i think it's about time someone took the RFL to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to give them a big slap in the way they are dealing with matters unfairly.
Their dealing with judiciary cases is bewildering to say the least and decisions made with very little actual evidence, or based on supposition and sometimes making a guilty decision on a player who could not have done anything physically different despite initial movelment being legitimate and not careless (I'm specifically thinking of the Watts/Gale incident) and that a player falling into another who is making a legitimate tackle if the falling player does not fall(or brought to the ground by another) especially since the arms are not raised in the slightest/by the tacklers side and at waist height at point of contact cannot be guilty of a 'head high'/careless challenge, that's utterly ridiculous. And in the same game the RFL/officials completely ignored McShane running in and ting the now kneeling Watts with the elbow to his head/supper shoulders and another Cas player at another point in the game elbowing a standing FC player in a tackle.
plenty more besides in the near past that leaves you scratching your head as to how the RFl ignore some things and then contrive to make something out of nothing elsewhere.
If their is more than one witness to what Carney actually said and are absolutely 100% sure that is what he said then you would have a case, however if Carney states that's not what he said (in terms of the racial aspect) then the RFL are on thin ice because it's not just against the RFL laws but it is a criminal offence too and as such Carney should be saying it's my word against another, you need to give absolute proof to prove me guilty, not me prove my innocense because that is not how UK law works and should not be the reverse for sports.

RFL rules can't contravene the law, but they arent they law. There isnt the same burden of proof. Its not even necessary for there to be a presumption of innocence (doping regs are an example of this)

When is the hearing for this?

Tuesday 2nd as part of that weeks disciplinary hearings

Came on here expecting someone to have commented on the panel's hearing.

Carney found guilty, banned for 8 games and £300 fine. He's already missed the Widnes game, so 7 games remaining.

Apparently the hearing went on for over 3 hours, with Carney pleading guilty to the charge of verbal abuse based on race/colour, but was contesting the severity of the charge.

Can you make a racist remark in the heat of the battle and not be a racist ? Carney is an impulsive character and it's safe to say he doesn't think about his actions. I do not think he is a racist. He does have some growing up to do, especially on the field. Sadly his misdemeanours on it and off it over shadow the sort of player he can be.

He's just a ticking time bomb for me. Can't keep his emotions in check

I guess that the RFL will be accused of treating racist comments as worse than homophobic ones by some. (Potentially justifiably when a player gets a 6 match ban for homophobic abuse at a ref on national TV.)

For me there is no place for either in life, let alone a professional sport.

He's just admitted to racial abuse of a fellow player, and you're apologising for him by suggesting it was in the heat of battle, impulsive, and he just needs to grow up?

The things we'll forgive players for never ceases to amaze me.

But not on this occasion?

I do find it funny and a bit disturbing that he admits to using a racist comment but says he isn't racist.
If you follow the 'Rugby League Banter Page' on Facebook, you'd probably think Carney is an angel when you read some of the stuff people have put on there.

One person actually put the following on there:-
'I think the world has gone mad! If people stopped getting offended so easily racism would barely exist!'

It's normally white people who come out with rubbish like this. Never been racially abused and have no idea how it feels when you are abused because the colour of your skin.

Carney has serious issues. He is mixed race and he thinks it's okay to abuse a person of color. I think he has identity crises.

He deserves the ban. Racial abuse cannot be accepted

Are you labour MP Diane Abbott ???

If you use race or colour as the basis of an insult, then you are being racist.
That may not mean that you have anything against a person but, it would still be a racist insult.
It would be just the same when it's a homophobic or sexist comment.

It doesn't mean that you hate certain groups of people but, that is how it works.

Mind you, some people will use that sort of language and say "but, i'm not racist", sadly, the opposite would be true.

I think on reflection carney is probably not racist, but made a nasty aggressive racist slur in an offensive aggressive manor, therefor he has rightly been punished, and i think he is lucky its only 8, it could have been 12-16 matches six months a year.

if some people think this is just a slap on the wrist action then it says more about them than Carney and they need to have along look and think.

We don't want this type of thing in our game, our game is a great advocate of racial tolerance and inclusiveness and long may it remain that way.

I'm definitely not apologising for him. He's a stupid idiot. I gave my opinion that I don't think he is a racist but has made a racist comment. He definitely does need to grow up on the field , not just for the comment made but his overall demeanor on it too. I also questioned if people thought it was possible to make certain comments and not be a racist / sexist and so forth. What he said was totally unacceptable and he has got off lightly with an 8 game ban. Other people would be looking for a new job I reckon outside of sport.

They're almost the same 'skin colour'....

Wow so he should have gotten a bigger ban than Flower who almost physically killed a man.
And out of interest what do you think Hardaker should have got I take it 6 was ok ?

That's a harsh way to describe Salford.

But - you do realise that in deciding he isn't a racist, you've gone on to describe a racist?

I've never bough the heat of the moment argument - if you're not racist or homophobic, that language wouldn't be inside your head in the first place, only to escape when you lose your self-control. Or is that just me?

Considering the severity of the RFL's decision I wonder if Salford have grounds for dismissal (If an even better wing option was available) if they chose to take that route? A long shot I know but how about Denny Solomona after the Sale season finishes this month?? Isn't there some special allowance on the cap now for attracting star players back to RL? I wonder if this was what Koukash was referring to with his cryptic tweet about one door shut and another one open? Who knows the quote "I've retired from rugby yawnian" card could be played!!

Is Solomona not trotting off playing for England ??

I am the same as you. never once have I ever made a racist comment against someone as I am not a racist. this argument that in the heat of the moment you can lose control but not be a racist doesnt sit well with me. you must carry some degree of racist thoughts if you can come out with racial slurs.

what makes it really strange is that carney is mixed race. I would be willing to bet that he grew up in australia and had the idiotic racial slurs said against him at one time.

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.