infracted for correctly identifying thuggish behaviour

Blobby George

Hi. I, along with many others, were infracted for referring to Jamie Heaslip as a thug for his reckless behavior in this mornings Rugby match vs New Zealand. I know that player abuse is against the charter but surely that is only in the case where it is unwarranted? Every observer accepts that Heaslip committed an act of thuggery yet we get infracted for speaking the truth. What gives?

sceptre

Hi there.

I haven't looked at the thread yet but even without doing that, if it was only frowned upon when it's unwarranted then someone would have to make an official forum call every time as to whether it was warranted or not. That'd really have to be made before people make posts about it as otherwise a whole lot of people would get infraction notices when the mod subsequently decides that what they said wasn't warranted. It'd be an administrative nightmare to be blunt about it and far too vague for most members, when you extend it from one case (this) out to others.

There are plenty of ways of saying that a play was OTT, a blatant foul etc without abusing the player. Best to do that I reckon, that way the rule is clear for everyone. We're trying to avoid grey areas where possible, this would end up causing a giant fudgy grey area and would annoy a whole pile of members who see others calling someone a "thug" where they can't, even when they reckon it's just as justifiable for them to do it. The rule's nice and clear at the moment rather than a big fudgy thing.

Even looking at the thread (which I've now done), the above still holds as best for forum members.

Blobby George

Just to make it clear I wasn't trying to appeal or anything, just highlighting what I see is a definite grey area. When an act of thuggery is so abundantly clear, and acknowledged as such by observers of the game, I don't think people should be infracted for stating the obvious. It doesn't set a precedent imo, it's just as plain as the nose on your face.

sceptre

Ah, there wouldn't be any worries if you were appealing it, that'd be fine. I think bringing in an "only when blatant" exception would be hell for everyone and would be introducing the grey area you're trying to avoid.

Have you had a chat with the forum mods about it at all? They're good folk, dropping them a line would at the very least allow them to explain the rationale behind it. They're listed at the bottom of the rugby forum page.