marler

[13thWarrior]

If anyone anywhere had called my mother that I'd have knocked them out cold, regardless of hospital or not.

Really? Any random idiot could force you to punch them by spouting some nonsense?

I must point out that Marler in this context is not some random idiot.

Yeah, we know he is a wind-up merchant who will say anything to try and get a reaction and so get you sent off.

[coddy]

[quote author=13thWarrior link=topic=5871.msg101752#msg101752 date=16727471

Now if Marler knew his mum was in hospital with cancer and so used the reference intentionally then I agree its despicable, but otherwise it's pretty schoolboy stuff and wouldn't normally be expected to lead to a punch up.



I'm not sure what school you went to 13thWarrior but unless it was Sunday School then calling an opposition prop forwards Mother a effing whore is definitely a just cause for punching them in the face.

And as for Dickson, he's dropped down a few notches in my estimation.

[13thWarrior]

We clearly went to different schools, if I punched everyone who called my mum, sisters, brother, dog, whatever names in the face I would have a worse disciplinary rep than Marler, and an uglier mug from people returning the favour too. These are just words, people are saying them to get a reaction, if you react you lose.

[Shugs]

Why should that be so? If you react you lose? If the referee hears the verbals and it’s an obvious wind up to invoke the reaction why shouldn’t the instigator suffer the same sanction as the reactor.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Jo Marler given 6 week ban with 4 suspended.
Marler has plenty of previous for this sort of thing and lets face it he's doing it to get a reaction with the possibility of getting a fellow rugby player sent off, and he sometimes gets away with it, as we saw in the Hask Marler incident, he comes across in the media as a nice cheeky chappy but I think what he does is very cynical and is deserving of a longer punishment.
The sad thing is he doesn't need to do it, he's a very good rugby player, must say something about his mindset.

If you read his autobiography you get an idea about his mindset.

Two things about his punishment -
1 - it is about time the punishment process actually reflected the crime AND without reductions for charidee work etc.
2 - is it not about time well known (and not so) players saw going out into schools etc as a task they should perform to raise the profile of rugby. NOT as a punishment!

I’ve thought about point 2 for a while as I’ve been reading some of the comments and I think it’s even more pertinent. Marler is an international star and so probably well known amongst non rugby playing kids. The message that rugby is sending is that you’ll only get to see rugby players when they are being punished. Some will then draw the conclusion that those other less well known rugby players coming in to their schools are also being punished.

Not the sort of image the game needs at any time.

[13thWarrior]

Why should that be so? If you react you lose? If the referee hears the verbals and it’s an obvious wind up to invoke the reaction why shouldn’t the instigator suffer the same sanction as the reactor.

A punch is much more obvious than some verbals. See exactly what happened in the incident we're talking about: Quins got a penalty, its only because Refs are mic'd up that Marler's words were heard and so he could be punished.

[Shugs]

So you should do anything if you can get away with it? Punch doesn’t happen without the verbals.

[wasps]

It shows how much rugby has changed in 30 years.


Antagonising the opposition either physically or verbally in order to get a reaction from them used to be a regular part of the game.


The game has worked hard at cleaning up its physical side, but I'm not sure anything official has really changed regarding the verbal side.


It's like it maintains a "sticks and stones may break my bones" approach.

[andermt]

Listened to the Rugby Union Weekly Podcast (the BBC one which is normally a Quins fest) on the way into the office this morning.

I don't always listen to this one as it's usually Ugo, Danny Care, Chris Jones and sometimes Chris Ashton so tends to annoy me as it tends to be a bit of a aren't Quins amazing discussion, but the headline mentioned Marler so thought I'd have a listen to see what excuses were paraded out.

This week it was Ugo and Sara Orchard, I was surprised, Ugo was very much aligned to the ban, you could also hear the fustration in his voice as he responded to Sara who kept trying to compare it to swearing but Ugo kept pointing out someone swearing on the pitch, even at a player, is different to what Marler did as his comments were abusive.
He did also say that if players have enough time for all the chat in a scrum build up they have enough energy to just get on with it and speed the match up..

[WonkyWasp]

Wasps found a  good way to handle Marler was to laugh  at him.  He hands it out but he can't take it himself, gets furious and  behaves even worse and get sends off.  Wasps succeeded several times  by using the ''mass  laughing'' technique on him. And he did get sent off.  I have never actually hit anyone in my life  but had someone referred to my Mum  as Marler did I might have well have reacted spontaneously.  It's not just 'verbals' -  it's an emotional assault.  Swearing can be forgiven.

[backdoc]

Am I missing something here?

I thought Marler had kicked Heenan on the head, and Heenan's response was 'you're better than that, bro'

That is why Marler got so wound up - he had been found out for dirty play.

[mike909]

Rugby certainly has changed in the 30 years since I played regularly. A wind up was more about putting you off your game, as getting sent off for a bit of "rough housing" was more or less unheard of. The officials in the college games especially, would have thought you probably got what you deserved if you'd been caught with the verbals - or more likely, the odd kick or treading offence. I still can see a 5cm, stud wide scar on the side of one knee inflicted on purpose. I saw who did it....

But wind ups to get a reaction and sanction really need to be stopped. If the "enforcement" side of the game has gone then the provoker role needs to go at well. And I'm all for the "enforcement" side to go, even as voted "dirtiest player of the year" 1985 at college...Well, I was a prop...had to stand up for myself!

[jamestaylor002]

Whether Heenan's mother is sick or not (though I do wish them all well of course), Marler's comments were completely unwarranted and deserved more than what he got in the way of a ban.

A lot of us have played rugby and know too well what dark arts go on in the depths of a scrum or the verbals that happen during a game but it has always been above board and not been personal.

Marler should have had the book thrown at him this time. He is never too far away from a controversial moment in a game he is involved in and one of his latest stunts, when he grabbed a handful of Alun Wyn Jones, was caught on camera during a high profile Six Nations game. It's bad enough for the player receiving the abuse from Marler, let alone us as fans picking it up on the ref's mic (I'm avoiding talking about Karl Dickson) and other potential fans who see this abuse happening on the biggest of stages.

I'm sure I can read the disciplinary report to find out, but I'm not sure how the disciplinary board came to the conclusion that they could knock off a significant amount of weeks from a ban that, in my opinion, is justified. I fear that the ban has something to do with potential England participation or his off-field antics (which I have now started to find very boring) have something to do with him getting a punishment as light as he has.

[Rifleman Harris]

I'm sure I can read the disciplinary report to find out, but I'm not sure how the disciplinary board came to the conclusion that they could knock off a significant amount of weeks from a ban that, in my opinion, is justified. I fear that the ban has something to do with potential England participation or his off-field antics (which I have now started to find very boring) have something to do with him getting a punishment as light as he has.

Unfortunately, rugby is corrupt from top to bottom, so I suspect that it is to allow his participation in the 6 Nations.

[jamestaylor002]

I'm sure I can read the disciplinary report to find out, but I'm not sure how the disciplinary board came to the conclusion that they could knock off a significant amount of weeks from a ban that, in my opinion, is justified. I fear that the ban has something to do with potential England participation or his off-field antics (which I have now started to find very boring) have something to do with him getting a punishment as light as he has.

Unfortunately, rugby is corrupt from top to bottom, so I suspect that it is to allow his participation in the 6 Nations.

I suspect this is the case also