Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:58 am  

gary numan wrote:

:shock: 6 matches for name calling 1st offence

That's the times we live in. We'd probably get fired

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:41 pm  

All transgressions on the field of play carry a tariff of match bans, if found guilty of the offence. All coaching staff and players are aware of what is not acceptable as laid down in the rules by the sports governing body, so if you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime. Learn from your mistakes and understand the reasoning for the rules, then you will minimise the amount of time that you're sat in the stands.

Whether these tariffs are deemed proportional to the offence, is subjective, and views will differ greatly.

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Sun Feb 12, 2023 1:08 pm  

They 100% will make an example of this, i can't see him just getting a fine and a slap on the wrists (which it should be). But i've got everything crossed for a common sense miracle

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:06 pm  

I can’t comprehend why people would expect a fine or warning for this under the guise of common sense. The offences are graded and published not only to players, but to the public. If they fail to adhere to the policy now, that becomes precedent, so if someone repeats it or similar, they would expect (and have a decent chance of securing) the same fate. That is common sense, otherwise the policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

If it’s a Grade F offence, and he has said what he is alleged to have, he should get a grade F sanction. If he appeals with mitigating circumstances (language barrier/repeating words used by the opponent/misheard/mistaken identity) the grade could change, but without that, he’s said something stupid that is categorised as F.

Don’t get me wrong, we’d miss him. But it’s 6 games. Leeds and Huddersfield are tricky, then it’s the teams that we must be beating if we have a hope of the playoffs. We don’t see Wigan, Saints or Catalan during that period. Take your medicine, sit it out and come back ready to make up for it at the Easter period. If I was Powell I’d be hopping mad at him and have him make a caged animal, released for that first fixture.

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:21 pm  

Barbed Wire wrote:

I can’t comprehend why people would expect a fine or warning for this under the guise of common sense. The offences are graded and published not only to players, but to the public. If they fail to adhere to the policy now, that becomes precedent, so if someone repeats it or similar, they would expect (and have a decent chance of securing) the same fate. That is common sense, otherwise the policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

If it’s a Grade F offence, and he has said what he is alleged to have, he should get a grade F sanction. If he appeals with mitigating circumstances (language barrier/repeating words used by the opponent/misheard/mistaken identity) the grade could change, but without that, he’s said something stupid that is categorised as F.

Don’t get me wrong, we’d miss him. But it’s 6 games. Leeds and Huddersfield are tricky, then it’s the teams that we must be beating if we have a hope of the playoffs. We don’t see Wigan, Saints or Catalan during that period. Take your medicine, sit it out and come back ready to make up for it at the Easter period. If I was Powell I’d be hopping mad at him and have him make a caged animal, released for that first fixture.

And then commit a high shot for a further 4 match ban.

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:58 am  

Barbed Wire wrote:

I can’t comprehend why people would expect a fine or warning for this under the guise of common sense. The offences are graded and published not only to players, but to the public. If they fail to adhere to the policy now, that becomes precedent, so if someone repeats it or similar, they would expect (and have a decent chance of securing) the same fate. That is common sense, otherwise the policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

If it’s a Grade F offence, and he has said what he is alleged to have, he should get a grade F sanction. If he appeals with mitigating circumstances (language barrier/repeating words used by the opponent/misheard/mistaken identity) the grade could change, but without that, he’s said something stupid that is categorised as F.

Don’t get me wrong, we’d miss him. But it’s 6 games. Leeds and Huddersfield are tricky, then it’s the teams that we must be beating if we have a hope of the playoffs. We don’t see Wigan, Saints or Catalan during that period. Take your medicine, sit it out and come back ready to make up for it at the Easter period. If I was Powell I’d be hopping mad at him and have him make a caged animal, released for that first fixture.

I think the problem is that the grading doesn't take the circumstances into context. Of course we should attempt to eradicate such language with punishments, but shouldn't there be a range of punishments that reflect the context? For example, if a player targets homophobic abuse at a homosexual, that's a grade F, but careless use of terms in the heat of an argument should carry a lesser punishment shouldn't it?

If not, and it's as bad as targeted abuse itself then everyone please consider this: Tommy Makinson and Tom Lineham both grabbed the genitals of another player. If that act should the taken in the same context as a man touching anyone's genitals without their consent, then surely they deserve a lifetime ban and possibly a custodial sentence, no? 3 games? What about the offence caused to victims of rape and sexual abuse? What is it that makes words deserve far more serious repercussions than a sexual assault, and where is the same level of internet outrage we should be seeing for the latter? Same goes for players who deliberately try to hurt people on the field versus careless high tackles etc. Super Bennie W anyone?

But, there we go. I'd better not postulate anymore for fear of being cancelled

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:13 pm  

i think the two tommy's situation is a little easier to explain, in that linehams disciplinary (for a winger) was pretty crap, hence he got a bigger ban, also from what i recall at the time, the two circumstances were different, makinson was a ball carrier(dont snigger) scrambling to get up lineham was a tackler who clearly put his hand somewhere after making a tackle.

Thats why i looked at it.

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:25 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

i think the two tommy's situation is a little easier to explain, in that linehams disciplinary (for a winger) was pretty crap, hence he got a bigger ban, also from what i recall at the time, the two circumstances were different, makinson was a ball carrier(dont snigger) scrambling to get up lineham was a tackler who clearly put his hand somewhere after making a tackle.

Thats why i looked at it.

According to the reports of 'contrary behaviour' and based on TV and camera shots, Makinson made a prolonged hard grip of Watts' penis. He got 5 games, I think Lineham got 3 for his squirrel grip?

So... if I saw someone use the word "S***tic" in the street during a heated argument, I'd think 'what an idiot'. However, if I saw a man grab and yank on another man's penis for a while without his consent, I'd probably consider that a teeny bit worse. But hey, we all (me included) wanted Makinson in the England squad that year.

"Funny old world" etc etc.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:33 pm  

lineham got 8 matches

Re: Josh McGuire potential ban : Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:41 pm  

Fantastic Mr Catpiss wrote:

lineham got 8 matches

Cheers, I must have been thinking of one of his many other bans