We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Wed 16 Mar 2016 | 05:13
Joe Marler escapes ban for forearm strike on Wales' Rob Evans

19
Comments

Joe Marler has been clearedto play following a disciplinary hearing for the incident that involved him striking Wales' Rob Evans during their Six Nations match at Twickenham on Saturday. While the citing was upheld, it was found to be not worthy of a red card.

Marler has been in all sorts of hot water this week following not only this incident, but one that has caused a bigger stir, when he insulted Wales prop Samson Lee. The outcome of that investigation is yet to be revealed, but you can be sure that the comment won't be taken lightly.

WATCH: Highlights of England vs Wales »

As for this citing, he appeared before a disciplinary committee in London today after having been cited for striking an opponent under Law 10.4(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).

Harlequins prop Marler accepted that he had committed foul play.

The disciplinary committee considered all the evidence and upheld the citing. However, they found that the offence would not have warranted a red card, so imposed no sanction.

You can see two angles of the striking incident below

Posted By: Grant Constable

19 Comments

  • oldflyhalf
    7:04 PM 21/03/2016

    simply, the rules are only for doggy.

  • eddie-g
    12:18 PM 21/03/2016

    Thanks, Dan. I'm acutely sensitive to these types of racist insults too, and the example you gave is good one from the aspect of what happens if you don't deal with it. The cumulative impact of years of being insulted about their race? That will have a devastating affect on most people.

    The thing I've grown more sensitive to recently however is the sense that one intemperate comment left on, say, Facebook, should result in people losing their jobs etc (an attorney I am friendly with is currently defending a teacher who that happened to). That strikes me as an over-reaction. If the comment is part of a larger pattern of behavior? That's a very different matter.

    Now obviously losing a job is a bit different from sitting out a few games of rugby, but world rugby has the tools if it wants to act, and no question they might do well to explain their thinking here.

  • drg
    9:02 AM 19/03/2016

    I dunno 10st10, he had a real big grin on his face, maybe it translates into some form of "Englishman, Welshman and a gypsy walk into a bar" joke..

    or perhaps the two are good friends and it was as you suspected, but rather a "hello buddy, haven't seen you in ages!"

  • 10stonenumber10
    3:28 AM 19/03/2016

    Aside from grunts, i'm pretty sure that is how front rowers communicate.

    I don't speak loose head very well, but I think a forearm strike roughly translates to "hello"

  • drg
    1:17 AM 19/03/2016

    I can understand your view point Dan, only issue is, as you mentioned many people may have missed the apologies and will already be using 'gypsy boy' as their new insult. The issue however I would have with dragging this incident through the mud and publicly flogging Marler, is that those that missed the news about the apology would surely miss the details of Marlers public abusing.

    As for the traveller lad, that's the joys of 'travelling' I guess... has a fall out, travels somewhere else :p

    The child is not to blame, however sometimes travellers make a rod for their own backs.

  • danknapp
    10:19 PM 18/03/2016

    I once taught a boy who had suffered 'banter' about being a traveller for years. A member of his family had a caravan burned down in an act of arson. I know that nobody here is condoning that, clearly, but I can't help but feel a little bit sensitive to it. It is still a tolerated prejudice to hold, sadly. I'd like to see the game take more of a stand here.

    Eddie, brilliantly written post. You're right perhaps, it certainly was dealt with well at the time. Unfortunately to many people the nuance will have been missed and the take-home message will be that mocking someone for being a traveller isn't all that bad.

  • vladimir
    6:32 PM 18/03/2016

    Why is not a red card? It is a strike that connected with the head?

  • drg
    9:36 PM 17/03/2016

    With Eddie! I would never suggest it's acceptable 'language' however the victim was satisfied with the results, (marlers apology) and in a gentlemens game, if two adults can clear this up then we have a special thing going on!

  • eddie-g
    8:17 PM 17/03/2016

    That's how I understand it.

    I certainly have seen people yellow carded for this sort of thing, and while I think you can argue about whether it is deserving of a yellow, it's definitely not a red card offence - and that's why you get an off-field "warning" rather than a suspension from the citing guys. It's pretty much the equivalent of a retroactive yellow, and agreed, I think it's a fair call in this instance.

  • stroudos
    8:05 PM 17/03/2016

    Hardly a "forearm smash" as some people have been describing it, is it?
    However, it was an unnecessary cheap shot and I'm not too happy about it.

    "they found that the offence would not have warranted a red card" - is this the same as an "off-field yellow"? And is that the same as Hask got for the neck roll? If this is correct, I would say they got both of those sanctions about right.

  • stroudos
    8:02 PM 17/03/2016

    Eddie, you are spot on. Brilliant post mate.

    Dan, you've been hanging around with teachers too long....

  • matt
    3:04 PM 17/03/2016

    Hi buddy,
    Chris Ashton called for you, he says he want's his 6 Nations back...

  • eddie-g
    1:00 PM 17/03/2016

    I don't think the decision means the game tolerates racist abuse.

    I think what it means is that they were happy with the way the incident was resolved by the players and management. Apparently Marler apologized at half time, so pretty much immediately, and he was admonished by England management. And Wales and Francis accepted the apology.

    Personally, I think this is a far better outcome. If he'd ended up getting banned, the precedent it would set would lead to this - the next time someone says something off- colour (and let's not kid ourselves, the line for what's off-colour will not end at racism, it will be drawn wherever the professional outrage industry wants it drawn), there will be no apologies or management criticism, the wagons will be circled around the players affected, and it will turn into tawdry, drawn-out shitshow of who said what and whether it was truly offensive.

    Just want to mention one related incident - remember last year when David Pocock stopped a Tahs-Brumbies game because someone was yelling homophobic crap? The guilty player (Jacques Potgieter) held his hand up, was sent on some diversity course, and everyone agreed he was wrong and it had no place in the game. But he wasn't banned, and we haven't had any repeat incidents. That's a success in my book.

    Compared to football - ugh, I feel dirty just mentioning the f-word - where players are fundamentally incapable of resolving any issues or rising above the game (look at the Suarez and John Terry racist incidents that never got fully resolved), our game has it good. That's what this decision should hopefully underline - that if players stamp out this nonsense themselves, the suits will be okay with that.

    I have no doubt at all though that repeat offenders will get the book thrown at them - as will management that tries to defend them. But when you have people who step up, accept responsibility, and make no excuses? I think that's carrying on the best traditions of the game.

  • welshosprey
    12:49 PM 17/03/2016

    England players pretty much getting away with anything they want at the moment.

  • danknapp
    11:28 AM 17/03/2016

    I disagree with both of you. I don't see why the game should show that it tolerates racist abuse in any instance, either first or otherwise. I say this knowing that Marler has, somehow, escaped a ban for it.

  • moo
    7:44 AM 17/03/2016

    I hear he's escaped action for his comments too.

  • 45678
    9:16 PM 16/03/2016

    I hadn't seen the second angle until now and I think marler has somehow really got away with this. i thought there's no way he could be gleefully laughing after smacking someone in the face, so It must have been innocent of intent. Think I was quite wrong

  • drg
    7:31 PM 16/03/2016

    Agreed on both counts, although some chairwoman of the female traveler rights clipboard carrying beige cardigan wearing do-gooders association has piped up with her 2 cents so it's sure to drag on..

  • eddie-g
    7:12 PM 16/03/2016

    Has to be the correct decision. No way that's a red card offence in my book.

    On Bantergate or whatever we want to call it, I'd be disappointed if that results in a ban. Not least because the two blokes involved have already put it behind them. Marler will know he can't afford to do something similar in future, but it is pretty darn clear no-one, on either side, wants to make a big issue of this incident. It was a dumb thing to say, everyone is agreed there's no place for it in the game, so warn him, require him to attend "diversity training" (just to underline that this isn't a trivial matter) and let's all move on.

    Definitely get tough on repeat offenders, no need imo to make an example of Marler here.

Related Articles