But Leeds were guilty of abusing a player...but because of an implied sliding abuse/moral scale should be overlooked against what the RFL are trying to implement with their Respect policy?

So we're going to complain about every game then?

It doesn't say anything of the like in the respect policy.

You also have to remember that respect policy is right the way down to the grass roots of the game, not just at pro level. And therefore is trying to cover everything that it can.

As with any rule in life you need to use common sense aswell. Something that appears to be lacking by some posters I can see.

Abuse is Abuse you cannot differentiate

Society in general differentiate, so of course you can differentiate. Does that make it right? no in my opinion.

But regardless are you seriously foolish enough to argue that the RFL should adopt a different view to society in general?

You do realise that Racist, Homophobic, or Sexist comments are not acceptable in society full stop by law? and that the RFL deal with those type of comments in the same manner.

Did you hold the same views before last week? Are you going to say that it does not matter that it was Leeds on Saturday, but I would have said the same even if we had not got a fine?

It didn't matter it was Leeds just as it was unlucky to be first on sky as it was Cas for gt first away game.
The policy is matter of fact and not open to interpretation or else it would be vague guidelines and not a policy.
And yes before last week I have had personal knowledge of the fine line between banter and abuse/bullying, so have my values set accordingly.

It says in the rfl respect policy that no form of discrimination will be tolerated, if we ignore one form of discrimination and punish another it shows that some forms of discrimination will be tolerated and i think we can both agree that is wrong.

The rules can be changed and applied retrospectivly in order to deal with an issue that is against rfl policy but not in the letter of the law (such as punishing hull for fielding an illegible player in the cup despite no punishment being in the rules beforehand), its pretty clear that if the rfls policy is to not tolerate any form of discrimination then the rules should be in place to reflect that.

There is no policy on fat or ginger chants. Show me where it states that anywhere in a policy.

What it does enforce is adhering to the family image, which is going all the way down to grass roots level. It also states that you should not be allowed to attend a game under the influence of alchohol, is that enforced?

But where it is clear in it's policy is to follow the laws of the country and society in general, where it makes clear, Racist, Homophobic, or Sexual chants/comments will not be tolerated and punishment will be made.

So are you saying abusing "fat or Ginger" is acceptable.

You really are scraping the barrell.

This is the defintion that the RFL follow to the letter.



The indirect discrimination defined here would by Homophobia which the RFL clearly have set as a rule.

They have no such rule for Fat, Ginger, Big Eared, Pug Faced, or the like. And nor are they ever likely to have such a rule until society or a goverment act is brough in to do so.

However, should a young kid at grass roots level go to his local junior club and be refused permisison to play because the coach says he's ginger, then I am pretty confident the RFL would not look to favourably on that incident.

Are you saying Schools should punish kids for calling another Fat, Ginger, Big Eared?

I dont know how you 'get scraping the bottom of the barrel' it sounds more like you wish to ignore the points i raised, in the rfl respect policy the exact phrase 'no form of discrimination will be tolerated' is used, not we will only protect certain groups in this list.

I should hope they would like any other form of bullying. If we teach kids that some forms of discrimination are ok then we will never get rid of it.

Allowing some groups to be abused and not others is bigotry itself.

If there are homophobic chants heard at the Raceourse Ground in Wrexham

Who gets fined ?

If there are homophobic , racist or sexist chants heard at the KC stadium , the LSV or the Stobart stadium

Who gets fined ?

And that discrimination is defined above. Look it up.

The only form of direct discrimination is race, colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origin. So when the RFL say will not be tolerated that is what they are talking about.

They further clarify in their policy that Homophobia will also not be tolerated, which is defined as Indirect discrimination. Indirect disrcimination is dealt with by specific rules.

The RFL have no specifica rules for, Fat, Ginger, Big Eared, Pug Faced, 12 fingered, or the like.

Therefore they are following their policy appropriately.

I don't want to get patronising, but now you are just been stupid.

Bullying is an act of persistent abuse not a one off comment. Calling somebody a name is exactly that. That has been going on in schools since the beginning of schooling. You can not tell me that you have gone through school without been called a name? No school would give punishment for a simple name call.

However, like true discrimination is defined if any schoolkid gave racist comments, sexual comments, or homophobic comments, they would be punished instantly. That is life mate, you need to get out if you truely believe it is any different to that.

Would ' travelling friends ' come under that banner ?

I doubt it. Because the word for true Gypo's is Romany isn't it? and that became the wording to try and seperate themselves from certain travellers we see today.

The referee's a W and we ''all hate leeds' was NEVER sang at yesterday game.

I was in the WRE all game, i was alert everytime a song was sung and made a note of listening to all songs.

Neither of them songs were sang yesterday.

If you were calling some fans Gypsys in derogatively way , would that be classed as abuse ?

So what your saying is the when the rfl state no form of discrimination will be allowed what they actually mean is that some forms of discrimination are allowed?

If they say that 'no form of discrimination is allowed' in their policy, allowing any form of discrimination is not following their policy.

Now you can try to wriggle out of that all you like, but if they state NO FORM of discrimination will be tolerated then they should not allow any form of discrimination to take place. If they have to change the lettering of their own rules in order to comply with there own policy then thats what the rfl clearly need to do.

Anyway i've asked the rfl to clarify the policy with regards to allowing certain groups to be abused hopefully they can settle this.

I was at the railway end and confirm no such chating took place there either, as we too were listening out.

In my experiance when people say they dont want to be patronising it generally means they do.

In my school any name calling was treated as bullying and you would be punished for it. The punishment was usually innefective and made the problem worse but the school still treat it as bullying. they didnt have a policy of that you had to call some a name x amount of times before it became bullying. They didnt try to wriggle out of there own policies by arguing about the wording of them.

I'm not trying to tell you i was never called a name, or indeed that i never called anyone a name that doesnt mean that it was ok then and it doesnt mean its ok now. We should always try to discourage discrimination, it may not work but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try.

Trying to justify any form of abuse by saying its allways happened is missing the point entirley, homophobia was accepted or even encouraged for thousands of years, that doesnt mean we should tolerate it now, or that we should tolerate any other form of personal abuse.

Any organsiation that states they 'will not tolerate any form of discrimination' should not tolerate any form of discrimination. Its not a hard concept to grasp. You cant say we wont allow discrimination and then say well actually we allow discrimnation and abuse as long as its not to one of the groups on a list. Allowing some groups to be abused and others not to be just creates divisions in society and is just as bad being the one abusing someone.

Firstly, for christs sake, go on to the Cas website and read their appeal statement in which they tell everyone what they did before the GT incident, at the time of the incident and after the incident. You obviously don't know what was chanted, by how many people and what exactly the Cas club do about equality in and around Castleford and during the game.

Secondly, don't post lies stating that Cas fans sang "the referees a wan$er" when it's clearly obvious you didn't attend the game on sunday because they never once sang it. I was part of our "kop" fans that were doing all the chanting, like poppys mum also.

Thirdly, why the hell am i wasting time answering someone who blatantly doesn't read any facts and blatantly lies to try to make himself look good. Now go away.