Rugby used to be a game for hard men.

[Gob]

His head will roll

Below the belt
Whatever Joe Marler was hoping to find in Alun Wyn Jones’s shorts – hand sanitiser or stock-piled loo roll perhaps? – it wasn’t worth it.

The England prop forward has been cited for his ball-tampering and is about to be reminded that not everybody shares his sense of humour. Sly actions clearly intended to wind up or taunt opponents are also on the increase across the game, from ironic pats on the head to off-the-ball pushing.

This might just be the moment, as Marler awaits his disciplinary hearing on Thursday, for the sporting authorities to issue a statement instructing all players to keep their wandering hands and unsportsmanlike jibes to themselves.

[BoSoxGal]

I suppose the argument can turn on the meaning of sexual, but here generally the grabbing of the sexual genitalia is usually assumed to fall into that category. Perhaps in this context it is an assault on the victim’s manhood versus intended for the sexual gratification of the perpetrator- but on a plain reading it sure looks and smells like sexual assault to me.

But there was no grabbing involved, was there?

As disgusting as football is over here, I’m glad penis and testicle grabbing isn’t considered ‘all in good fun’ by our league or fans.

But no one has said it was "all in good fun", have they?

I’m at a loss over your first statement, as dozens of articles about this incident characterize it as ‘grabbing the genitals’ and that’s very much what the photo appears to depict.

[Big RR]

Maybe it's grabbing the cup? I played a little rugby in college and laways wore a cup (at least I did after the first time a kick (likely ubintentional, just a result of the contact) made me realize why it was necessary. Or maybe real men don't wear cups (and wind up singing soprano?).

[MajGenl.Meade]

I’m at a loss over your first statement, as dozens of articles about this incident characterize it as ‘grabbing the genitals’ and that’s very much what the photo appears to depict.

You need (or don't need, as you will) to watch the video. He "grabs" nothing. Gob describes it as a "niggle". Not sure if that's PC but I know what he means. It's a little chuck under the chin (but not the chin, if you see or don't see what I mean). Stupid - shouldn't be done - fine him. But the reaction from some folks is overboard.

[BoSoxGal]

Ohhhhhh, ok! Yes definitely, it’s much more acceptable to have somebody grabbing *at* one’s genitals, so long as they don’t actually grab onto them.

Attempted sexual assault is perfectly harmless, I see why some are outraged that there was any upset expressed at Mr. Marler. Bollocks, indeed!

[MajGenl.Meade]

He didn't "grab at" either. Between strangers in a pub, yeah, it could be sexual assault. And if he was copping a good feel in the scrum , it could be sexual assault. But in context, to call this sexual assault is absolute bee-in-the-bonnet nonsense.

[Guinevere]

The OP article states: “replays showed Marler brazenly holding Jones by the genitals.”

Not sure how one “hold(s) Jones by the genitals” without some sort of reach or grab.

The video also seems to show someone with his hand on someone’s genitalia, and doing something with it.

But you’re all saying that’s just the sport? Really? That’s “sporting?” So much for that vaunted British sense of fair play.

ETA: Ok - I get now that the photo (which looks pretty blatant) isn’t of the actual incident, but the kind of touching which used to be “ok” in the past? Fine. Doesn’t change my analysis.

[Gob]

The OP article states: “replays showed Marler brazenly holding Jones by the genitals.”

Not sure how one “hold(s) Jones by the genitals” without some sort of reach or grab.

The video also seems to show someone with his hand on someone’s genitalia, and doing something with it.

Yep, Joe gave Alun's nuts a bit of a flick, as can be seen in the video.

It was not done for any "sexual" purpose. It was done to try an provoke a reaction.

But you’re all saying that’s just the sport? Really? That’s “sporting?” So much for that vaunted British sense of fair play.

Nobody has claimed either of those things.

[Guinevere]

1. “Purpose” doesn’t matter. Sexual assault isn’t about sex.

2. So what is your point? If it’s not part of the game, then why is it ok?

[Gob]

1. “Purpose” doesn’t matter. Sexual assault isn’t about sex.

But adding "sexual" means it is about sex. Why not just call it "assault" if its not about sex? Or "Genital assault"?

2. So what is your point? If it’s not part of the game, then why is it ok?

Nobody is saying it's "ok" just that a sense of scale or proportion is needed, as well as context. Joe flicked his bollocks to try and wind him up. He didn't force him to his knees and stick his cock in his mouth.

[BoSoxGal]

What part of unwanted grabbing of sex organs should be off the table as a means to 'wind up' a sports opponent - or coworker, or person on the street - is so difficult to grasp? The unwanted touching is assault, sex organs make it sexual assault, targeting sex organs to 'unsettle' is a sexual harassment mindset - which you are brushing off as no big deal.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Whatever

[Gob]

What part of unwanted grabbing of sex organs should be off the table as a means to 'wind up' a sports opponent - or coworker, or person on the street - is so difficult to grasp?

No "grabbing" involved.

The unwanted touching is assault, sex organs make it sexual assault, targeting sex organs to 'unsettle' is a sexual harassment mindset - which you are brushing off as no big deal.

Nope, we are just saying we have a different perspective.

It's not sexual assault as there was nothing "sexual" about it. Is kicking a man in the balls a"sexual" assault, or merely a good way of taking him out?

[Big RR]

I also think the difference here has to do with the relationship between the assaulter and the victim; ordinarily I see sexual assault (at least of the type normally referred to) as due to an imbalance of power, either because of physical force or position. Here we have essentially equals, and the "victim" could easily fight back and avenge the affront. To me it's more the the high school kids making out and the boy touching the girl's genitals; sure it's an assault of some sort, but if he withdraws when she objects it's quite different the the casting couch tactics of Harvey Weinstein. For whatever reason, guys routinely do this sort of thing to embarrass/enrage each other ; I recall having my shorts pulled down while lifting weights several times in high school, and also recall how I got "even"--nothing particularly sexual or even based on any imbalance of power, more like aggressive name calling.

Not that it makes everything OK, but to paraphrase Leslie Gore, that's the way boys are.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I also think the difference here has to do with the relationship between the assaulter and the victim; ordinarily I see sexual assault (at least of the type normally referred to) as due to an imbalance of power, either because of physical force or position. Here we have essentially equals, and the "victim" could easily fight back and avenge the affront.

That's right and that's what the offender had in mind. The furriner gets narky and gets a yellow card for retaliation.

And how about this - a teste-monial!!!

[Bicycle Bill]

Back when rugby became a 'club-level' sport (as opposed to a varsity sport) at our local college, the rugby aficionados had bumper stickers made up for their cars that read "It Takes Leather Balls to Play Rugby."

Maybe Marler was just checking to make sure Jones had the proper equipment.

-"BB"-
(ps — another bumper sticker that made the rounds about that same time said "Donate Blood — Play Rugby", so I guess one should be aware that the game is going to be more physical and involve more body contact than a game of, say, patty-cake.)

[RayThom]

One of my old girlfriends was on the Rugby cheer leading squad at Penn State -- the Mother Ruggers.

[Gob]

Photographic proof that Joe Marler has a history of touching cocks.