it depends on the situation, the fans of the club doing it, and the response of the club

I take it you mean away fans making the chants, if so surely the stewards of the home club are responsible for crowd safety etc. I would suggest that the home club if like Cas (as found by an independent panel) did not take all reasonable steps to either stop or take measures to identify and take action against the people making the chants (including working with the away club to take all necessary steps)

Quite clearly Cas were not in anyway responsible for causing the chanting but surely responsibility for taking all reasonable steps to stop the chanting rest with the club?

Three key things for me in this whole issue which would show that Cas took steps:

1. There's a lot of mention about two chants being drowned out by the PA system but no mention of what was actually being said or broadcast over the PA system i.e. was it drowned out by the respect message or just announcing an interchange? Big difference if the only reason the chants were drowned out was by events in the game rather than the trying to drown out the mindless few who were chanting?

2. There were stewards on the corner of the stand, what actions did they take i.e. if the answer to point 1 is that the club broadcast the respect message what actions did the supervising steward or club officials request of the stewards in the area?

3. What activities have been taken since the night in question? Any mention in subsequent programmes or the official website clearly and unequivocally stating their dis-satisfaction at the people concerned?

To be honest, looking at this and trying to be subjective rather than defend my own club, the RFL Respect policy clearly states:

"RFL Respect Policy [note: the club is responsible for the behaviour of it's supporters.
1 No person/s attending a match shall:
a. Use offensive or obscene language to any player, coach, referee, touch judge, official or other spectator."

One might argue over actually how offensive it is to chant about James Graham being ginger, but the Respect Policy clearly states that "[iobscene language to any player[/i" is not condoned, and I'd suggest the word b*****d comes into this category. Unless of course anyone would like to suggest that this word is not obscene?
Likewise, the above quote also directly identifies obscene language towards the referee is in breach of the Respect Policy, and unless anyone would argue that the word w****r is not offensive or obscene the chanting towards the referee clearly breaches the policy.

Therefore, to me, Leeds Rhinos supporters (and therefore the club) breached the RFL Respect policy on two counts, and therefore investigations should be made by the RFL into these.

An obscenity [i(in Latin obscenus, meaning "foul, repulsive, detestable"icon_wink.gif, is that which offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious; ill-omened.[/i

would you really want to argue that the prevalent morality of the time, would judge the Graham incident as profane, taboo, indecent, abhorrent or disgusting as the Thomas incident?

Are you suggesting the words "b*****d" and "w****r" are not abusive and/or obscene? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

LOL at all the Cas fans getting upset

So would you be if your club had been fined 40k for breaching a policy to then hear that very same policy being breached on national TV.

1) your club had already been warned about its fans behaviour in the past

2) your club broke the law with homophobic chanting

1) I'm not arguing AT ALL that Cas did not deserve punishment, particularly taking into consideration previous events.

2) No, we were sanctioned under the RFL's Respect Policy which does not specify homophobic chanting, but abusive and obscene chanting (as already qouted if you read the last couple of pages of this thread). To break the law you have to have been found guily by courts not a sporting organisation.

What I'm saying is that by the use of the words "b*****d" and "w****r", which I think most would consider to be abusive and obscene, Leeds have breached the very same policy, just in a different way.

yes,

i am suggesting that the prevailing morality of our society wouldnt find the words w'a'nker and b'a'stard abhorrent!

Castlefords offence was 100x worse

Yet despite this you, like I, will not write them fully on a message board. The reason for this is that they are abusive. If you did so, they would be 'cleaned up' as this site bans the use of abusive language, which contradicts your argument. Nor would you expect to hear these words on television before the watershed without complaints, because they are abusive.
Nowhere in the RFL's Respect Policy is the word 'abhorrent' used, it's just a word you have introduced (you do know that one dictionary definition varies from the other 10,000!) to try and justify the words "b*****d" and "w****r", no these are not abhorrent but they are abusive and obscene, which are the words the Respect Policy quotes.
And if you think they are not, I'd suggest it reflects more of your own moral standards of decency.

im guessing you are saying it doesnt specify homophobic chanting other than where it says

[iRespect the rights, dignity and worth of every person regardless of their age, ethnic origin, gender, special needs, including learning and physical disabilities, class or social background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, colour or political persuasion[/i


and im guessing that you havent read where it says that any offence will be dealt with under a standardised penalty structure of very minor punishments, except [iNB Where a breach of this Code of Conduct involves discrimination on any grounds (e.g. race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, faith), the issue will be referredto the RFL. [/i

I agree, and therefore Leeds should be fined 1/100th of the 40k that Cas were given. But worse does not always mean acceptable. Manslaughter is not as bad as murder, but that doesn't mean we can all go round doing it and point at the murderers saying "but their crime was worse....!"

This is not the Respect Policy, it is the RFL's Code of Conduct. It covers those working and volunteering in the game, not supporters. And it is not what we were oficially fined for breaching (although it might have been more appropriate, I agree).

Another way to look at it is FGB/James Graham said last week that he always gets a warm reception at Headingley and it motivates him

You are trying to deflect the actual point as your argument is beginning to look rather weak as is SmokeyTa's. You have resorted to the "the player doesn't mind" and Smokey reckons that "B*****d" and "W****r" are acceptable.

id happily write them, except they come out as and , in fact i went out of my way to spell them in a way which showed what i was saying.

choose which definition of obscene you like, im happy with any of them, but you cant pretend obscene means something it doesnt

Quote ="nottinghamtiger"This is not the Respect Policy, it is the RFL's Code of Conduct. It covers those working and volunteering in the game, not supporters. And it is not what we were oficially fined for breaching (although it might have been more appropriate, I agree).'" erm no, it is the respect policy its in their respect brochure www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... ochure.pdf

Quote ="nottinghamtiger"This is not the Respect Policy, it is the RFL's Code of Conduct. It covers those working and volunteering in the game, not supporters. And it is not what we were oficially fined for breaching (although it might have been more appropriate, I agree).'" erm no, it is the respect policy its in their respect brochure www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/client ... ochure.pdf

Why, would you suggest, does the site automatically alter the words b*****d and w****r?

because the decision was made it was preferable these words werent used

Why not?

But your trying to make it as bad as the Castleford offence

At the end of the day it was a bit cheaky, bit rude, but nothing as shameful as the Jungle incident

No I'm not, homophobic abuse is worse, no question. What I'm saying is it is still against the 'Respect' Policy and as such the RFL should investigate in the interests of fairness.

because they are words which can carry a little more weight than others,