The Official English Rugby Thread

[ASMO]

Well this is a shame.
McFarland was one of my players of the season so far

Saracens forward Theo McFarland is set to miss the rest of the season after suffering an anterior cruciate ligament injury in training.
The 27-year-old suffered the injury before Friday's defeat by London Irish.
"Everyone knows, not how difficult it is to come back from an ACL, but how painstaking the process is," said Saracens director of rugby Mark McCall.

Have to agree, he has been standout, would have loved him to be English qualified, awesome player

[Torquemada 1420]

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

It's been forgotten that was true of football too once. Even as late as the 80s. I recall when Mick Harford's Birmingham (probably the hardest team ever, anywhere) played a particularly testy game against Pompey (who were not exactly shrinking violets either). Both teams agreed to meet in a pub after the game to settle their differences. And it wasn't done by sharing a pint.

Sadly, football morphed into wendyball as the money flowed in and rugby has followed suit. I think the reason many Frogs still prefer Pro D2 and below is because there is still some of that old school, honest brutality there!

[Slick]

Before professionalism that sort of thing wouldn't have been said, because of the retribution you mention, and also because it just wasn't done, that would have been far too pathetic of a thing to say.

I hate the cheapness of that, the head pats, the celebrating of a penalty decision like it's Jonny Wilkinson dropping a goal to win a World Cup (who didn't go full arsehole at doing that either, btw, he has too much class for that).

Rugby is becoming low-rent.

The way to stop it is to insist that the "against the spirit of the game" law is enforced.
Ban them, fine them. Then their bad behaviour will change.

That's patently untrue. There have been verbals for ever including pretty dodgy ones

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

I’ve no doubt there will be some pushback to this post, but it’s bang on

[weegie01]

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

It's been forgotten that was true of football too once. Even as late as the 80s. I recall when Mick Harford's Birmingham (probably the hardest team ever, anywhere) played a particularly testy game against Pompey (who were not exactly shrinking violets either). Both teams agreed to meet in a pub after the game to settle their differences. And it wasn't done by sharing a pint.

Sadly, football morphed into wendyball as the money flowed in and rugby has followed suit. I think the reason many Frogs still prefer Pro D2 and below is because there is still some of that old school, honest brutality there!

Things will no doubt change, but it was really noticeable when my children were coming up that the older refs and coaches had a more relaxed attitude. The day I knew my younger son would make it as a player was when he came from about 20m away to flatten an opposition player who had just stamped one of his team mates. The stamper appealed to the ref who told him that if he was going to give it, he had better be prepared to take it. The ref was his father.

Fast forward few years, and the same son was playing in a game that the ref was losing control of. My son was captain and had asked the ref several times to sort things out, ultimately telling him that if the ref did not sort it out, he would. Shortly after my son took exception to something and led his team into a full scale brawl, resulting in him being red carded.

What I liked about this was that several of the opposition parents came over and said that they were OK with it as they could see what was happening, the players all shook hands at the end, and to this day the first person my son punched is one of his best mates.

[GogLais]

Back before Professionalism, he could have extracted his retribution, then & there, & Marler would have shit teeth for a few days; but now the players know they're under surveillance at all times, & there's nothing left to them, but to go thru the official sanctions path, & that means bans & fines etc.

Before professionalism that sort of thing wouldn't have been said, because of the retribution you mention, and also because it just wasn't done, that would have been far too pathetic of a thing to say.

I hate the cheapness of that, the head pats, the celebrating of a penalty decision like it's Jonny Wilkinson dropping a goal to win a World Cup (who didn't go full arsehole at doing that either, btw, he has too much class for that).

Rugby is becoming low-rent.

The way to stop it is to insist that the "against the spirit of the game" law is enforced.
Ban them, fine them. Then their bad behaviour will change.

IMO this is a consequence of violence going out the game. That means:
1) There are basically zero consequences for acting like a twat, and
2) The 'cheap shot' that gets a rise and buys a penalty has been replaced with something verbal instead.

There was an incident in the Dragons Cardiff game where Bradley Roberts tripped Thomas Young, missed by the ref I think but caught on camera. Young chased after Roberts, flung him down and a scuffle ensued. Roberts ended up getting a yellow and everyone expected Young to get one as well but he didn’t, just a telling off. Quite refreshing I thought.

[sockwithaticket]

That's patently untrue. There have been verbals for ever including pretty dodgy ones

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

I’ve no doubt there will be some pushback to this post, but it’s bang on

I'm happy to push back, the idea that someone verbally being a dickhead should be met with physical violence is pathetic.

The notion that players self-enforced in some kind of principled way rather than simply punching and stamping whenever they felt like it is also some rose-tinted nonsense.

If someone's giving you verbals the options are:
- suck it up and ignore
- give them back
- try and tackle them a bit harder when the opportunity arises
- shun them off field; no handshake and no interaction at the post match. If what was said was so bad that you think it should be policed by violence, then this should be easy.

or some combination of them all.

The idea of being banned for anything other than slurs against protected classes (n word or f word for example), is abohorrently draconian.

In Marler's specific case, I don't like the way he conducts himself in game, but he has every right to chunter away and other players validate his decision to do so when they react.

[sockwithaticket]

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

It's been forgotten that was true of football too once. Even as late as the 80s. I recall when Mick Harford's Birmingham (probably the hardest team ever, anywhere) played a particularly testy game against Pompey (who were not exactly shrinking violets either). Both teams agreed to meet in a pub after the game to settle their differences. And it wasn't done by sharing a pint.

Sadly, football morphed into wendyball as the money flowed in and rugby has followed suit. I think the reason many Frogs still prefer Pro D2 and below is because there is still some of that old school, honest brutality there!

Things will no doubt change, but it was really noticeable when my children were coming up that the older refs and coaches had a more relaxed attitude. The day I knew my younger son would make it as a player was when he came from about 20m away to flatten an opposition player who had just stamped one of his team mates. The stamper appealed to the ref who told him that if he was going to give it, he had better be prepared to take it. The ref was his father.

Fast forward few years, and the same son was playing in a game that the ref was losing control of. My son was captain and had asked the ref several times to sort things out, ultimately telling him that if the ref did not sort it out, he would. Shortly after my son took exception to something and led his team into a full scale brawl, resulting in him being red carded.

What I liked about this was that several of the opposition parents came over and said that they were OK with it as they could see what was happening, the players all shook hands at the end, and to this day the first person my son punched is one of his best mates.

Casual acceptance of violence on the pitch is why Alex Dombrandt nearly gave up rugby at university level. Twice had his jaw broken by wannabe hardcases who'd rather punch him than try to play the game. Thankfully these incidents were treated properly and reported to the police rather than seen as justification for furthering the violence.

Instigators need consequences, but stooping to their level isn't it. Refuse to play on, get the authorities involved and refuse further fixtures against teams with perpatrators unless conduct assurances are made.

[Paddington Bear]

If someone's giving you verbals the options are:

- shun them off field; no handshake and no interaction at the post match. If what was said was so bad that you think it should be policed by violence, then this should

This one is interesting and happens a lot more in cricket than rugby I think. I've refused to shake a bloke's hand and turned down a pint from him after the way he behaved in the match towards me and a 15 year old making his debut, and suddenly the perception was that I was the bad guy for not being a good sport/not calming down etc.

[sockwithaticket]

If someone's giving you verbals the options are:

- shun them off field; no handshake and no interaction at the post match. If what was said was so bad that you think it should be policed by violence, then this should

This one is interesting and happens a lot more in cricket than rugby I think. I've refused to shake a bloke's hand and turned down a pint from him after the way he behaved in the match towards me and a 15 year old making his debut, and suddenly the perception was that I was the bad guy for not being a good sport/not calming down etc.

Yeah we recently saw Pablo Matera get some grief for refusing to shake Dane Cole's hand.

'Leave it on the field' should have limits. Kudos to you for feeling strong enough to follow through with how you were feeling.

[weegie01]

Casual acceptance of violence on the pitch is why Alex Dombrandt nearly gave up rugby at university level. Twice had his jaw broken by wannabe hardcases who'd rather punch him than try to play the game. Thankfully these incidents were treated properly and reported to the police rather than seen as justification for furthering the violence.

Instigators need consequences, but stooping to their level isn't it. Refuse to play on, get the authorities involved and refuse further fixtures against teams with perpatrators unless conduct assurances are made.

If anyone was advocating a casual acceptance of violence you would have a point, but no one is.

Rugby is a game of controlled violence. There has always been acceptable and unacceptable violence in the game, all that has happened is what is acceptable has changed. Dirty play was never condoned. I don't know what happened to Dombrandt in detail, but the hard man trying to make a name for himself was always a feature, the difference is that back then he'd be dealt with by other players which often stopped things escalating. What was acceptable varied. I played in SA and the casual violence staggered me at first, Welsh rugby was similar.

We older players do not view the past through rose tinted spectacles, there were things that were wrong and needed fixing, no question. But the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. In the the past players would quickly sort things out on the pitch when there was an issue, then get on with the game, and none of the things you mention were usually necessary. But when they were, a quiet word was had between committees and things sorted out.

[Blackmac]

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

I’ve no doubt there will be some pushback to this post, but it’s bang on

I'm happy to push back, the idea that someone verbally being a dickhead should be met with physical violence is pathetic.

The notion that players self-enforced in some kind of principled way rather than simply punching and stamping whenever they felt like it is also some rose-tinted nonsense.

If someone's giving you verbals the options are:
- suck it up and ignore
- give them back
- try and tackle them a bit harder when the opportunity arises
- shun them off field; no handshake and no interaction at the post match. If what was said was so bad that you think it should be policed by violence, then this should be easy.

or some combination of them all.

The idea of being banned for anything other than slurs against protected classes (n word or f word for example), is abohorrently draconian.

In Marler's specific case, I don't like the way he conducts himself in game, but he has every right to chunter away and other players validate his decision to do so when they react.

f

I think you have missed his point a bit. He isn't advocating violence just suggesting that dickheads knew they had to control their behaviour because there was always a strong possibility if they overstepped the mark they would get a slap. It meant that everyone behaved in a more respectful way and there was rarely the need for violence. You could say the same about societies behaviour as a whole. As dickheads have become more protected they no longer fear the consequences of their behaviour and we see standards of behaviour everywhere going down the toilet.

[Tichtheid]

Back before Professionalism, he could have extracted his retribution, then & there, & Marler would have shit teeth for a few days; but now the players know they're under surveillance at all times, & there's nothing left to them, but to go thru the official sanctions path, & that means bans & fines etc.

Before professionalism that sort of thing wouldn't have been said, because of the retribution you mention, and also because it just wasn't done, that would have been far too pathetic of a thing to say.

I hate the cheapness of that, the head pats, the celebrating of a penalty decision like it's Jonny Wilkinson dropping a goal to win a World Cup (who didn't go full arsehole at doing that either, btw, he has too much class for that).

Rugby is becoming low-rent.

The way to stop it is to insist that the "against the spirit of the game" law is enforced.
Ban them, fine them. Then their bad behaviour will change.

That's patently untrue. There have been verbals for ever including pretty dodgy ones

No in the Scottish Borders, it's very polite down there.

Unless you go to Langholm.

[Torquemada 1420]

Of course verbals have gone on forever, but there was a line, and if you crossed that line a punch would follow. Players self enforced the line, now no one does so all sorts of petty behaviour happens, and dickheads get full reign to be dickheads with impunity.

It's been forgotten that was true of football too once. Even as late as the 80s. I recall when Mick Harford's Birmingham (probably the hardest team ever, anywhere) played a particularly testy game against Pompey (who were not exactly shrinking violets either). Both teams agreed to meet in a pub after the game to settle their differences. And it wasn't done by sharing a pint.

Sadly, football morphed into wendyball as the money flowed in and rugby has followed suit. I think the reason many Frogs still prefer Pro D2 and below is because there is still some of that old school, honest brutality there!

Things will no doubt change, but it was really noticeable when my children were coming up that the older refs and coaches had a more relaxed attitude. The day I knew my younger son would make it as a player was when he came from about 20m away to flatten an opposition player who had just stamped one of his team mates. The stamper appealed to the ref who told him that if he was going to give it, he had better be prepared to take it. The ref was his father.

Fast forward few years, and the same son was playing in a game that the ref was losing control of. My son was captain and had asked the ref several times to sort things out, ultimately telling him that if the ref did not sort it out, he would. Shortly after my son took exception to something and led his team into a full scale brawl, resulting in him being red carded.

What I liked about this was that several of the opposition parents came over and said that they were OK with it as they could see what was happening, the players all shook hands at the end, and to this day the first person my son punched is one of his best mates.

For worse still! Rugby had painted itself into a bizarre corner, trapped between nanny state-ism and paranoia induced from concussion effects.

[Kawazaki]

Unless you go to Langholm.

That's a very handsome pitch they play on.

[Tichtheid]

Unless you go to Langholm.

That's a very handsome pitch they play on.

Their crowd were infamous for shouting dog's abuse at opposing teams.

The are old stories of opposition wingers getting tripped up by supporters.

They were in trouble a few years back, there was talk of them getting thrown out of the Scottish leagues because they were unable to raise teams for fixtures - this is a club formed in 1871, they were one of the original teams in the Border League, formed in 1901, it's the oldest rugby league in the world - but they seem to have recovered.

[Kawazaki]

Unless you go to Langholm.

That's a very handsome pitch they play on.

Their crowd were infamous for shouting dog's abuse at opposing teams.

The are old stories of opposition wingers getting tripped up by supporters.

Sounds like my old club. Including the trip.

[Slick]

That's a very handsome pitch they play on.

Their crowd were infamous for shouting dog's abuse at opposing teams.

The are old stories of opposition wingers getting tripped up by supporters.

Sounds like my old club. Including the trip.

Or anywhere round the Forest of Dean

[Slick]

Casual acceptance of violence on the pitch is why Alex Dombrandt nearly gave up rugby at university level. Twice had his jaw broken by wannabe hardcases who'd rather punch him than try to play the game. Thankfully these incidents were treated properly and reported to the police rather than seen as justification for furthering the violence.

Instigators need consequences, but stooping to their level isn't it. Refuse to play on, get the authorities involved and refuse further fixtures against teams with perpatrators unless conduct assurances are made.

If anyone was advocating a casual acceptance of violence you would have a point, but no one is.

Rugby is a game of controlled violence. There has always been acceptable and unacceptable violence in the game, all that has happened is what is acceptable has changed. Dirty play was never condoned. I don't know what happened to Dombrandt in detail, but the hard man trying to make a name for himself was always a feature, the difference is that back then he'd be dealt with by other players which often stopped things escalating. What was acceptable varied. I played in SA and the casual violence staggered me at first, Welsh rugby was similar.

We older players do not view the past through rose tinted spectacles, there were things that were wrong and needed fixing, no question. But the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. In the the past players would quickly sort things out on the pitch when there was an issue, then get on with the game, and none of the things you mention were usually necessary. But when they were, a quiet word was had between committees and things sorted out.

Again, spot on.

It was very rarely uncontrolled and if anyone did things like stamping on a head, punching from behind or a prone player they would shunned by their own team, certainly in my experience.

In all my years of playing I only had one incident of someone carrying on after the match and can remember only a couple of real out of order violence.

As a slight aside, I remember one match where I was captain and our abrasive but fair open side accidentally stood on someone’s head at a ruck. The opposition cried foul and the ref sent him off. He was distraught and I spoke to their captain and ref and said it must have been an accident as he would never do that. They both said fair enough and he was allowed to come back on.

Another where our prop popped up out of a scrum and slotted his opposite number and the ref sent him off only for the guy he punched to say “no ref, I deserved that and want a decent game, let him stay” and he did.

[Kawazaki]

Olivier Roumat was a huge huge man, even by today's standards. He is the only man known to have punched and felled the fearsome Wade Dooley. When Dooley came around after a wipe from the magic sponge, he said to the ref, in his deep Lancashire accent; "Ref! Do not send that fucker off!"

[Simian]

Casual acceptance of violence on the pitch is why Alex Dombrandt nearly gave up rugby at university level. Twice had his jaw broken by wannabe hardcases who'd rather punch him than try to play the game. Thankfully these incidents were treated properly and reported to the police rather than seen as justification for furthering the violence.

Instigators need consequences, but stooping to their level isn't it. Refuse to play on, get the authorities involved and refuse further fixtures against teams with perpatrators unless conduct assurances are made.

If anyone was advocating a casual acceptance of violence you would have a point, but no one is.

Rugby is a game of controlled violence. There has always been acceptable and unacceptable violence in the game, all that has happened is what is acceptable has changed. Dirty play was never condoned. I don't know what happened to Dombrandt in detail, but the hard man trying to make a name for himself was always a feature, the difference is that back then he'd be dealt with by other players which often stopped things escalating. What was acceptable varied. I played in SA and the casual violence staggered me at first, Welsh rugby was similar.

We older players do not view the past through rose tinted spectacles, there were things that were wrong and needed fixing, no question. But the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. In the the past players would quickly sort things out on the pitch when there was an issue, then get on with the game, and none of the things you mention were usually necessary. But when they were, a quiet word was had between committees and things sorted out.

Again, spot on.

It was very rarely uncontrolled and if anyone did things like stamping on a head, punching from behind or a prone player they would shunned by their own team, certainly in my experience.

In all my years of playing I only had one incident of someone carrying on after the match and can remember only a couple of real out of order violence.

As a slight aside, I remember one match where I was captain and our abrasive but fair open side accidentally stood on someone’s head at a ruck. The opposition cried foul and the ref sent him off. He was distraught and I spoke to their captain and ref and said it must have been an accident as he would never do that. They both said fair enough and he was allowed to come back on.

Another where our prop popped up out of a scrum and slotted his opposite number and the ref sent him off only for the guy he punched to say “no ref, I deserved that and want a decent game, let him stay” and he did.

Ok boomer

[Torquemada 1420]

Olivier Roumat was a huge huge man, even by today's standards. He is the only man known to have punched and felled the fearsome Wade Dooley. When Dooley came around after a wipe from the magic sponge, he said to the ref, in his deep Lancashire accent; "Ref! Do not send that fucker off!"

Peter Winterbottom tells of one where he illegally took Rives out of the ball so hard that the Fre captain was down for some minutes. When Winterbottom looked over to inspect his handiwork, he saw Rives stand up and wink at him....... and knew he was in trouble. Which duly arrived courtesy of an uncompromising Fre pack.

The days when you dished it out and expected it back.

[Sandstorm]

I think it’s very clear that things have gone rapidly downhill as Irish teams have got better.

[fishfoodie]

I think it’s very clear that things have gone rapidly downhill as Irish teams have got better.

We know we can win the game with our skillz, so we don't need to use the book of dirty tricks anymore

I suppose that's why the likes of Marler is reduced to provoking penalties with his shit talk; he can't do it with skillz & strength; so he has resort to this shit !

[Slick]

If anyone was advocating a casual acceptance of violence you would have a point, but no one is.

Rugby is a game of controlled violence. There has always been acceptable and unacceptable violence in the game, all that has happened is what is acceptable has changed. Dirty play was never condoned. I don't know what happened to Dombrandt in detail, but the hard man trying to make a name for himself was always a feature, the difference is that back then he'd be dealt with by other players which often stopped things escalating. What was acceptable varied. I played in SA and the casual violence staggered me at first, Welsh rugby was similar.

We older players do not view the past through rose tinted spectacles, there were things that were wrong and needed fixing, no question. But the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. In the the past players would quickly sort things out on the pitch when there was an issue, then get on with the game, and none of the things you mention were usually necessary. But when they were, a quiet word was had between committees and things sorted out.

Again, spot on.

It was very rarely uncontrolled and if anyone did things like stamping on a head, punching from behind or a prone player they would shunned by their own team, certainly in my experience.

In all my years of playing I only had one incident of someone carrying on after the match and can remember only a couple of real out of order violence.

As a slight aside, I remember one match where I was captain and our abrasive but fair open side accidentally stood on someone’s head at a ruck. The opposition cried foul and the ref sent him off. He was distraught and I spoke to their captain and ref and said it must have been an accident as he would never do that. They both said fair enough and he was allowed to come back on.

Another where our prop popped up out of a scrum and slotted his opposite number and the ref sent him off only for the guy he punched to say “no ref, I deserved that and want a decent game, let him stay” and he did.

Ok boomer

[sockwithaticket]

Casual acceptance of violence on the pitch is why Alex Dombrandt nearly gave up rugby at university level. Twice had his jaw broken by wannabe hardcases who'd rather punch him than try to play the game. Thankfully these incidents were treated properly and reported to the police rather than seen as justification for furthering the violence.

Instigators need consequences, but stooping to their level isn't it. Refuse to play on, get the authorities involved and refuse further fixtures against teams with perpatrators unless conduct assurances are made.

If anyone was advocating a casual acceptance of violence you would have a point, but no one is.

Rugby is a game of controlled violence. There has always been acceptable and unacceptable violence in the game, all that has happened is what is acceptable has changed. Dirty play was never condoned. I don't know what happened to Dombrandt in detail, but the hard man trying to make a name for himself was always a feature, the difference is that back then he'd be dealt with by other players which often stopped things escalating. What was acceptable varied. I played in SA and the casual violence staggered me at first, Welsh rugby was similar.

We older players do not view the past through rose tinted spectacles, there were things that were wrong and needed fixing, no question. But the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. In the the past players would quickly sort things out on the pitch when there was an issue, then get on with the game, and none of the things you mention were usually necessary. But when they were, a quiet word was had between committees and things sorted out.

I'm not sure what 'Ah it was all fine back in the day because we could just punch or stamp someone being a dick' is if not a casual acceptance of violence.

Rugby was an evasion sport that's become a collision sport. While I'd allow that it's always required physicality, I wouln't accept that it is a sport of violence, controlled or otherwise.

[JM2K6]

I think it’s very clear that things have gone rapidly downhill as Irish teams have got better.

We know we can win the game with our skillz, so we don't need to use the book of dirty tricks anymore

I suppose that's why the likes of Marler is reduced to provoking penalties with his shit talk; he can't do it with skillz & strength; so he has resort to this shit !

Notoriously shit prop Joe Marler, right

[JM2K6]

Supposedly it was "Your mum's a whore". Heenan's mum is apparently in hospital at the moment so it was particularly poorly received. I doubt Marler knew that when he said it unless he puts a lot more effort into researching his sledging than I'd given him credit for.

The Times ran a piece saying he could pick up a ban, but that seemed speculative based on what's theoretically possible with sportsmanship/verbal abuse laws. I think it'd be a dangerous precedent to set that you can ban someone for being a dickhead.

The apology should suffice

No, he should cop a ban. Just because he apologised doesn't mean that he's not overstepped the line again, and it's a particularly cunty thing to say given the circumstances. If he didn't know, that's on him - he chose to say it.

Much like with Hill's shithousing in Australia being "successful", it's not a good look and by rights it should be properly dealt with.

[SaintK]

Supposedly it was "Your mum's a whore". Heenan's mum is apparently in hospital at the moment so it was particularly poorly received. I doubt Marler knew that when he said it unless he puts a lot more effort into researching his sledging than I'd given him credit for.

The Times ran a piece saying he could pick up a ban, but that seemed speculative based on what's theoretically possible with sportsmanship/verbal abuse laws. I think it'd be a dangerous precedent to set that you can ban someone for being a dickhead.

The apology should suffice

No, he should cop a ban. Just because he apologised doesn't mean that he's not overstepped the line again, and it's a particularly cunty thing to say given the circumstances. If he didn't know, that's on him - he chose to say it.

Much like with Hill's shithousing in Australia being "successful", it's not a good look and by rights it should be properly dealt with.

What excatly would he be charged with?
I can only guess it would be something like "bringing the game into disrepute"

[JM2K6]

The apology should suffice

No, he should cop a ban. Just because he apologised doesn't mean that he's not overstepped the line again, and it's a particularly cunty thing to say given the circumstances. If he didn't know, that's on him - he chose to say it.

Much like with Hill's shithousing in Australia being "successful", it's not a good look and by rights it should be properly dealt with.

What excatly would he be charged with?
I can only guess it would be something like "bringing the game into disrepute"

Verbal abuse of an opponent. Wide range of sanction available,

[Choc]

The apology should suffice

No, he should cop a ban. Just because he apologised doesn't mean that he's not overstepped the line again, and it's a particularly cunty thing to say given the circumstances. If he didn't know, that's on him - he chose to say it.

Much like with Hill's shithousing in Australia being "successful", it's not a good look and by rights it should be properly dealt with.

What excatly would he be charged with?
I can only guess it would be something like "bringing the game into disrepute"

He’s been cited under RFU Rule 5.12 for conduct prejudicial to the game.

I’m not sure about this one - I’m sure there’s loads of verbals that happen during a game so it creates a difficult precedent, but as a Quins fan who used to enjoy Marlers pantomime villain, I’m increasingly of the opinion he really does need to stop being a dick.

A ban’s unlikely to change anything though, it’s more likely to have him retire which would be a shame.

[Kawazaki]

Ben Earl's red card dismissed. No surprise to me, it was ridiculous. Carley is not a good referee - the TMO was garbage as well.

[SaintK]

No, he should cop a ban. Just because he apologised doesn't mean that he's not overstepped the line again, and it's a particularly cunty thing to say given the circumstances. If he didn't know, that's on him - he chose to say it.

Much like with Hill's shithousing in Australia being "successful", it's not a good look and by rights it should be properly dealt with.

What excatly would he be charged with?
I can only guess it would be something like "bringing the game into disrepute"

He’s been cited under RFU Rule 5.12 for conduct prejudicial to the game.

I’m not sure about this one - I’m sure there’s loads of verbals that happen during a game so it creates a difficult precedent, but as a Quins fan who used to enjoy Marlers pantomime villain, I’m increasingly of the opinion he really does need to stop being a dick.

A ban’s unlikely to change anything though, it’s more likely to have him retire which would be a shame.

Thanks, just seen it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/64125642

[Choc]

Ben Earl's red card dismissed. No surprise to me, it was ridiculous. Carley is not a good referee - the TMO was garbage as well.

Good. Shit decision that one. Carly was correct in his initial assessment and should have pushed back more with the TMO.

[SaintK]

Ben Earl's red card dismissed. No surprise to me, it was ridiculous. Carley is not a good referee - the TMO was garbage as well.

Thought the red for Earls was a bit over the top
What did Coleman get, that was his third red for a high hit so should be quite a few weeks.

[Margin__Walker]

Ben Earl's red card dismissed. No surprise to me, it was ridiculous. Carley is not a good referee - the TMO was garbage as well.

Thought the red for Earls was a bit over the top
What did Coleman get, that was his third red for a high hit so should be quite a few weeks.

Coleman has two career reds that I can see. The other one was more than a year ago against Sarries.

The commentators going on about 'three reds in three games' were talking about the the other one against Sarries last spring where he copped a shoulder in the head, got knocked out and picked up a red that was rightly dismissed at the hearing.

[weegie01]

I'm not sure what 'Ah it was all fine back in the day because we could just punch or stamp someone being a dick' is if not a casual acceptance of violence.

Rugby was an evasion sport that's become a collision sport. While I'd allow that it's always required physicality, I wouln't accept that it is a sport of violence, controlled or otherwise.

If you don't think rugby has always been a sport of violence, of physical intimidation, then you were not there.

I can remember getting sent out as a schoolboy back in the 60s with the instructions to smash into every tackle as hard as we could, whether carrying or defending, to test the physical courage of the opposition. It was pretty much standard practice back then that the first thing you did was work out who was and was not up for the physical challenge, and then run at those who flinched all day long. I do not know what you would call running into a players at full tilt trying to knock them out of the way other than violence.

Over many years playing in several countries, most of the matches I played in there were no punches thrown. Because it was not casual, it was an acceptance that certain things were not acceptable and would be sorted out there and then, if not, we got on with the game.

[Paddington Bear]

Marler is one of a number of players who seems chronically addicted to trying to be the Archbishop of Banterbury

[Kawazaki]

Rugby was an evasion sport that's become a collision sport. While I'd allow that it's always required physicality, I wouln't accept that it is a sport of violence, controlled or otherwise.

I'm not sure how old you are but that summary is absolute bollocks. Forwards use far more evasion and footwork now than they ever did when I played.

Rugby should change it's characterisation as a sport - it should be bracketed with boxing and MMA. It would do wonders for the growth of the game if they did this instead of the beta soy latte version of rugby the RFU wants it to be.

[Paddington Bear]

Rugby was an evasion sport that's become a collision sport. While I'd allow that it's always required physicality, I wouln't accept that it is a sport of violence, controlled or otherwise.

I'm not sure how old you are but that summary is absolute bollocks. Forwards use far more evasion and footwork now than they ever did when I played.

Rugby should change it's characterisation as a sport - it should be bracketed with boxing and MMA. It would do wonders for the growth of the game if they did this instead of the beta soy latte version of rugby the RFU wants it to be.

Christ.

Accepting rugby will be a bloodsport may well be viable at a pro level but it is the end of the club game. Middle class parents don't take their kids to boxing clubs

[SaintK]

Ben Earl's red card dismissed. No surprise to me, it was ridiculous. Carley is not a good referee - the TMO was garbage as well.

Thought the red for Earls was a bit over the top
What did Coleman get, that was his third red for a high hit so should be quite a few weeks.

Coleman has two career reds that I can see. The other one was more than a year ago against Sarries.

The commentators going on about 'three reds in three games' were talking about the the other one against Sarries last spring where he copped a shoulder in the head, got knocked out and picked up a red that was rightly dismissed at the hearing.

Aah thanks