Lenient Challenge Cup ban for alleged testicles grab revives debate over England's Marler

The two-week ban handed to Stade Francais’ Charlie Rorke for an alleged testicle grab last weekend has caused plenty of confusion online when compared to the ban given earlier this year to England prop Joe Marler. 

Rorke was shown the red card by referee Ben Blain for allegedly grabbing the testicles of Benetton’s Leonardo Sarto, who was also sent off for retaliating. The Stade forward pleaded not guilty to the charge at an independent EPCR disciplinary hearing.

The committee found that the red card was warranted, but rather than agree that the actions of Rorke were in contravention of law 9.27 (a player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship) which carries the minimum of a twelve-week ban, it was decided he was guilty of a different offence coming under law 9.11 (players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others) which has a minimum two-week ban.

What is life like as a professional player in Japan?

What is life like as a professional player in Japan?

The ten-week ban given to Marler for grabbing the genitals of Wales skipper Alun Wyn Jones at Twickenham in March during an England Six Nations match is now infamous in the rugby world. The prop was charged with contravening law 9.27 and was banned for twelve weeks, a punishment which was then reduced. 

Although he never actually missed a match due to the suspension of rugby due to Covid-19, there is confusion online as to how these two offences differ. 

Verdicts issued for 3 Challenge Cup disciplinary cases, including Charlie Rorke's alleged testicles grab #ChallengeCupRugby
https://t.co/ypp7AsqwCi

— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) December 16, 2020

The debate as to whether Marler’s punishment should have been more or less is a well-trodden path by now, but those on Twitter cannot understand how Rorke can get off so lightly in comparison. Moreover, the players were not even charged for the same offence, despite many struggling to see the difference. 

Of course, it is the disciplinary committee, not the social media universe, that determines the ban length for players, but this one does warrant an explanation.  

https://twitter.com/nicksjj/status/1339257629789609985?s=20

Needs to be appealed and reviewed. Heinous crime, on a par with gouging.

— Steve Parrett (@Steve_Parrett) December 16, 2020

He only got the 10 because it’s Marler

— Raniel Dead (@raniel_dead) December 16, 2020

I'll grant you that the footage is less clear than Marler fondling Alun-Wyn's nads, but hes clearly holding the guy's crotch. How do you get found innocent after that? ????

— Tom Newton (@TomNewton_18) December 16, 2020

r/:Hats off to whoever argued Charlie Rorke’s case because that is an appallingly short ban. https://t.co/zosVotTcjP

— Jonny Van FugleMugle (@JVanFM) December 17, 2020