Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:02 pm  

"In the heat of the moment" mitigation is terrible. As he's been found guilty and therefore charged he should have faced the full consequences (zero tolerance).

Another slur against our great club.

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:21 pm  

MattyB wrote:

"In the heat of the moment" mitigation is terrible. As he's been found guilty and therefore charged he should have faced the full consequences (zero tolerance).

Another slur against our great club.

I agree. I say, and I’m sure you do too, a lot of things in the ‘heat of the moment’. What they’re not however is racist, homophobic etc. I’d be sacked from my job for that and I couldn’t expect any less either. That’s not to say Clubb should be as it happens but I find the whole ‘Grandma’s blue eyed boy who made a little error’ line shameful.

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:46 pm  

It doesn't appear that the RFL have changed their grading of such offences, so with the precedent already set with Justin Carney, and leniency allowed for a good disciplinary record it may be that this was the only likely outcome. I think the question should be asked as to whether the guidelines the RFL put in place are sufficient. The panel can only operate within the RFL's guidelines after all. 8 games seems to be a similar punishment as handed out in sports such a football so perhaps the RFL are happy to match that.

A few questions spring to mind though:
- Should a good disciplinary record based on physical offences really be mitigation for racial abuse? Why would a bad disciplinary record affect this? Why would a 2 match ban for a high tackle or 3 match ban for dangerous contact be an aggravating factor in a case of racial abuse?
- Should character references really carry such weight in a sport where being active in supporting the community is pretty much mandatory? I mean most players are active in the community and could use that as proof of good character. You can do lots of charity work, community work, have a significant positive impact on the lives of others AND be racist. I'm not suggest that's what Clubb is, but it just seems a little bit irrelevant. The stated in the press release that Clubb isn't racist. That was never something that they were asked to make a judgement on.
- What exactly does someone have to say to get more than the minimum suspension?

In my own personal opinion, which obviously means very little, I think the RFL had a great chance as part of their anti-racism initiative to increase the recommended suspensions for offences of abuse as an attempt to show they won't tolerate racism. They didn't and it seems public opinion views the outcome as lenient.

It does seem a bit of a stretch to me though that someone 'in the heat of the moment' refers to someone's ethnicity as in an insult. I've heard in rugby league people reference others as pommy, Aussie or Kiwi 'so-and-so's' that may get a pass at times as just nation vs nation rivalry but Polynesian - to a guy born in New Zealand and who is as far as I'm aware a British national, just seems a bit hard to pass off as letting something slip in the heat of the moment. Who uses the term Polynesian to such an extent that it just slips out accidentally?

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:50 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

I agree. I say, and I’m sure you do too, a lot of things in the ‘heat of the moment’. What they’re not however is racist, homophobic etc. I’d be sacked from my job for that and I couldn’t expect any less either. That’s not to say Clubb should be as it happens but I find the whole ‘Grandma’s blue eyed boy who made a little error’ line shameful.

The last time we saw a player hurl abuse he was released, unfortunately for him he was stupid enough to carry on when it was being recorded on a phone.

For Clubb, at best he might get to keep his job till the end of the season, however the Wigan club have been pretty righteous recently when it comes to players behaviour (remember our proposed LBGQT event we had planned vs Catalans in protest to Israel Folau's comments, even though this got cancelled due to Covid). Let's see how the club play this, he's out of contract and pretty much coming to the end of his career anyway, will he just slide off quietly in July or straight back into the team?

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:55 pm  

NickyKiss wrote:

FWIW the decision seems about right to me and Wigan should now speak to him and discuss where they go. As I’ve said previously this should be no free pass to get a poor player off the books. They need to judge it like they’d judge the incident if it was John Bateman or Bevan French they were dealing with. If he’s remorseful and open to Wigan’s ideas of how we proceed (education and the like) then he should be kept on.

I'd agree, but ti strikes me that you are asking for vastly higher standards of probity here from the Club than we've come to expect recently in other areas of public life.

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 9:59 pm  

MattyB wrote:

however the Wigan club have been pretty righteous recently when it comes to players behaviour (remember our proposed LBGQT event we had planned vs Catalans in protest to Israel Folau's comments

Yes - for that reason alone I'm a bit surprised to see that we have seemingly gone in to bat for him in his hearing.

Putting an optimistic spin on things, I'd like to think that this means the club (including his coach/teammates) see this as genuinely out of character. Not that this should have any bearing on his punishment by SL, but it might make his re-integration into the squad less problematic.

Re: v Hull FC : Tue May 04, 2021 10:22 pm  

With this it’s difficult to compare to the Falou tweet, that was a slam dunk anyone could see it. With this it was basically savelio accused him. From the sounds of it he was guilty on probability. It’s a complex situation if he says he didn’t say it who do we believe. The case would never have been not guilty, so 8 games is what I expected given the nature of the allegation

For that reason I feel the club with and should standby him.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 5:25 am  

Lazy J wrote:

With this it’s difficult to compare to the Falou tweet, that was a slam dunk anyone could see it. With this it was basically savelio accused him. From the sounds of it he was guilty on probability. It’s a complex situation if he says he didn’t say it who do we believe. The case would never have been not guilty, so 8 games is what I expected given the nature of the allegation

For that reason I feel the club with and should standby him.

Er, how do you work that one out?

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 5:26 am  

Put simply if I (or indeed most people) were found to have made a racist comment at work then we would be sacked.

I don’t see why this should be any different just because he plays rugby.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 5:41 am  

ComeOnYouUll wrote:

Er, how do you work that one out?

From this line in the official statement

“reasonably satisfied, taking into account the seriousness of the charge, that the words were said"

It’s not a slam dunk like Falou, the tribunal decided on the balance of probability that clubb used those words.