There will have to be more to it. Although it's only a civil process, the evidence would have to show a 'more likely than not' outcome to warrant a ban. A scenario of one word against another (both uncorroborated) would not meet that threshold.

they're not that regular, its the rfl we're talking about,

not uncommon for them to take a day or two getting on there

Mo posted way back in this thread that the words were picked up by a pitch-side microphone. That would be pretty compelling. The minutes will have to be carefully edited to protect a minor.

There was pitch side microphones at a non televised rugby match. When did rhat become a thing because sky bbc and Channel 4 supply the microohon3s for TV purposes.

Every match has cameras and microphones there. How else do you think there are highlights of every game ?

Single camera set up on the gantry with the Microphone on that camera. Nothing like the production of a televised game.

He makes Greg Inglis seem like a good signing

It is very unsavoury that we are bickering over whether there are mics there or not. As it stands, he has been found guilty of using inappropriate language (twice). The system is what it is and he has to take his punishment, subject to appeal and the club - as his employer - will follow their due process. Such bans would not handed out on a whim.

Bottom line is without evidence ( and if there is,then he deserves whatever he gets ) it's one persons word against another and has been mentioned this opens up a whole new can of worms as it becomes open to abuse and becomes an issue for the whole game.

‘Your word against mine’ doesn’t wholly always apply.
If it did, then historical offences, the likes we’ve seen on Operation Yewtree could not be acted on.
many people with one word against another contribute to credible evidence.

The weight of circumstantial evidence adds to favourably to the defendant. So the fact that JMcG has already been proven guilty without doubt on the first offence, and also to have lied, goes against him on the second account.
Offence one can be used as part of the evidence on the second accusation as evidence greater than the ‘one word against another’.

The one word against another would have only worked in JMcG favour, on the first offence, had nobody else but JC heard it!


I’m no lawyer, but that is pretty much how it is. JMcG can appeal, but the likelihood without further evidence on his part, the penalty will be upheld.

Depends which court he was to take it to?

If he feels he is being unfairly persecuted and its almost a restraint of trade, especially if Wire were to fire him, then he could easily take it to a higher court, where the evidence levels would be a lot stricter than simply one bloke's word and a few mates backing him up against a bloke they have already got a grudge against.

Well let’s be honest if you HADN’T said anything very offensive then you would indeed not accept this and keep fighting until you could clear your name - which wouldn’t be difficult if you were indeed innocent.

you wouldn’t expect a 12 game ban to be handed down without some damning evidence….but this is the RFL so anything is possible.

If the incident is on camera and you can see JM’s lips moving why not get a professional lip reader to confirm what was said.

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... case=17385 Minutes are out. It seemingly looks like it is Charnley’s word against McGuire.

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... case=17385 Minutes are out. It seemingly looks like it is Charnley’s word against McGuire.

The suggestion that Charnley would make up such a disgusting comment about his own child is pretty disgusting in itself. 'I'll use a made up slur about my own child to get a player banned', some of you are clearly just a sick. And as for the comparisons of bans for physical rather than verbal offences, do people seriously not get the context of the message against disability discrimination and the implacations on wider society if we dont take it seriously. Would you say the same for racist abuse?