Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 6:24 am  

Cherry_&_White wrote:

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.

Nothing on the club website about Clubb being fined & banned - the headline is about a win for a womens team.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 6:25 am  

I am getting the impression that the idea of Clubb being sacked by the club has more to do with some supporters person opinions of him as a present contributor to the squad than what is is about what he said.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 7:56 am  

I’m no expert in these matters but I would think the process goes as follows:

1: Accusation is made so player suspended.
2: RFL hearing takes place, in this case he is found guilty.
3: Wigan then open their own investigation and decide upon the outcome.

Wigan IMO have 2 options. Either terminate his contract or get him to sign up for equality and diversity training.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 8:24 am  

Cherry.Pie wrote:

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?

Excellent post.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 8:47 am  

Not convinced you can say something racist but argue you aren’t a racist person, surely you are defined by your actions???

Very interesting as to what is considered a racist act at present, and what is defined by law.

Would people consider calling someone a ‘cockney friend’ as racist?

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 8:57 am  

nikos wrote:

Would people consider calling someone a ‘cockney friend’ as racist?

No because it's not a race.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 9:27 am  

The Hollywood Frasier wrote:

No because it's not a race.

Couldn't make it up could you.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 9:39 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

I am getting the impression that the idea of Clubb being sacked by the club has more to do with some supporters person opinions of him as a present contributor to the squad than what is is about what he said.

Nobody has criticised Clubb for his performances for longer or more often than myself.
However the next steps in this story have nothing to do with his performances

The next steps are simple

Wigan will offer Tony Clubb the chance of education around diversity etc.

Tony clubb, as with any other player irrespective of who they are, will either accept that offer (which i am 100% convinced he will) and worknwith the club to make sure this doesn't happen again I.e. he will "Own the problem/issue/mistake".
Or
He will reject it i.e. he will say he's done nothing wrong etc. (Which won't happen) and the the club can Impose its own disciplinary procedures and punishments as they see fit within employment law.

If any fan wants to use this as a reason to get rid of a player they dont like then that is their problem.

I hope the club supports Tony clubb through this period, as long as he wants it, not as a way of saying we condone your actions, but as a way of re educating, helping him to not make the same errors in life again etc and giving him the best chance of coming through this and to be able to move on as best as possible for him and his family.

The club have done this well several times in the past albeit over different issues, I hope the same support is in place for Tony Clubb as.long as he owns the error to go hand in hand with the punishment.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 9:55 am  

Bang on and I’d like to see the club go a step further and offer education/support to the full squad. This was Clubbs mistake but do I think it could’ve been one of the other players? Absolutely.

Use it as a way of drawing a line in the sand and let it act as a wake up call to the whole club. Stopping posting on social media or asking the players to get down on one knee pre game won’t educate them or support them going forward. On the rugby side of things I’d have Clubb out yesterday but this isn’t about rugby.

Re: v Hull FC : Wed May 05, 2021 10:06 am  

There is also the employment law aspect of it. Clubb appears to have been found guilty by an RFL tribunal 'on the balance of probability'. That is clearly the level of proof required to ban and fine someone, and I doubt Clubb paid for legal representation, because it wouldn't be worth it to avoid a £500 fine.

Compare that with dismissing someone. I'm not sure that the level of proof will be 'balance of probability'. Bare in mind that the club have probably said very positive things about his character during that tribunal, which he could now use against them if they tried to say he is racist after all. The lost earnings would be enough to make it worth Clubb hiring a solicitor to bring an unfair dismissal claim against Wigan if he has a case. Much less risky for Wigan to put him on an equality and diversity course then just to wait a few months until his contract expires anyway. They don't have to select him, they could even pay up the rest of his contract and tell him he is surplus to requirements for performance reasons.