The Official English Rugby Thread

[JM2K6]

A thumping. Well done Saints.

Too many things stacked against Quins today but still a disappointing attitude. No excuses for some of the problems.

[sockwithaticket]

Support for line breaks has been pretty poor from Quins.

[SaintK]

Not sure what more Dombrandt and Ribbans will need to do to get in Borthwicks first England squad

[Kawazaki]

Moore on Marler.

https://archive.ph/m80y2

His recollections and thoughts are pretty much the exact same as mine, albeit my recollections are far less lofty.

[Torquemada 1420]

Moore on Marler.

https://archive.ph/m80y2

His recollections and thoughts are pretty much the exact same as mine, albeit my recollections are far less lofty.

BCM spot on with this. And the 109 quote is true: it was on The Parkinson Show when the host asked the great Miller (who flew Mossies) about pressure in sport. The same Miller who was reprimanded for detouring his Mossie after a mission to take a look over Bonn........... because he was a huge Beethoven fan and the master was born there.

Marler would do well to read up on Miller and try and act like a real rogue hero rather than the idiotic c**t he'll currently be remembered as.

[JM2K6]

I suspect you may have massively misunderstood what Moore was getting at with that reference

[Kawazaki]

Tabai Matson picks all the wrong words.
Quins pick the worst way to react to the Marler ban.

https://archive.ph/cwQdq

I just hope that Joe wasn't made a scapegoat for something

FFS :uhoh:

[JM2K6]

Oh, I can think of much worse ways a club could react to an unprecedented disciplinary action. A milquetoast "I hope this is something they're actually planning on stamping out rather than it being a one off because of who the player is" barely even registers. Quins haven't appealed, haven't thrown the toys out of the pram, and it's barely even a defence of the player.

[SaintK]

Moore on Marler.

https://archive.ph/m80y2

His recollections and thoughts are pretty much the exact same as mine, albeit my recollections are far less lofty.

BCM does like to pontificate from time to time!
Is this the same Moore who in 1992 so wound up the French front row sledging in French that Lascube was sent off by refereee Hilditch for stamping on Bayfield's head and Moscato for headbutting Probyn. I was at that match and if I recall Tordo moved from flanker to hooker and after reacting to a few quiet words from Moore should also have been sent off!!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-uni ... -years/

[Kawazaki]

Oh, I can think of much worse ways a club could react to an unprecedented disciplinary action. A milquetoast "I hope this is something they're actually planning on stamping out rather than it being a one off because of who the player is" barely even registers. Quins haven't appealed, haven't thrown the toys out of the pram, and it's barely even a defence of the player.

Why use the word 'scapegoat'?

Marler is a recidivist. He got banned because he's done this before so yes, it is a ban 'because of who the player is'.

[JM2K6]

Oh, I can think of much worse ways a club could react to an unprecedented disciplinary action. A milquetoast "I hope this is something they're actually planning on stamping out rather than it being a one off because of who the player is" barely even registers. Quins haven't appealed, haven't thrown the toys out of the pram, and it's barely even a defence of the player.

Why use the word 'scapegoat'?

Because his point is that he "hopes" it's not just Marler getting done and that it's an actual attempt to clean up the game, which is probably 20% honest opinion and 80% a sideways swipe at how astonishingly rare it is for a ban to be dished out for verbal abuse of this sort, despite it not being uncommon in the game. Like I said, it's an incredibly weak attempt at defending him. We're a million miles away from #Justice4Joe black armband territory. Matson's doing the bare minimum.

Marler is a recidivist. He got banned because he's done this before so yes, it is a ban 'because of who the player is'.

That would make more sense if literally anyone else copped bans for sledging. Unless we're pretending that only Marler does this then the point that he's the only one getting a ban is a fair one to make for someone in Matson's position.

And, to repeat myself, I think the ban is fair, I think the extra suspended weeks are a smart move, and Marler being a recidivist means I have even less sympathy for him being "singled out" like this. But I think even you wouldn't disagree he's a little unlucky here, in that what he said was way more serious than he realised and that once it became public the RFU had no choice but to take action. Of course, the fact that he's a regular windup merchant means he's giving himself many, many chances to be unlucky and that's the role he's chosen for himself, so there's no excuses to be had. It's certainly not as simple as "if you call someone's mother a whore you'll get banned" though.

Much like how no-one ever got banned for calling Steve Thompson a fat cunt.


Personally I'd love to see a genuine attempt to clean up all the childish niggle from the game. The sledging, the chat, the screaming at refs, the sustained and co-ordinated celebrating in teams faces, the synchronised appealing, the sly shit to try and provoke a physical overreaction - it's a shit part of the game and everyone knows it.

[Kawazaki]

Calling Steve Thompson a fat cunt is not cite or ban worthy. It's not particularly clever or pleasant but if you're fat and you play rugby then you'll likely be called a fat cunt eventually. I'm certain that Jamie George gets called it at least a few times a season. Some referees might penalise it in game but nothing more than a penalty.

Karl Dickson's actions in this are not great either it must be said.

[JM2K6]

Calling Steve Thompson a fat cunt is not cite or ban worthy. It's not particularly clever or pleasant but if you're fat and you play rugby then you'll likely be called a fat cunt eventually. I'm certain that Jamie George gets called it at least a few times a season. Some referees might penalise it in game but nothing more than a penalty.

Karl Dickson's actions in this are not great either it must be said.

Why is it not ban worthy? It's clearly personal verbal abuse. Why is that not "conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and/or the Game" if it's caught on a live broadcast? That seems like an incredibly arbitrary position to take.

The RFU references this:

A player must not verbally abuse anyone. Verbal abuse includes, but is not limited to, abuse based on: religion, colour, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation.

neither "your mum's a whore" nor "you're a fat cunt" match those directly, but are clearly verbal abuse. The RFU explicitly urged the panel not to sanction on the basis of the health status of Heenan's mother, and to judge it on its own merits. Which they did. They also state that this sort of thing is unfortunately commonplace in the sport.

The fact that it was so public and had a public reaction to it is why this ended up as a banning matter, not because "your mum's a whore" is so much worse than "you're a fat cunt". That's why this was tried under 5.12. If it hadn't happened in a televised match, it's highly unlikely it would've resulted in a ban.

The panel's conclusion is hard to argue with.

CONCLUSION
26. England Rugby’s Core Values are a fundamental part of the Game.

Under the heading Respect, it reads: “Mutual respect forms the basis of our sport. We hold in high esteem our sport, its values and traditions and earn the respect of others in the way we behave...We respect opposition players...”

Under the hearing Sportsmanship, it reads: “Sportsmanship is the foundation upon which rugby union is built. We uphold the rugby tradition of camaraderie with teammates and opposition. We observe fair play both on and off the pitch.”

27. In RFU v Steve Diamond (19 November 2017), the Panel (chaired by HHJ Ian Unsworth KC as he now is) had said:
Rugby’s Core Values are not empty words or slogans which can be signed up to and then ignored. They are not to be treated as useful bolt-ons dreamt up by a marketing team. They are integral to the game and are what make the game special.

28. These words are as true today as they were in 2017. The insulting and offensive comments by the Player were wholly inappropriate; such comments should form no part of the modern game.

29. The Player had, as he had accepted, acted in a way that was prejudicial to the interests of the Game. His comments were such that, in the Panel’s view, they straddled the boundary between being an act of verbal abuse and an act contrary to good sportsmanship. Although strictly unnecessary, this being a matter brought under RFU Rule 5.12, the Panel concluded that the comments passed the red card threshold such that if they had been heard by a match official, the Player could have received a red card.

30. Following the structured approach under RFU Regulation 19, the Panel concluded that this was an incident of low-end offending. This was an intentional, albeit spontaneous, incident for which there was no provocation. The insulting and offensive comments made by the Player were wholly inappropriate.

31. The Panel had regard to the entry points for breaches of Law 9.12 (acts of verbal abuse) and of Law 9.27 (acts contrary to good sportsmanship). The Panel noted that the low-end entry point for acts of verbal abuse are a ban of 6 weeks, while the low end entry point for acts contrary to good sportsmanship (other) are a ban of 4 weeks. The Panel also had regard to the fact the Player had accepted the charge and had apologised to the Bristol player (as mitigating factors) and to the Player’s disciplinary record as aggravating features. In relation to the latter, of particular importance were the incidents of verbal abuse (albeit that this is now of some age, given it was committed almost seven years ago) and the incident involving Alun Wyn Jones in 2020.

32. The Panel concluded that following the mechanistic approach under RFU Regulation 19, a ban of 6 weeks was warranted for this offence.

33. The Panel then stepped back to consider whether an immediate ban of 6 weeks was proportionate or whether it would be appropriate to suspend all or part of any sanction (pursuant to RFU Regulation 19.11.20).

34. The Panel took account of its significant rugby experience and acknowledged that regrettably, and to the Game’s detriment, such attempts to put opponent players off using abusive jibes have long-been part of the Game. That is not to excuse or condone such behaviour. But, when viewed in this context, the Panel considered it was not appropriate to single this particular player out for this particular incident by imposing an unduly severe sanction.

35. As has already been stated repeatedly, but so as to leave no room for doubt, comments such as these are wholly inappropriate and should form no part of the modern game. This is especially so in the elite game where rugby players are role models; such behaviour sets a poor example for others. In this Panel’s view, rugby players who make such comments to put opponent players off their game or otherwise, should expect to receive appropriate punishment that could include receiving an on-field red card.

Unless you think that "you're a fat cunt" comments aren't abusive jibes intended to put opponents off or aren't wholly inappropriate that should form no part of the modern game, then I'm not sure there's any point drawing a line that separates the two into "ban-worthy" and "not ban-worthy". It's either inappropriate deliberate verbal abuse or it isn't.

[GogLais]

Have I said it already? Probably. In an era when rugby is trying to promote the women’s game, calling one a whore isn’t going to go down well.

[JM2K6]

Have I said it already? Probably. In an era when rugby is trying to promote the women’s game, calling one a whore isn’t going to go down well.

Sure, though that doesn't really seem to have played any part in any of this. I think most people (including the panel) recognise the insult was aimed at pissing off Heenan, not actually trying to denigrate his mother (who Marler clearly knew nothing about). If he'd called a woman a whore to their face, whole different kettle of fish and a very, very long ban would be merited.

[Kawazaki]

Marler needed cutting down a peg or two. Calling an opponent's mother a whore is not common place. Sledging in general in rugby is nowhere near the levels that defenders of Marler say there is. Read the room, tell him to either learn or leave.

[JM2K6]

Marler needed cutting down a peg or two. Calling an opponent's mother's a whore is not common place. Sledging in general in rugby is nowhere near the levels that defenders of Marler say there is. Read the room, tell him to either learn or leave.

Sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that it's the panel acknowledging this, not his "defenders" (whoever they may be).

This type of behaviour is, unfortunately, routinely used to put opponents off their game; players are unable to defend themselves without themselves descending to the level of the abuser.

The Panel took account of its significant rugby experience and acknowledged that regrettably, and to the Game’s detriment, such attempts to put opponent players off using abusive jibes have long-been part of the Game.

No argument from me that he needed to be brought to heel on this, though.

[Kawazaki]

I repeat, calling an opponent's mother a whore is not a common phrase in rugby. Calling a fat prop fat or an old lock old are. The panel summary of sledging doesn't make the distinction.

And finally, Marler doesn't start any match with any goodwill in credit. The margins for him to throw abuse are narrower. Keep banning him until he either learns or leaves the game.

[JM2K6]

I repeat, calling an opponent's mother a whore is not a common phrase in rugby. Calling a fat prop fat or an old lock old are. The panel summary of sledging doesn't make the distinction.

Ah right so the angle you're taking now is that despite it apparently being an exceptional and incredibly rare type of abuse, the panel made no reference to that at all as part of the judgement and instead lumped it in with regular abuse that it thinks is commonplace and directly commented on, for ??? reasons known only to them. Sure, that makes loads of sense.

The panel summary says that abuse like this is commonplace. There's really very little room to argue with that one. Why not just own it and say you disagree with them rather than trying to make out that they're actually referring to other, different types of abuse that are less abusive but more common? Either they think it's more commonplace than you do, or they don't draw the distinction between the types of verbal abuse in the same way you do. One way or another, your beliefs are at odds with their written opinion.

p.s. the example was "you're a fat cunt", not just calling someone fat or old. Because "you're old" isn't verbally abusive.

[Kawazaki]

I haven't changed my position at all. Stop being so defensive FFS.

Marler is a cunt with previous. I don't like him.

Do with that as you like.

p.s I played for 15 years and never heard anyone's mother called a whore. Several test players have said they never heard it used either.

[JM2K6]

I'm making fun of the pretzels you turn yourself into when you're forced to twist some facts to suit your opinion. Given I'm not defending Marler, I've nothing to be defensive about - just amused by the "the panel didn't mean what the panel explicitly said and somehow at the same time didn't say it was exceptional abuse even though it obviously was" angle.

FWIW, I didn't play for 15 years, but insults about players mothers were relatively commonplace when I was a young lad. Because "your mum" jokes are older than time itself. It's all shit and should be cut out along with all the other crap the modern game lets slide for no good reason

[Tichtheid]

The Moore article sounds about right, I genuinely don't remember much sledging going on, there was a lot of physical intimidation and, especially in France, actual violence, but not much in the way of witty repartee beyond "Fuck off" or "Come on then, ya prick".

[Kawazaki]

I'm making fun of the pretzels you turn yourself into when you're forced to twist some facts to suit your opinion. Given I'm not defending Marler, I've nothing to be defensive about - just amused by the "the panel didn't mean what the panel explicitly said and somehow at the same time didn't say it was exceptional abuse even though it obviously was" angle.

FWIW, I didn't play for 15 years, but insults about players mothers were relatively commonplace when I was a young lad. Because "your mum" jokes are older than time itself. It's all shit and should be cut out along with all the other crap the modern game lets slide for no good reason

Seriously fella, you see things that aren't there. I get why you do it but it's not very smart. There's no twisting or changing from me, read the thread, read the testimonies from test players if mine doesn't hold any currency. Saying "Your mother's a whore" is not commonplace in rugby either now or 30 years ago. . That's my opinion, if you disagree with that then fine.

[Kawazaki]

The Moore article sounds about right, I genuinely don't remember much sledging going on, there was a lot of physical intimidation and, especially in France, actual violence, but not much in the way of witty repartee beyond "Fuck off" or "Come on then, ya prick".

Exactly. Marler is the outlier.

JM is trying hard not to defend Marler though. Yeah right.

[JM2K6]

Correct, I am not defending Marler. How could I be? I know you're desperate for me to do it but I see no reason to defend him. He shouldn't have done it and he deserves the ban despite the rather unique nature of it, for a number of reasons.

Just because I agree with the very experienced panel that verbal abuse is commonplace in professional rugby - let's be clear, we've all heard it - and that there's plenty of ban worthy shit that passes by without sanction, doesn't equate to me saying he's been hard done by or doesn't deserve it. I fully understand why this particular incident has been met with a ban and agree with the reasoning.

In the interests of full disclosure, I don't know which test players you're talking about.

[Kawazaki]

Brian Moore article is linked earlier.

Here's John Cooney on any 'mum' joke in rugby...

[JM2K6]

Brian Moore article is linked earlier.

Here's John Cooney on any 'mum' joke in rugby...

You said several.

Moore didn't deny that sledging and insults happened. He wrote about how the witty repartee and banter wasn't really a thing in his time and how it's mostly misty-eyed bollocks. He said nothing about hearing a "your mum" insult - he merely claimed he heard very few funny sledges in his time.

The Aussies and Kiwis loved their sledging, though: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... edger.html


Fair enough re: Cooney - funny that he's replying to Jake of PR fame, given that I was genuinely just thinking about the godawful stories Jake used to tell as examples of legendarily hilarious rugby moments. Like the time some young flanker when told to keep an eye on the opposition back row at a scrum said "I've got the old cunt" only for the target to apparently stand up, knock him out, then walk off the pitch (presumably applauded with tears in their eyes by his teammates or some such bollocks). Very much the sort of misty-eyed crap that wasn't funny or clever - neither the insult nor the violence - but is clearly appealing to certain types.


So, a question for you: Do you think the law regarding verbal abuse should be rewritten to state that players families are off-limits?

[Kawazaki]

I think the laws work fine as they are. The ref, for whatever reason, completely failed to deal with it and he has some serious explaining to do as to why he ignored it. I call bullshit that he didn't hear it.

[JM2K6]

Why? Most refs pretty much have to ignore the players given the amount of chat. Dickson's a really shit ref, but beyond the Twitter keyboard warriors desperate to find some conspiracy theory behind him being an ex Quins player there's very little expectation on any ref to be paying attention to players chuntering away at each other. It's hard enough with all the pricks screaming at the ref at every ruck as it is.

[weegie01]

Fair enough re: Cooney - funny that he's replying to Jake of PR fame, given that I was genuinely just thinking about the godawful stories Jake used to tell as examples of legendarily hilarious rugby moments. Like the time some young flanker when told to keep an eye on the opposition back row at a scrum said "I've got the old cunt" only for the target to apparently stand up, knock him out, then walk off the pitch (presumably applauded with tears in their eyes by his teammates or some such bollocks). Very much the sort of misty-eyed crap that wasn't funny or clever - neither the insult nor the violence - but is clearly appealing to certain types.

It is not just misty eyed crap, it is crap. No one in my experience would be throwing punches over something as trivial as that. I am fairly sure that in my day calling someone old or fat or similar would get a 'is that the best you can do' type of response, if it got any response at all.

[Kawazaki]

Why? Most refs pretty much have to ignore the players given the amount of chat. Dickson's a really shit ref, but beyond the Twitter keyboard warriors desperate to find some conspiracy theory behind him being an ex Quins player there's very little expectation on any ref to be paying attention to players chuntering away at each other. It's hard enough with all the pricks screaming at the ref at every ruck as it is.

Read the testimony from Heenan. No doubt in his mind that Dickson heard it, if not the first time Marler said it then definitely the second time he said it. He even says he dismissed it with a shake of his head.



Dickson is literally standing right next to Marler, he's even nearer than Heenan is.

[Sandstorm]

Why? Most refs pretty much have to ignore the players given the amount of chat. Dickson's a really shit ref, but beyond the Twitter keyboard warriors desperate to find some conspiracy theory behind him being an ex Quins player there's very little expectation on any ref to be paying attention to players chuntering away at each other. It's hard enough with all the pricks screaming at the ref at every ruck as it is.

Read the testimony from Heenan. No doubt in his mind that Dickson heard it, if not the first time Marler said it then definitely the second time he said it. He even says he dismissed it with a shake of his head.



Dickson is literally standing right next to Marler, he's even nearer than Heenan is.

Maybe the TMO was in Dickson’s ear and he wasn’t listening to the sledging?

[Kawazaki]

Why? Most refs pretty much have to ignore the players given the amount of chat. Dickson's a really shit ref, but beyond the Twitter keyboard warriors desperate to find some conspiracy theory behind him being an ex Quins player there's very little expectation on any ref to be paying attention to players chuntering away at each other. It's hard enough with all the pricks screaming at the ref at every ruck as it is.

Read the testimony from Heenan. No doubt in his mind that Dickson heard it, if not the first time Marler said it then definitely the second time he said it. He even says he dismissed it with a shake of his head.



Dickson is literally standing right next to Marler, he's even nearer than Heenan is.

Maybe the TMO was in Dickson’s ear and he wasn’t listening to the sledging?

Maybe. Maybe Dickson just didn't want to make a decision. Why did he shake his head at Heenan?

[JM2K6]

Fair enough re: Cooney - funny that he's replying to Jake of PR fame, given that I was genuinely just thinking about the godawful stories Jake used to tell as examples of legendarily hilarious rugby moments. Like the time some young flanker when told to keep an eye on the opposition back row at a scrum said "I've got the old cunt" only for the target to apparently stand up, knock him out, then walk off the pitch (presumably applauded with tears in their eyes by his teammates or some such bollocks). Very much the sort of misty-eyed crap that wasn't funny or clever - neither the insult nor the violence - but is clearly appealing to certain types.

It is not just misty eyed crap, it is crap. No one in my experience would be throwing punches over something as trivial as that. I am fairly sure that in my day calling someone old or fat or similar would get a 'is that the best you can do' type of response, if it got any response at all.

Ah there's no shortage of thin skinned psychopaths playing lower level rugby

[SaintK]

Kevin Sinfield as interviewed by Jake on PR
Comes over very well
https://www.planetrugby.com/news/the- ... red-rose

[Paddington Bear]

Ford in the England camp. Something grimly amusing about 3 years of ‘rugby 2.0’ when we could start basically an identical XV two world cups running

[Brazil]

Ford in the England camp. Something grimly amusing about 3 years of ‘rugby 2.0’ when we could start basically an identical XV two world cups running

No chance that we might get to see him at Sale before he inevitably gets broken playing for England?

[Torquemada 1420]

Kevin Sinfield as interviewed by Jake on PR
Comes over very well
https://www.planetrugby.com/news/the- ... red-rose

Jake or Sinfield?

[JM2K6]

Ford in the England camp. Something grimly amusing about 3 years of ‘rugby 2.0’ when we could start basically an identical XV two world cups running

With Smith injured, it's a no brainer. Ford's a great player.

[SaintK]

Kevin Sinfield as interviewed by Jake on PR
Comes over very well
https://www.planetrugby.com/news/the- ... red-rose

Jake or Sinfield?

Both in this instance.
Well written article