I think most people have made offensive remarks they totally regret afterwards when they completely lose their cool. I think it's an instinctive reaction to make hurtful remarks when the red mist sets in. It's absolutely no excuse for what was said but had the player not been sledging a fellow professional I'm sure it would'nt have happened.

I realise I'm treading in a minefield here and as nobody here has the full facts of the case. I don't think there is any doubt that he is guilty as he has admitted it and that also Carney has a poor disciplinary history.

But to those who think 8 matches isn't long enough - going on this week's disciplinary currency it is 4 chicken wings or 8 standings on a player.

Far from a soft sentence, even without much in the way of mitigation of which I have no idea if there was any. His card has also been marked and he'd have to be even more stupid than he has already shown (and he has set himself a very low bar) to ever think about doing this again.

Not sure if that argument fully stacks in this instance,

I’ll try and explain, using Ryan Bailley as an example, if you were to witness a crime that he committed and the police questioned you to give a description than the initial thing you would say was he was black, then height, build, clothing etc and there would be noting racist about that.
As far as I’m aware Carney called Bailey a Black (insert profanity), is this different to calling someone a fat xxx or a lanky xxx?

If BC had called him the N word then that is indefensible but I can see how you could construe that he used a racist term but wasn’t actually racist himself by using the term black.

Not saying its right that he said it but I can see the not racist counter argument.

A valiant attempt - but it doesn't stack up; describing someone for identification purposes is not in any way in the same ballpark as calling them a "black c**t" during a heated exchange; one is factual, the other is a racial slur. Could you say to a police officer, "he was a black c**t, about 6 foot 2, with tattoos and a gold tooth?" and escape censure? I think not.

This kind of retrospective apologist behaviour does nothing for the credibility of the sport; Carney has racially abused a fellow player and been punished - quite lightly in my view - and it's now for his club to use their own disciplinary procedure to deal with him in a way that satisfies their own expectations of conduct and behaviour. One would hope that the number of tries the perpetrator scores is not a mitigating factor.

In the police officer scenario you put forward if you removed the word Black and replace it with fat or no descriptor at all it is still an offensive statement that would be unacceptable to the police, is it not.

I am in no way disagreeing with what you're saying and am not apologising for Carney or anyone else, I was just trying to caveat the racial slur but not racist person comment that Carney has put forward.

I don't think this offence warrants the length of the ban when compared to thuggish violations such as deliberately attempting to physically injure a person. This lengthy 8 match ban is more about the RFL saying look at us we are a governing body of a sport with politically correct value's and Carney has been severely punished by the RFL to make them feel better about themselves. There is just no logic to the disparity in punishments when comparing physical and verbal offences to the criminal justice system. There is no place for racism in RL and I think it's only right that Carney was banned but let the punishment fit the crime rather than using it as a PR stunt.

Could it possibly be that the RFL actually *do* want to send a strong message about racism - because that's the right thing to do; rather than they're doing it because they feel pressured to and if not for the PC brigade, they'd just shrug and say "that Carney - what a card?!"

I hate this eye-rolling attribution of doing the right thing as being pandering to political correctness; isn't PC actually just being fair and equitable and protecting people from abuse and victimisation? It may well be taken to extremes in some cases - but not this one.

A one match ban for stamping on a person with intent to physically injure and 8 matches for losing your temper and saying something most regrettable after a person deliberately sledges you. Thank the lord the RFL disciplinary aren't sat behind a bench in a courtroom with grey wigs on their heads. I fully endorse the ban but I don't agree that other forms of abuse and victimisation are considered by the RFL of much less significance. Don’t the RFL have a duty of care to protect the welfare of all players equally?

You seem to be missing the point; abuse that is aggravated by protected characteristics - such as race or sexuality - is dealt with more harshly, and rightly so.

I assume that if someone had called a Salford player a black c**t and was banned for 8 games, you'd also be calling for a more lenient punishment?

You seem agitated; perhaps your agitation would be more usefully directed at Mr Carney rather than the RFL?

Interesting thread this. I see both sides of the fence.

Discrimination of any kind is wholly unacceptable and should be punished. The decision in the severity of the punishment should be based on was it an isolated event, heat of the moment idiotic thing to say or is the individual concerned fundamentally racist?

In another comparison, if two players started fighting on the field of play and one uttered the line during the fight "I'll f*****g kill you", is that person a murderer or someone who cannot control their tongue?

Why are you assuming that I'm agitated? I'm simply pointing out that there is a wide disparity in the punishments when comparing two acts of abuse to how the criminal justice system would ajudicate on both individual cases. Allow me to reiterate again that I fully endorse the ban, i just think it's disproportionate to the outcome of the physical abuse hearing at the RFL this week. This is just my opinion and I respect that you have yours.

I don't understand your point; as has already been pointed out, this isn't a criminal case - so the burden of proof (and the sanctions available) are significantly different. If it were, for admitting racially aggravated verbal abuse, he could be looking at a hefty fine or even a prison sentence, rather than 6 weeks rest.

Would you like the RFL to robustly protect Salford's BME players form racial abuse, or would you feel the same way if the situation were reversed?

I want all RL players protected the same whether they play for my club or any other club. You don't seem to to understand what I mean when I keep repeating that I fully endorse the ban. Let me be clear. Just because I believe the RFL are wrong to punish a deliberate physical offence at only 12.5% of the punishment compared to a verbal offence, does not mean I think the ban should be any less. The RFL has a duty of care to protect the welfare of all players equally? If you were the person stamped on, would you think you got a fair outcome?

That's good - but yesterday you saidThis lengthy 8 match ban is more about the RFL saying look at us we are a governing body of a sport with politically correct value's and Carney has been severely punished by the RFL to make them feel better about themselves.'"

Yeah it would have been much better had he just gone and kicked the sh*t out of him as that's far more acceptable, a bit like the French player one arrowing the Ref .