ok, it’s wrong, but what is the appropriate punishment. It’s that you characterised people calling it out as PC. That suggests to that, actually, you just don’t get it. 

Well then that’s my misunderstanding of what PC means. I understand it to mean that these days it’s not acceptable to use such a term that was once commonplace. Can you honestly say that there are some terms today considered unacceptable, that you didn’t use when you were younger? I’m not talking racism, just terms that were wrongly used as non-targeted insults (such as mo*on etc) that we now accept can be hurtful to those afflicted.

That’s what I mean by non-PC. Maybe PC has somehow evolved to become a term banded about by the right-wing who don’t agree with the left. But I don’t read the Daily Mail so I wouldn’t know.

[Desert Skipper]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

saying that people are virtue signalling for likes, and trying to mitigate through psychology then it's no surprise you got strong disagreement. 

I’m afraid I’m sticking with that. But we all have our own opinions.

[JohnM]

2 hours ago, Griff said:

Not so long ago since there were posts on this forum, congratulating clubs who had set up LDRL and PDRL teams.

Now we're condoning players who use offensive and derogatory terms.  Maybe they are school yard insults - so treat them like schoolkids.  It's not good enough and they know it.

Now we're condoning players who use offensive and derogatory terms.

Who is condoning what, exactly?

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

I’m afraid I’m sticking with that. But we all have our own opinions.

It's a terrible take. Suggesting that others are giving a view simply for likes, but yours is genuine. 

[Dunbar]

Is there any cultural context we need to be aware of here, is the word in question seen and perceived the same in both Australia and over here?

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Is there any cultural context we need to be aware of here, is the word in question seen and perceived the same in both Australia and over here?

Bit woke to be asking for cultural understanding, mate.

(Mind you, I can remember, on here, Australian posters telling us that there was absolutely nothing wrong with calling someone from Pakistan a …)

[Tippytoe]

1 hour ago, Desert Skipper said:

Well maybe it’s my fault for not making it clear enough, but my whole argument is whether the use of this term in this context, can be a punishment of minimum 8 matches, when a different player gets 5 for squeezing someone’s penis. Maybe 8 matches is indeed the going rate, just not compared to the grades of (in my opinion only) worse offences such as targeted abuse, ‘fiddling’ and targeted violence.

What about 'banjoing'

[Exiled Wiganer]

1 hour ago, Desert Skipper said:

Well then that’s my misunderstanding of what PC means. I understand it to mean that these days it’s not acceptable to use such a term that was once commonplace. Can you honestly say that there are some terms today considered unacceptable, that you didn’t use when you were younger? I’m not talking racism, just terms that were wrongly used as non-targeted insults (such as mo*on etc) that we now accept can be hurtful to those afflicted.

That’s what I mean by non-PC. Maybe PC has somehow evolved to become a term banded about by the right-wing who don’t agree with the left. But I don’t read the Daily Mail so I wouldn’t know.

You didn’t need to use the term at all. This is just plain wrong. There are laws around this. We as a society have - in my view correctly - chosen not to accept this sort of language. “PC” suggests that this is someone’s opinion. Indeed, you confirm the point I was making. Assault isn’t a PC/non PC/woke or any other word you can conjure up issue. Assault - and that includes verbal assault, particularly one which targets a particular group in a viciously derogatory manner - is an offence.

This is not a matter of opinion, political leaning or liberal perspective, any more than a physical assault. That’s the path the UK has chosen. And, as someone who believes that everyone, regardless of any personal characteristic, deserves the chance to live their best life without being abused, we are all the better for it. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Exiled Wiganer

[glossop saint]

What was said is most definitely wrong. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. There are no excuses, however there may be reasons, which need to be addressed. It is not acceptable in our society and it needs to be shown that it has no part in the sport.

I'm sure that the vast majority have used offence language in the past, I know I have, but I was wrong then and have matured and see how offence it can be to people. Not necessarily those who it was directed at but still offensive. I wouldn't dream about using such language now. Honestly I look back and feel shame about that. I wonder if Maguire (or Hardaker or Carney or whoever) does the same. And if they do, do they do so with the feeling that they will never do it again. This to me is probably the most important thing that should happen with any punishment. There should be a match ban, though I am not sure if that is the most appropriate way of dealing with it. I think there should be some 're-education' involved. I think it was Elbow who suggested a shorter ban, a hefty fine (I'd prefer to see a % of wage instead of a figure) and a number of hours spent in the community, ideally with charities working in a relevant sector. Any second offence of a similar ilk should see the full ban in place. I'm not sure that 8 matches sat on the sideline will be enough to change the reaction of a person in a similar situation again, and if it was it would likely be to avoid punishment not because they now think it is wrong.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Is there any cultural context we need to be aware of here, is the word in question seen and perceived the same in both Australia and over here?

Only thing I can think of is Australia is 40 years behind the rest of the civilised world

[RigbyLuger]

8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Only thing I can think of is Australia is 40 years behind the rest of the civilised world

The Footy Show certainly gave that impression!

[JohnM]

29 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Only thing I can think of is Australia is 40 years behind the rest of the civilised world

Sounds attractive if the place is free from woke ######. Cue a queue at Australia house for long-stay visas.

Edited February 13, 2023 by JohnM

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Sounds attractive if the place is free from woke ######. Cue a queue at Australia house for long-stay visas.

That seems an odd post in a thread that is all about a player allegedly calling someone a sp**tic. 

[JohnM]

10 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

You didn’t need to use the term at all. This is just plain wrong. There are laws around this. We as a society have - in my view correctly - chosen not to accept this sort of language. “PC” suggests that this is someone’s opinion. Indeed, you confirm the point I was making. Assault isn’t a PC/non PC/woke or any other word you can conjure up issue. Assault - and that includes verbal assault, particularly one which targets a particular group in a viciously derogatory manner - is an offence.

This is not a matter of opinion, political leaning or liberal perspective, any more than a physical assault. That’s the path the UK has chosen. And, as someone who believes that everyone, regardless of any personal characteristic, deserves the chance to live their best life without being abused, we are all the better for it. 

Surely no one is arguing the opposite, are they? 

[Chrispmartha]

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

Sounds attractive if the place is free from woke ######. Cue a queue at Australia house for long-stay visas.

Ive lived in Australia, casual sexism and casual racism was plentiful it was quite an eye opener.

If ‘woke’ is not having that im glad were more ‘woke’.

Are you saying not wanting professional sportsmen to use derogatory terms is ‘woke’?

[ELBOWSEYE]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

 

Are you saying not wanting professional sportsmen to use derogatory terms is ‘woke’?

Who has posted that they want professional sportspeople (pretty sexist of you to label this as a men only subject) to use derogatory language, most posters are commenting on the level of outcry when it happens. 

[JohnM]

There seems to be a misalignment in the grades. Deliberately inflicting physical, possibly career-ending harm on someone merits a Grade D charge with a range of sanctions 3 -5 matches, whereas deliberately abusing someone based on "race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language" merits the highest grade , F, 8 matches,  skipping grade E altogether.

Of course, it may be that the RFL has lots of catching up to do in this respect, stamping out this particularly offensive word through a focus on it with a more severe penalty and a stay in a joycamp.

However, the overall tone of the topic, the wall paper and background noise, as it were, is that anyone who discusses this fundamental disparity is somehow excusing this sort of abuse. 

At worst, some are explaining, with sound academic justification (Steve Peters (psychiatrist) - Wikipedia) how and why such words may be used.   

-----------------------------------------------------------

Case Number: ON/016/23. Josh McGuire #13, Warrington

Competition: Warm Up Matches

Match: Warrington Wolves v Leigh Leopards

Match Date: 2023-02-04

Incident: Unacceptable Language          Decision: Charge

Charge Detail: Law 15.1 (f)                       Grade F: Verbal abuse based on race, colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability, national or ethnic origin or any other form of Unacceptable Behaviour or Language
 

Intentional dangerous contact   Grade D  3 – 5 matches

Intentional Grade D (Refer to Tribunal) Players are deemed to have intent with respect to the outcome when: • It is their purpose to make contact with the opponent after the ball has been released; or • Although it was not their purpose they are aware that contact with the opponent after the ball has been released would have occurred (or almost certainly would). Intent does not require for the event to have been planned before or during the match and can be formed on the spur of the moment. Examples of factors that point to contact being intentional include but are not limited to: • Defending player makes no legitimate attempt to tackle • The lateness of the contact – ball has clearly gone and defending player is or ought to be aware of this • The nature of the contact – attacking player does not use a recognised or acceptable tackle technique • The forcefulness of the contact – excessive and significant flexion of head, neck or spinal column.

Grade	Normal Suspension Range
A	NFA - 1 match
B	1-2 matches
C	2-3 matches
D	3-5 matches
E	4-8 matches
F	8+ or suspension period

OnFieldCompliance_Procedures_Sentencing_Guidelines_2022.pdf (rugby-league.com)

See? And I did  all of that without motioning virtue signalling, woke, JK Rowling and Nicola Sturgeon ( it, that)

[RP London]

15 hours ago, Desert Skipper said:

Again, the debate isn’t about whether it’s acceptable (now or in the past). It’s about whether the punishment reflects the circumstances compared to other grade F offences, and compared to intended targeted abuse.

I think everyone agrees the word is unacceptable and deserves some form of punishment. 

Can I politely suggest that you keep to that argument then?

just to quote one of your posts back

15 hours ago, Desert Skipper said:

I obviously don’t know the answer to that, but what I do know is that McGuire is greatly respected off the field (I think we all know he’s a grubby little s**t on it - even before this!) and he does a lot of good stuff off his own back for others. I also know he is from an army family and growing up in that environment often means blue language and offensive terms are commonplace. That’s the nature of the beast.

So whilst I don’t know whether he uses that term very often on the field, I doubt he’d knowingly band it about in public without caring whether he hurt the feelings of any affected individuals.

your "justifying" his usage of the term saying about his background etc.. there is no justification for its use, my family have a military background and none of them would use this term. I know military personnel and they would not.. they would swear and turn the air blue but they would not use those terms.. 

 

There is an argument that it is too harsh but equally there is an argument (more so in my humble opinion) that other punishments are too soft.. fondling someone's private parts should be heavily punished and something I would not have an issue with being taken out of the RFLs hands.. Some of the tackles are due to the "nature of the game" and the "mistakes" can be argued are part of the risk that is taken, however, i still think some punishments are too soft. 

If we want to stamp something like this out a very heavy ban once in a blue moon will very much help do it.. 

Personally if someone used that language internally at work I would have a very long word with them and they would be on a last warning. If they used it in the yard where others could hear with our name emblazoned across the building I would sack them. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

34 minutes ago, RP London said:

 

Personally if someone used that language internally at work I would have a very long word with them and they would be on a last warning. If they used it in the yard where others could hear with our name emblazoned across the building I would sack them. 

As with lots comments on here people write/speak without thinking, just as you have. The last section saying you would sack them. What you make your mind up before carrying out a full independant investigation, a hearing where the accused would have their chance to explain. Now thats illegal. 

Funny how some people use moral outrage when something suits their narrative but are willing to ride roughshod over centuries of hard earned rights for workers.