10 week ban

No attempt to defuse. Alan Wyn Jones wasn't involved and it was a covert incident that could have led to inflaming the incident.

I'm surprised it's 10 weeks though.
 
They were saying over here that its a 12 week ban for the charge he had, less any time off for good behaviour etc. As Joe Marler has had several other charges there wasn't much good behaviour to take into account.

If he had been charged with ungentlemanly behaviour he would have got 6 weeks or slightly less.
 
I didn't say he was an angel I said it was nonsense to ben him for so long for that. Everyone that knows Marler is saying it clealry wasn't meant with malice and it was just Joe Being Joe, nothing more.

I think Alun Wyn-Jones surprisingly whiney response has helped him get cited. Thing is they are lions team mates. He should know what Joe was all about.

BTW OFF the picture Marler is one of the nicest guys you'll meet. He also really helped my friend out when she was organising a charity raffle. He's a joker but theres no malice in the guy at all.
 
How did he defend his actions? Alun Wyn-Jones response will have had zero effect on whether to cite or not. Potentially inflaming a situation was stupidity, but his offence, specifically written into the laws of the game, could have led to a 208 week ban. 12 weeks is the minimum, which they mitigated . . slightly.
 
Wow, you continue to amaze me by utterly failing to understand the context if what Joe Marler did. You're a rugby guy right? Similar things to that happen on a pitch all the time. It's odd but that's just the way it us. To be offended by this and understand the game is plain weird. I can get how it looks to non-rugby people I really can but it's just not that way.
 
I played for 26 years in more gentlemanly times.

The reaction has been split but now a marker has been laid down as to what is acceptable.
 
I guess we live in changing times and the usual spirit of rugby has to alter.

Makes me very sad though, one of the reasons I gave up on football and became more fulltime rugby the attitude of the players. I guess that'll start dying in the right on, everyone gets offended, twitterstorm world.
 
There weren't so many cameras around in those days to pick up every incident either. Big tghings like JPR's head being rucked were picked up after the event but not much else. But, at a club level, I was only subjected once to dangerous, life threatening, play.
 
Yeah. Marlers crime wasn't what he did. It was doing it being watched by 7 million people. And smiling at the camera. Sad that that's the way. You'd be getting a LOT of lower league players with 12.match bans if they have cameras at those games
 
Wasn’t malicious at all for me, it was inappropriate but clearly done in jest, Alan Wyn Jones wants to have a good look at himself, sore loser completely . Very dodgy on the day and after that there was no cards or citing for the ridiculous amount of high tackles from wales in the first half, yet we got hammered for the same in the second.
 
Question: How many Irish players were cited last week for the brutal clearouts and violence around the breakdown? I'm not saying they should be, and you can excuse their actions to some extent as they were standard rugby plays just taken over the top but they were very very dangerous. Also didn't Courtney Lawes through his not inconsiderable weight and his shoulder into the very same players head? He was let off. What type of message does that send out? You can throw a heavy shoulder into someones head but you can't playfully grab them to diffuse a fight?
 
Although a manifestly harsh punishment there was a certain inevitability here. The shortest ban available under World Rugby rules for "grabbing, twisting or squeezing the genitals" is 12 weeks. There was some wriggle room for mitigation, hence 10 rather than 12 weeks, but Marler didn't really leave the authorities much discretion, once charged. They could hardly not cite him and by the letter of the law he didn't have much of a defence. The law's authors presumably didn't envisage 'playful' genital grabbing as the penalties available (12 weeks to 4 years) emphasise that the offence is to be treated very seriously. I think most people would have considered an 'ungentlemanly conduct' charge more fitting and I believe it's in the choice of charge that the authorities have erred.
 
It's strange though, that this kind of behaviour is more acceptable if it is performed on a sports field in front of a capacity crowd and a TV audience of millions. Try it in the pub or on the street and you would end up in hospital or up before the beak.
 
Can we all agree that A W-J is one of the most niggly individuals in the game, fine player though he is, and it’s somewhat oxymoronic to hear his pitiful whining? Length of ban is a tad harsh but predictable for the
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
It's strange though, that this kind of behaviour is more acceptable if it is performed on a sports field in front of a capacity crowd and a TV audience of millions. Try it in the pub or on the street and you would end up in hospital or up before the beak.
Click to expand...
It’s not that strange though is it? There are a lot of things you can do on a rugby pitch that are unacceptable in the pub. That’s not a great comparison to be honest mate.
 
SmallTown said:
It’s not that strange though is it? There are a lot of things you can do on a rugby pitch that are unacceptable in the pub. That’s not a great comparison to be honest mate.
Click to expand...

You can't do that on a rugby pitch, hence the ban and why I said it was merely more acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top