European Rugby Champions Cup

[artaneboy]

3 weeks spot on. Sends the message that it is not the 1990s anymore, and players need to use appropriate language on the field, but recognises that it was a potetially hurtful and thoughtless outburst by Basta, rather than a targeted verbal attack on a gay rugby player.

Here is a fact: if it wasn't picked up on the mic, there is no problem, because the player he was shouting at (who supposedly isn't gay) wouldn't have cared, so it wouldn't have been reported.

A lot of suppositions there. Anyway- he was caught and that’s good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure we should be using the rugby ref mic to police hate speech (or whatever his outburst would be characterised as) and rugby governing bodies to act as a judiciary. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. It is a potentially slippery slope for society.

I am certain that I would prefer players not to use language like that. Once it is picked up, therefore, I believe he has to face the consequences.
If anyone was genuinely offended by his use of the word, and then felt that the sanction was not sufficient, I would hope they would use the proper legal avenues to deal with it (France has some pretty ancient hate speech legislation).

Of course we should use ref mic; can anyone doubt that Basteraud would not have been ‘encouraged’ by Toulon to reflect on his words and then done a Trump and denied he used those words?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kermischocolate]

I heard he got 6 weeks but because he pled guilty it was halved to 3.

Yeah that's a complete joke.

As a matter of interest, can you plead guilty to reckless behaviour and have your sentence reduced? In other words, can you plead guilty to doing something that you didn't mean to do...and even though the charge actually acknowledges that you didn't do it intentionally, you admit it happened and they go easy on you?

Yea-happens at most hearings. Generally always get a reduction for a guilty plea.
And wearing a nice suit.
And bringing decent biscuits.

Whole process is an inconsistent farce although at least EPCR publish details of findings.

[curates_egg]

I'm not sure we should be using the rugby ref mic to police hate speech (or whatever his outburst would be characterised as) and rugby governing bodies to act as a judiciary. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. It is a potentially slippery slope for society.

I am certain that I would prefer players not to use language like that. Once it is picked up, therefore, I believe he has to face the consequences.
If anyone was genuinely offended by his use of the word, and then felt that the sanction was not sufficient, I would hope they would use the proper legal avenues to deal with it (France has some pretty ancient hate speech legislation).

Of course we should use ref mic; can anyone doubt that Basteraud would not have been ‘encouraged’ by Toulon to reflect on his words and then done a Trump and denied he used those words?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said initially: if it were not picked up on the mic, I don't believe there would have been an issue at all...because I am not convinced anyone who heard it would have been THAT offended by it. Even if we all agree they should have been. So, we are going around in circles.

There was a mic; it was picked up; therefore it was right to ban him. He - and all players - should learn from it and not use that language again.

[fourthirtythree]

So long I said it twice.

[fourthirtythree]

That it was broadcast meant it couldn't be brushed under the carpet. To do so would damage the sport. That's not policing hate speech, that's dealing with on pitch discipline and the reputation of the sport

People frequently complaIn about the application of mitigating factors to diminish the sanction and we don't have anything to compare it to here. Halving the punishment is so regular an occurrence that it doesn't seem likely to b out of line.

France's laws on allowable speech surely only date from the post war republic at earliest? You can say an awful lot of things about muslims and how wonderful life was for les pieds noirs before the pesky natives got uppity, just not holocaust denial or how great the third reich was. Which is the nature of those things: free speech is always really privileged speech.

[artaneboy]

I'm not sure we should be using the rugby ref mic to police hate speech (or whatever his outburst would be characterised as) and rugby governing bodies to act as a judiciary. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that. It is a potentially slippery slope for society.

I am certain that I would prefer players not to use language like that. Once it is picked up, therefore, I believe he has to face the consequences.
If anyone was genuinely offended by his use of the word, and then felt that the sanction was not sufficient, I would hope they would use the proper legal avenues to deal with it (France has some pretty ancient hate speech legislation).

Of course we should use ref mic; can anyone doubt that Basteraud would not have been ‘encouraged’ by Toulon to reflect on his words and then done a Trump and denied he used those words?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said initially: if it were not picked up on the mic, I don't believe there would have been an issue at all...because I am not convinced anyone who heard it would have been THAT offended by it. Even if we all agree they should have been. So, we are going around in circles.

There was a mic; it was picked up; therefore it was right to ban him. He - and all players - should learn from it and not use that language again.

We can agree on that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLIP]

3 weeks for what essentially is a criminal act isn't right though

[curates_egg]

3 weeks for what essentially is a criminal act isn't right though

I'm pretty sure saying the French equivalent is not a criminal act in France - based on some other far more extreme racial/religious hate speech that has gone unpunished. They are pretty big on freedom of speech vs hate speech.

Would it be a criminal act in Ireland to use that word, say, in a game of tag rugby? Honest question. I have no clue.

[curates_egg]

That it was broadcast meant it couldn't be brushed under the carpet. To do so would damage the sport. That's not policing hate speech, that's dealing with on pitch discipline and the reputation of the sport

People frequently complaIn about the application of mitigating factors to diminish the sanction and we don't have anything to compare it to here. Halving the punishment is so regular an occurrence that it doesn't seem likely to b out of line.

France's laws on allowable speech surely only date from the post war republic at earliest? You can say an awful lot of things about muslims and how wonderful life was for les pieds noirs before the pesky natives got uppity, just not holocaust denial or how great the third reich was. Which is the nature of those things: free speech is always really privileged speech.

I think you have missed my point. I said precisely that, because it was picked up, it should be punished. I find the punishment more or less ok, and I hope it will be noted by all rugby players and they will stop using homophobic (and other racial/ethnic) slurs in a 'locker room' manner on the pitch.

What I also said was, I am not sure I am comfortable with a process by which it being picked up essentially leads to the applicable legal system (even if the French one is quite lax on hate speech, as you point out) being supplanted by a European rugby authority. I just think that it could be a slippery slope.
If there's no mic, there's no issue, as - most likely - nobody in hearing range would have found it offensive enough to make a big deal with it.
I totally get that most people wouldn't think that way, but that's my view.
I also am not sure what the solution is. I'm not a big fan of mic'ing players and refs, but I wouldn't use the reason above as a justification for ending it.

[fourthirtythree]

No, I don't think I missed any of those points. I'm not being trollish or facetious in saying that, I genuinely mean that I think I got what you meant.

If something falls under the remit of national law, that isn't for a sports body to intervene in. Its broadcast is then more an issue of evidence. Precedent would suggest that judges don't treat behaviour on the pitch in a contact sport in a decontextualised manner [citation needed!] but rather take into the account the norms of sport. I don't think this is in danger of being a criminal case.


But I don't think I communicated what I intended to say which has nothing to do with the legal system, nor policing: this is the administration of a sport dealing with the public undermining of the espoused values of the sport. That's why the broadcast is material to the treatment of it. It doesn't make what he said any worse, it just makes it something they have to deal with as an administrative body.


I have no strong opinion on whether the French ideal of hate speech is up to date, I just believe that they regularly expose its hypocrisy to us and that their own imperial legacy (and I just read quotes from a survivor of their brutal slavery in Haiti today so it was fresh in my mind) remains morally acceptable in their discourse to an extent which I find unacceptable. It is awful. This wasn't related to rugby or this issue in from of us, just me being old and cynical and disappointed.

[Peg Leg]

Lads the ire and subsequent ban has zero to do with how the victim was impacted. It was about bringing the game into disrepute and potentially driving or keeping a section of society from participating in the future.

[fourthirtythree]

Lads the ire and subsequent ban has zero to do with how the victim was impacted. It was about bringing the game into disrepute and potentially driving or keeping a section of society from participating in the future.

Of course. That surely goes without saying. There was never any suggestion otherwise.

[Peg Leg]

Lads the ire and subsequent ban has zero to do with how the victim was impacted. It was about bringing the game into disrepute and potentially driving or keeping a section of society from participating in the future.

Of course. That surely goes without saying. There was never any suggestion otherwise.

I think if you read through the last couple of pages you'll read otherwise.

[Oldschool]

Lads the ire and subsequent ban has zero to do with how the victim was impacted. It was about bringing the game into disrepute and potentially driving or keeping a section of society from participating in the future.

Of course. That surely goes without saying. There was never any suggestion otherwise.

I think if you read through the last couple of pages you'll read otherwise.

A serious case of thin skinned being over discussed and analysed to death.
"Sticks and stones" covers it my opinion.
Boring.

[paddyor]

Of course. That surely goes without saying. There was never any suggestion otherwise.

I think if you read through the last couple of pages you'll read otherwise.

A serious case of thin skinned being over discussed and analysed to death.
"Sticks and stones" covers it my opinion.
Boring.

Well there's a wealth of opinions out there. And You seem more than a little exercised by it.

In other news, I see a bunch of men's rights activists retconned The Last Jedi, removing all the scenes with women in it. They're laughing at all the people who are triggered by it.

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

[Dave Cahill]

Not half as much as the rest of the world is laughing at them - even the cast are joining in

[paddyor]

It's this all over again.

[Oldschool]

As I said "thin skinned"

[simonokeeffe]

The fact that Haskell got four weeks makes the 3 weeks for Basteraud look even worse!

I would rather someone call me a F*g, mick, paddy, croppy or whatever than commit a violent act upon me. EPRC got it dead right.

Theres an argument then that violent conduct should be getting higher bans, which it should in many cases

Had to look up croppy

[neill_m]

How the bookies see it:

Leinster -1
Exeter -9
Sarries -25
ASM -11
Scarlets -6
Munster -28
R92 -5
Coventry -4
ASR -30

My predictions for the QF:

1 Leinster v 8 R92
2 ASM v 7 Exeter
3 Munster v 6 Ulster
4 La Rochelle v 5 Scarlets