6N 2016 (other teams)

[simonokeeffe]

Sexton is by far the lesser of 2 evils there dont get me wrong
only danger is if he gets a reputation for appealing refs will be less likely to punish the original offence

[Gavlar]

speaking of citings I wonder will Dunbar be the unluckiest man in the 6n and be the only player cited for Sexton related skullduggery

Judging by the way things have gone in this 6 Nations it's probably more likely that sexton will be cited for 'unsportsmanlike behaviour' for his 'apparent' play acting after the Dunbar knee to the head and subsequent tackle.

he did look for it a bit, not saying Dunbar doesnt deserve a 2 week ban though

Sexton started the big melee under the posts after Toners try (though there was arguably a tip tackle there) by running in and shoving Horne over

I could be wrong but I thought Nathan White was the first man into that melee?

[simonokeeffe]

white was first in when the melee turned into a fracas

tip tackle = Sexton shove = angry Horne = White heat

[fourthirtythree]

If I were Eddie Jones I'd have dropped Marler for today's game vs France (not just from the starting lineup, but from the squad). Racial remarks have no place in rugby. If the comment had been anti-African, anti-Polynesian or anti-Aboriginal, the reaction would have been much more severe.

Travellers, unless Roma, are not a race. Even the idea that they are an ethnic group is contentious, as per the discussion we've been having in the thread with at least 3 different views. If they are not a race or ethnic group then it's merely an insult based on life choices.

And repeatedly asserting it as you have, doesn't make anything you have said true.

There is no such thing as races among humans, ethnicity is always a cultural construct so the two terms are interchangeable in meaning if you must use them.

For the purposes of UK law both Roma and Irish travellers are defined as races under their race relations act.

So it is exactly the same kind of offence in this case as if he had used whatever term you are imagining refers to a race. Your opinion on this is irrelevant.

[FLIP]

If I were Eddie Jones I'd have dropped Marler for today's game vs France (not just from the starting lineup, but from the squad). Racial remarks have no place in rugby. If the comment had been anti-African, anti-Polynesian or anti-Aboriginal, the reaction would have been much more severe.

Travellers, unless Roma, are not a race. Even the idea that they are an ethnic group is contentious, as per the discussion we've been having in the thread with at least 3 different views. If they are not a race or ethnic group then it's merely an insult based on life choices.

And repeatedly asserting it as you have, doesn't make anything you have said true.

There is no such thing as races among humans, ethnicity is always a cultural construct so the two terms are interchangeable in meaning if you must use them.

For the purposes of UK law both Roma and Irish travellers are defined as races under their race relations act.

So it is exactly the same kind of offence in this case as if he had used whatever term you are imagining refers to a race. Your opinion on this is irrelevant.

The current UK law is one that is seen as contentious and one that may be revisited within this Parliament. The wording within allows any distinct group who receives offence to become a protected group, hence how it would be possible for such people as Royalty, and Families from Old Money, to be protected under such a law due to the idea that being born into a culture allows you to claim ethnicity. While this hasn't yet been used in court, as libel and slander are much easier routes for the mentioned groups, it would be possible for it to be used so, and would be as ridiculous as it sounds.

There is no one viewpoint set in stone. To cast a viewpoint different to yours irrelevant is to avoid discussion because you feel that your point is fragile.

[Dave Cahill]

There is no one viewpoint set in stone.

There is - the one reflected in the laws of the UK.

[FLIP]

There is no one viewpoint set in stone.

There is - the one reflected in the laws of the UK.

Which is the law in one area of the world, not international law, and one which as noted before isn't exactly a great example due to how vaguely an ethnic group can be defined. How poorly the law is written is shown in how the police have shown no interest in what's happened.

[Peg Leg]

Lee would have to make a complaint for the law to get involved

[Oldschool]

Lee would have to make a complaint for the law to get involved

The can of worms that would open up could be the end of pro rugby as players started to sue the rigby unions for grievance bodily harm because some ref/tmo failed in their responsibilities to protect players.

[Peg Leg]

Lee would have to make a complaint for the law to get involved

The can of worms that would open up could be the end of pro rugby as players started to sue the rigby unions for grievance bodily harm because some ref/tmo failed in their responsibilities to protect players.

Pretty sure they are contracted and insured for the bodily harm. The are not hired to endure racist bullying on the job. (A very black and white way of looking at it).

BTW I'm not one to be offended by most things and whilst I'm glad that world rugby are looking into it I do understand flips point of view. However culture evolves and currently our culture is trying to progress to a model that is accepting and protective of all groups that wish to self identify (I'm jedi myself). It's early days in that regard and surely there will be some fine tuning down the road but that can't be a bad thing, right?

[Oldschool]

Lee would have to make a complaint for the law to get involved

The can of worms that would open up could be the end of pro rugby as players started to sue the rigby unions for grievance bodily harm because some ref/tmo failed in their responsibilities to protect players.

Pretty sure they are contracted and insured for the bodily harm. The are not hired to endure racist bullying on the job. (A very black and white way of looking at it).

BTW I'm not one to be offended by most things and whilst I'm glad that world rugby are looking into it I do understand flips point of view. However culture evolves and currently our culture is trying to progress to a model that is accepting and protective of all groups that wish to self identify (I'm jedi myself). It's early days in that regard and surely there will be some fine tuning down the road but that can't be a bad thing, right?

I take your point but neither are they hired to endure physical bullying (outside the laws of the game) on the job either. An equally black and white way of looking at it.
Personally I'd far prefer verbal abuse to which I can retaliate in equal measure if I so wish than physical bullying where the playing field (pardon the pun) may not be so level.
My point is really that once someone decides to take a court case over one issue then there is the potential for others to follow suit.
The authorities need to be even handed and thorough in all areas. Just because racism is the hot topic doesn't make it right for them to ignore what happened to Sexton and others in France for example, because if they don't fulfill their side of the contract then they can be sued and not just sued, but sued successfully.
The class action taken by American footballers on the concussion issue being a possible case in point.

[simonokeeffe]

know am late to the party on this but just saw tackle Hartley knocked himself out with

insanely poor (and arguably illegal) technique and from a guy with a history of concussion problems

[Ruckedtobits]

know am late to the party on this but just saw tackle Hartley knocked himself out with

insanely poor (and arguably illegal) technique and from a guy with a history of concussion problems

Absolutely right Simon. Led with his head below the knee. Arms might have wrapped after impact but certainly not on contact.

[fourthirtythree]

Travellers, unless Roma, are not a race. Even the idea that they are an ethnic group is contentious, as per the discussion we've been having in the thread with at least 3 different views. If they are not a race or ethnic group then it's merely an insult based on life choices.

And repeatedly asserting it as you have, doesn't make anything you have said true.

There is no such thing as races among humans, ethnicity is always a cultural construct so the two terms are interchangeable in meaning if you must use them.

For the purposes of UK law both Roma and Irish travellers are defined as races under their race relations act.

So it is exactly the same kind of offence in this case as if he had used whatever term you are imagining refers to a race. Your opinion on this is irrelevant.

The current UK law is one that is seen as contentious and one that may be revisited within this Parliament. The wording within allows any distinct group who receives offence to become a protected group, hence how it would be possible for such people as Royalty, and Families from Old Money, to be protected under such a law due to the idea that being born into a culture allows you to claim ethnicity. While this hasn't yet been used in court, as libel and slander are much easier routes for the mentioned groups, it would be possible for it to be used so, and would be as ridiculous as it sounds.

There is no one viewpoint set in stone. To cast a viewpoint different to yours irrelevant is to avoid discussion because you feel that your point is fragile.

No it wouldn't be possible: they are not defined as ethic groups within the body of the laws and interpretations around the race relations acts. The UK government does not (as it has for decades with travellers, even under the last Tory government) collect data on whether you are old money as part of its monitoring of such things as employment law etc. defending bigoted comments against an underprivileged group by suggesting laws to defend them could be used to defend over privileged groups is, in the most charitable interpretation possible, disingenuous.

To suggest that your opinion that gravity points upwards on the earth is worth consideration is merely trolling/ sealioning.

Describing an ethnic group, facetiously, as a "lifestyle choice" - a U.S. Dog whistle term, isn't really a good look either. Is being Jewish a lifestyle choice of ones parents? Are you going with gay as a lifestyle choice here too? Is that fair game?

Marler was a dick caught acting like a dick and English rugby are craven enablers of racism who know their audience and know that they can get away with that in a way they couldn't right now if it referred to a black person, Jewish, or say, gay. Though all of those were fair game recently enough.

[FLIP]

No it wouldn't be possible: they are not defined as ethic groups within the body of the laws and interpretations around the race relations acts. The UK government does not (as it has for decades with travellers, even under the last Tory government) collect data on whether you are old money as part of its monitoring of such things as employment law etc. defending bigoted comments against an underprivileged group by suggesting laws to defend them could be used to defend over privileged groups is, in the most charitable interpretation possible, disingenuous.

If these groups were ever decided to have been discriminated against in a court of law, this data would then be collected. Isn't that the very idea behind ethnogenisis? As for the idea that a privileged group cannot be discriminated against, that's very dangerous territory.

To suggest that your opinion that gravity points upwards on the earth is worth consideration is merely trolling/ sealioning.

To suggest that only you are right in what is a social construct discussion is nonsense. To compare your viewpoint to gravity and mine the opposite is a strawman.

Describing an ethnic group, facetiously, as a "lifestyle choice" - a U.S. Dog whistle term, isn't really a good look either. Is being Jewish a lifestyle choice of ones parents? Are you going with gay as a lifestyle choice here too? Is that fair game?

Marler was a dick caught acting like a dick and English rugby are craven enablers of racism who know their audience and know that they can get away with that in a way they couldn't right now if it referred to a black person, Jewish, or say, gay. Though all of those were fair game recently enough.

As for all the above protected classes you have mentioned, you absolutely cannot choose if you are gay, black, Jewish, or even a woman. Religion is a choice but one that is protected. Unless there is a real genetic difference between one group and another, there is no real ethnic group, just a social one who make their own choices. You make your choice and you're no longer a traveller. You can't choose to not be gay, black, Jewish, or a woman.

As for the genetics discussion, that's already been had so unless you add something materially new to that there's probably not much point discussing further as we both have different viewpoints.

[simonokeeffe]

know am late to the party on this but just saw tackle Hartley knocked himself out with

insanely poor (and arguably illegal) technique and from a guy with a history of concussion problems

Absolutely right Simon. Led with his head below the knee. Arms might have wrapped after impact but certainly not on contact.

Lydiate at least used to lead with the shoulder

[fourthirtythree]

No it wouldn't be possible: they are not defined as ethic groups within the body of the laws and interpretations around the race relations acts. The UK government does not (as it has for decades with travellers, even under the last Tory government) collect data on whether you are old money as part of its monitoring of such things as employment law etc. defending bigoted comments against an underprivileged group by suggesting laws to defend them could be used to defend over privileged groups is, in the most charitable interpretation possible, disingenuous.

1 If these groups were ever decided to have been discriminated against in a court of law, this data would then be collected. Isn't that the very idea behind ethnogenisis? As for the idea that a privileged group cannot be discriminated against, that's very dangerous territory.

To suggest that your opinion that gravity points upwards on the earth is worth consideration is merely trolling/ sealioning.

2 To suggest that only you are right in what is a social construct discussion is nonsense. To compare your viewpoint to gravity and mine the opposite is a strawman.

Describing an ethnic group, facetiously, as a "lifestyle choice" - a U.S. Dog whistle term, isn't really a good look either. Is being Jewish a lifestyle choice of ones parents? Are you going with gay as a lifestyle choice here too? Is that fair game?

Marler was a dick caught acting like a dick and English rugby are craven enablers of racism who know their audience and know that they can get away with that in a way they couldn't right now if it referred to a black person, Jewish, or say, gay. Though all of those were fair game recently enough.

3As for all the above protected classes you have mentioned, you absolutely cannot choose if you are gay, black, Jewish, or even a woman. Religion is a choice but one that is protected. Unless there is a real genetic difference between one group and another, there is no real ethnic group, just a social one who make their own choices. You make your choice and you're no longer a traveller. You can't choose to not be gay, black, Jewish, or a woman.

4 As for the genetics discussion, that's already been had so unless you add something materially new to that there's probably not much point discussing further as we both have different viewpoints.

1 this translates as "if things were different, if we lived in a different reality, things would be different". In other words it's a fatuous argument devoid of worth.

2 I said you were factually wrong in point of law. You were.

3 Your initial post described it as "lifestyle choices of his parents". He can't change that. The culture you come from is not a "lifestyle choice" anyway and your dismissive suggestion that it is is a really, really bad look that you might want to consider keeping to yourself in future. Particularly in a real life encounter.

4 Indeed we did, and you suggested that race was a genetic term whereas ethnicity was culture. Again you were completely wrong. I'm materially pointing out that you haven't faced up to that fact yet.

[FLIP]

And with the ad hominem logically fallacy brought into play I think that's as far as this discussion can go.

[olaf the fat]

Aaagh - you 2 - (as often heard by travelers) move on.

[ChrisUppy]

Copied & pasted from rugbydumps facebook:

BREAKING: World Rugby has confirmed that England's Joe Marler will face an independent World Rugby misconduct hearing for the "Gypsy Boy" comment made towards Wales' Samson Lee.

View it here: http://www.rugbydump.com/…/joe-marler-w ... o-punishme…

World Rugby is of the view that the comments amount to misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct under World Rugby Regulation 20 and should have been considered by an independent process.

In the absence of such a process by Six Nations Rugby, World Rugby is exercising its right to take appropriate action before an independent judicial committee.

The case will be heard by an independent judicial committee as soon as practically possible. Details will be announced in due course and the player is free to continue playing in the interim.