Disciplinary Panel

[Tippytoe]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

They have backed themselves into a bit of a corner on this one though.  They have backed the player when he said he didn't say the words in question... stating that one witness (the ref) was mistaken and another witness (the Leigh player) was motivated to lie.

Now, if they apologies and provide education to the player they are essentially saying they don't believe him after all.

Yes cries of infamy Infamy all around.

[JohnM]

5 hours ago, Niels said:

I read posts on an RL site on Facebook. The comments were more critical of the length of the ban than here. 

I must admit I have never used the offensive word in question. For me it is a matter of manners and politeness. At school it was the boys who swore and fought who used such terms. 

At secondary school in deepest Salford 1957 to 1962, it was in common use. No one really knew what it meant and indeed, the cerebral palsy charity only renamed itself in 1994, I think, from GJ's earlier post. That was 29 years ago and since then, the whole disability climate has improved out of all recognition, thank goodness.

One of my issues , though, is the apparent disparity between the grading for offences that are proven to do physical harm and those that do mental harm. 

[Niels]

39 minutes ago, JohnM said:

At secondary school in deepest Salford 1957 to 1962, it was in common use. No one really knew what it meant and indeed, the cerebral palsy charity only renamed itself in 1994, I think, from GJ's earlier post. That was 29 years ago and since then, the whole disability climate has improved out of all recognition, thank goodness.

One of my issues , though, is the apparent disparity between the grading for offences that are proven to do physical harm and those that do mental harm. 

I think you make some good points John.

I think for the disciplinary it should bear some relation to how many games the injured party misses. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

6 hours ago, Niels said:

I think you make some good points John.

I think for the disciplinary it should bear some relation to how many games the injured party misses. 

Whilst I do tend to agree for physical injuries, this is an incident that brings the Sport into disrepute - hence why it gets a high punishment.

[ELBOWSEYE]

Just a note on Amone giving evidence against Mcguire. I find that unusual in professional sport. 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just a note on Amone giving evidence against Mcguire. I find that unusual in professional sport. 

How so?

[gingerjon]

6 hours ago, Niels said:

I think for the disciplinary it should bear some relation to how many games the injured party misses. 

I think that's one of those things that feels instinctively fair but there are too many variables to make it workable.

A slightly mistimed tackle that causes a player to roll his ankle on soft ground as he falls so he misses the season with ligament damage versus a deliberate high shot where the player passes the on pitch HIA for example.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just a note on Amone giving evidence against Mcguire. I find that unusual in professional sport. 

Yes, I was surprised to read that halfway through the case notes. It came from nowhere. 

I think it goes to show how unsavoury it was. 

[Barry Badrinath]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I was surprised to read that halfway through the case notes. It came from nowhere. 

I think it goes to show how unsavoury it was. 

Him being questioned by fitzpatrick was quite unusual as well.

 

You can't argue with those notes, his defence was what you see when the police/court interview people/testify.

Talking about general points, not being able to give specifics, and continuing to bring up his foundation activities. 

Its almost heading into 'I can't be racist I've got friends' territory.

I'm quite surprised warrington haven't put a statement out yesterday, Try and draw a line under it before today's game.

[Dunbar]

Just on the Leighnplayer giving evidence.  Here is a quote from the RFL disciplinary notes.

"It was obvious that he did not attend the hearing with enthusiasm at getting a fellow professional into trouble. On the contrary, he did not want to give evidence against Mr McGuire and did not want to describe the words he heard. It was only when pressed that he reluctantly described hearing the offending words."

I think we have to be careful not to assume anything.  It clearly states that he did not want to testify against a fellow player.

[GUBRATS]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just on the Leighnplayer giving evidence.  Here is a quote from the RFL disciplinary notes.

"It was obvious that he did not attend the hearing with enthusiasm at getting a fellow professional into trouble. On the contrary, he did not want to give evidence against Mr McGuire and did not want to describe the words he heard. It was only when pressed that he reluctantly described hearing the offending words."

I think we have to be careful not to assume anything.  It clearly states that he did not want to testify against a fellow player.

You would have to conclude that the ref had probably spoken to him during the game to confirm what he had heard , and was then put in a difficult position at the hearing 

[RP London]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Agreed.  This is why I support the ban.

This part of the conversation has come from me stating that I think we should have an even greater level of punishment when abuse is targeting against an individual and the abuse is based on his / her characteristics.

I may be right on that, I may be wrong, but it should not be seen as a defence of the player in this case.

certainly agree that it should be higher for "specific targeted abuse" but i think it should be heavy bans all round.. If this one big ban encourages everyone else to grow up a little and we have no more of these types of instances then it will have done its job too IMHO. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Yes, I was surprised to read that halfway through the case notes. It came from nowhere. 

I think it goes to show how unsavoury it was. 

But where does that leave Amone, it may not be right but he has a big target on his back and may put himself in a awkward position career wise. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

How so?

Don’t you think within the pro ranks it wouldn't be looked at in a positive light, 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

But where does that leave Amone, it may not be right but he has a big target on his back and may put himself in a awkward position career wise. 

I respect people having strong morals. I'm not sure it'll do him much harm tbh. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I respect people having strong morals. I'm not sure it'll do him much harm tbh. 

Dave I know I have and you have been in dressing room environments, I guarantee you it won't be alright, he will get support at leigh but not elsewhere, it will be perceived as poor when a percentage of players won't even have too much of a problem with the calling aspect and will have a different dressing room voice than that matches a public opinion. For some posters to look at their views and think players inside training, dressing room and playing bubbles match the outrage at mcguires comment is naive at best. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by ELBOWSEYE

[Tommygilf]

10 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Don’t you think within the pro ranks it wouldn't be looked at in a positive light, 

He was clearly a reluctant witness, but I don't see anything wrong with a player being honest about something?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Dave I know I have and you have been in dressing room environments, I guarantee you it won't be alright, he will get support at leigh but not elsewhere, it will be perceived as poor when a percentage of players won't even have too much of a problem with the calling aspect and won't have a different dressing room voice that matches a public opinion. For some posters to look at their views and think players inside training, dressing room and playing bubbles match the outrage at mcguires comment is naive at best. 

The world is changing mate. 

I don't think standing up against things like this will harm him tbh. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

Just now, Tommygilf said:

He was clearly a reluctant witness, but I don't see anything wrong with a player being honest about something?

You are clearly naive. Read my reply to dave T I just put on. 

[Tommygilf]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I respect people having strong morals. I'm not sure it'll do him much harm tbh. 

Exactly, as a modern club would you have the person who uses a disability slur as an insult in a professional setting, or the player who despite not wanting to incriminate his opponent showed honesty and integrity to a tribunal?

Amone will be just fine.

[Dave T]

The more I think about this, the more disappointed and angry I am with the club. 

I really believe that the club should have kept some distance between themselves and Mcguire on this. They should have sent professional legal representation along, rather than serial whiner Powell. 

The club's position was too strong on this. The club literally have no way to know whether he has said this, so to argue so aggressively that he hasn't is odd. They really should have allowed Mcguire to argue that he didn't say it and then the club could have focused on character reference kind of stuff, focusing on how much of a pro he has been, his work in the community, the PDRL work etc. 

The club acted classlessly imho, if I was Simo Moran, I would not be impressed with KF and the way the club defended this. 

[ELBOWSEYE]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

The world is changing mate. 

I don't think standing up against things like this will harm him tbh. 

I am long past being in a changing room, I speak to my son who is in more contact with modern players and privately its just the same. Most young players care little about morals, they probably talk more about love island. The aussies and kiwis would not have the same outrage as the RFL. 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, ELBOWSEYE said:

You are clearly naive. Read my reply to dave T I just put on. 

No, you're clearly outdated.

There isn't a hush hush, say nothing and keep everything behind closed doors attitude anymore. Part of that is because there is a more open professional culture and people expect more of eachother, but part of that is also because that attitude enabled things far worse than this to carry on.

People aren't like that anywhere near as much anymore. What goes on tour does can still stay on tour, but if it isn't right then it won't. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I am long past being in a changing room, I speak to my son who is in more contact with modern players and privately its just the same. Most young players care little about morals, they probably talk more about love island. The aussies and kiwis would not have the same outrage as the RFL. 

The fact that a player was red-carded, and two Leigh players were prepared to attend the tribunal to speak out against this word is evidence that things are changing. 

We can't allow people to downplay this and continue with the culture that you describe. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I am long past being in a changing room, I speak to my son who is in more contact with modern players and privately its just the same. Most young players care little about morals, they probably talk more about love island. The aussies and kiwis would not have the same outrage as the RFL. 

I tend to agree with this.  A changing room full of 20 yearl old lads is not going to behave in the same way as we all see at work etc.  I remember my time in a Rugby League changing room... will it really have changed so much!

But specifically on the Amone testimony.  My feeling is that it will be seen as the RFL dragging him to the meeting and I am not sure he will be targeted as a snitch or whatever the appropriate term is.