Biting in Eng v Ire

by yappysnap Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:35 am

First topic message reminder :

Just a quick post to clarify that there was no gouging in the Eng-Ire match. It's come out that the Irish players were complaining of biting, specifically on Ferris's finger.

Full story here:

http://www.espnscrum.com/ireland/rugby/story/161365.html

by geoff998rugby Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:09 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote: Nor do you have any evidence that Hartley bit Ferris.

.

And I think you will find at no point have I claimed otherwise - other than pointing out that Hartley is being cited. What gets me is that a number of posters have tried to deflect this issue by claiming illegal activity by Ferris without a shred of evidence.

The only evidence we have is that someone bit Ferris and the citing ccommittee have grounds for believing it was Hartley. This will be investigated. Unless something comes out of their deliberation there is no justification for claiming Ferris did anything untoward.

by **Ozzy3213** Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:20 pm

Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:23 pm

From a purely hypothetical viewpoint, what would happen if during the outcome of the investigation into Player A biting it turns out that Player B had been 'in contact with the eye area' would Player B be able to be cited even though it was outside the citing window? (Nothing to do with this incident i'm sure, just got me thinking?)

by geoff998rugby Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:35 pm

Ozzy3213 I accept most are specualting but some are not. At least one has described Ferris putting his hand in Hartley's mouth as a fact.

Carpe Diem I would hope the system allows a citing in the light of the new evidence. It would be unacceptable that a player got away with it on a technicality.

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:39 pm

One would certainly hope so Geoff

by A World Cup and 3 Finals Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:43 pm

Ferris and co were serving up the game on a platter to England, so Hartley should know never to bite the hand that feeds you..............I thank you!

by HammerofThunor Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:10 pm

Carpe Diem wrote:From a purely hypothetical viewpoint, what would happen if during the outcome of the investigation into Player A biting it turns out that Player B had been 'in contact with the eye area' would Player B be able to be cited even though it was outside the citing window? (Nothing to do with this incident i'm sure, just got me thinking?)

No, I'm pretty sure they can't do anything about it. If a player comes forth with additional information later, tough. He should have done it after the game. Needs to be some sort of cut off point I suppose. If Player B had made contact with the eye area then Player A should have reported it.

by yappysnap Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:14 pm

Didn't the IRB change the rules after the WC final fiasco with Rougerie?

by HammerofThunor Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:27 pm

yappysnap wrote:Didn't the IRB change the rules after the WC final fiasco with Rougerie?

Maybe. Now you mention it I do recall something like that. Or were they just looking into it and nothing is changed yet? Not sure.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:44 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

Quite right!!

I said about a hundred posts ago that it was all SPECULATION.

Of course it is. Just read my posts carefully and we wont have these problems or misunderstandings.

Im now goint to do a bite more speculation for my own amusement. If you dont like it tough.

Evidence against Hartley :

1.Evidence that ANYTHING happened at all - Nigel Owens can come and say he saw a mark on Ferris' finger. I am not sure whether he is qualified to say that it was a bite or something else. He is not a doctor or any kind of expert.

Nigel Owens cant say anymore than that (assuming that the rules of evidence apply). What Ferris said to Owens is hearsay and is inadmissable as proof. So basically the Oirish have to come along and complain for there to be any case at all. If they dont end of story.

2. Evidence that Hartley bit Ferris - Ferris can come along and say it IF he saw it happen.

3. Anyone else who saw it happen can come along and say that too IF they saw it happen.

IF 2 or 3 happens and Hartley wants to fight it or mitigate it on the basis for example that Ferris was fish hooking him and he was defending himself then he'll have to give that account himself.

Conclusions -

IF Ferris was fish hooking him and complains about a bite and denies fish hooking then i have no time for him as a player or a human being. ditto any other irish who come and give a false account along those lines.

IF Ferris was fish hooking him i would be VERY suprised if he was willing to come along and say that in the tribunal. SO if this collapses due to no evidence from Ferris or any other irish i will surmise that this is what happened.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:45 pm

p.s forgot camera evidence which could obviously be decisive. I doubt there will be any since they cant even give tries to England properly when they're scored!

thumbsup

by nathan Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:48 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Ozzy3213 I accept most are specualting but some are not. At least one has described Ferris putting his hand in Hartley's mouth as a fact.

Carpe Diem I would hope the system allows a citing in the light of the new evidence. It would be unacceptable that a player got away with it on a technicality.

But at least one person has said hartley bit his finger as fact. truth is nobody in this thread knows what has actually happened, so we're speculating.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:52 pm

Triangulation wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

Quite right!!

I said about a hundred posts ago that it was all SPECULATION.

Of course it is. Just read my posts carefully and we wont have these problems or misunderstandings.

Im now goint to do a bite more speculation for my own amusement. If you dont like it tough.

Evidence against Hartley :

1.Evidence that ANYTHING happened at all - Nigel Owens can come and say he saw a mark on Ferris' finger. I am not sure whether he is qualified to say that it was a bite or something else. He is not a doctor or any kind of expert.

Nigel Owens cant say anymore than that (assuming that the rules of evidence apply). What Ferris said to Owens is hearsay and is inadmissable as proof. So basically the Oirish have to come along and complain for there to be any case at all. If they dont end of story.

2. Evidence that Hartley bit Ferris - Ferris can come along and say it IF he saw it happen.

3. Anyone else who saw it happen can come along and say that too IF they saw it happen.

IF 2 or 3 happens and Hartley wants to fight it or mitigate it on the basis for example that Ferris was fish hooking him and he was defending himself then he'll have to give that account himself.

Conclusions -

IF Ferris was fish hooking him and complains about a bite and denies fish hooking then i have no time for him as a player or a human being. ditto any other irish who come and give a false account along those lines.

IF Ferris was fish hooking him i would be VERY suprised if he was willing to come along and say that in the tribunal. SO if this collapses due to no evidence from Ferris or any other irish i will surmise that this is what happened.

by SimonofSurrey Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:00 pm

At this stage, unfortunately, neither party is in a comfortable place.

Hartley, whether he likes it or not, has similar previous for serious foul play which feeds (sorry) into comments of 'there he goes again' and could weigh heavily against him if it comes down ultimately to a balance of probability/(non)benefit of the doubt type ruling. Ferris, meanwhile, made a rod for his own back with his pre-match comments which, whatever his intent and however misquoted he may have been, could be used against him as 'evidence' of an essentially malicious anti-English streak, however inaccurate such a judgement may be. I suspect for example there would have been much less, possibly no, speculation over fishhooking if Ferris had just remained an outstanding, competitive Irish back row forward with personal views on the English which he had not shared publicly. Whatever his intent in going public, it really didn't help him (why bother?) or his country (his comments = a paragraph of S Lancaster's/C Robshaw's pre-match team talk?).

One way or another, maybe both players may wish now that over the course of the past week they had kept their respective mouths shut at key inappropriate moments. And if either of them is found beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of serious physical foul play or verbal malice, he will deserve to have the metaphorical book thrown at him.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:03 pm

Triangulation wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

Quite right!!

I said about a hundred posts ago that it was all SPECULATION.

Of course it is. Just read my posts carefully and we wont have these problems or misunderstandings.

Im now goint to do a bite more speculation for my own amusement. If you dont like it tough.

Evidence against Hartley :

1.Evidence that ANYTHING happened at all - Nigel Owens can come and say he saw a mark on Ferris' finger. I am not sure whether he is qualified to say that it was a bite or something else. He is not a doctor or any kind of expert.

Nigel Owens cant say anymore than that (assuming that the rules of evidence apply). What Ferris said to Owens is hearsay and is inadmissable as proof. So basically the Oirish have to come along and complain for there to be any case at all. If they dont end of story.

2. Evidence that Hartley bit Ferris - Ferris can come along and say it IF he saw it happen.

3. Anyone else who saw it happen can come along and say that too IF they saw it happen.

IF 2 or 3 happens and Hartley wants to fight it or mitigate it on the basis for example that Ferris was fish hooking him and he was defending himself then he'll have to give that account himself.

Conclusions -

IF Ferris was fish hooking him and complains about a bite and denies fish hooking then i have no time for him as a player or a human being. ditto any other irish who come and give a false account along those lines.

IF Ferris was fish hooking him i would be VERY suprised if he was willing to come along and say that in the tribunal. SO if this collapses due to no evidence from Ferris or any other irish i will surmise that this is what happened.

Your SPECULATION is pro-Hartley. You may not see it, other do. So, we're back to square one. If Hartley is guilty and there is evidence to support it, he will be found guilty. If he is guilty and no evidence exists to prove it, he will rightly walk free. If he is innocent and there is no evidence to support guilt, he will rightfully walk free. If he is innocent and/or makes a counter-claim against Ferris then we are back to that word you first used - SPECULATION. Now the onus is on him to support his case with evidence or colleague support.

But if the idea is that Hartley's innocence will, in your eyes, support your evidence-less theory that Ferris is therefore guilty; that's not very cute reasoning at all - surmise or no surmise.

by PenfroPete Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:04 pm

Evidence ? You wanted evidence ? HERE thumbsup

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:07 pm

PenfroPete wrote:Evidence ? You wanted evidence ? HERE

You see, clearly shows Ferris was tripped....and knocked all his mates down in the process. 3 months for Hartley.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:08 pm

SimonofSurrey wrote:At this stage, unfortunately, neither party is in a comfortable place.

Hartley, whether he likes it or not, has similar previous for serious foul play which feeds (sorry) into comments of 'there he goes again' and could weigh heavily against him if it comes down ultimately to a balance of probability/(non)benefit of the doubt type ruling. Ferris, meanwhile, made a rod for his own back with his pre-match comments which, whatever his intent and however misquoted he may have been, could be used against him as 'evidence' of an essentially malicious anti-English streak, however inaccurate such a judgement may be. I suspect for example there would have been much less, possibly no, speculation over fishhooking if Ferris had just remained an outstanding, competitive Irish back row forward with personal views on the English which he had not shared publicly. Whatever his intent in going public, it really didn't help him (why bother?) or his country (his comments = a paragraph of S Lancaster's/C Robshaw's pre-match team talk?).

One way or another, maybe both players may wish now that over the course of the past week they had kept their respective mouths shut at key inappropriate moments. And if either of them is found beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of serious physical foul play or verbal malice, he will deserve to have the metaphorical book thrown at him.

Firstly priors do NOT usually come into a consideration of whether a person has committed the offence or not!!!!!

Only come in on penalty unless it is "similar fact evidence" he hasnt got priors for biting and even if he did you'd need to make a strong case to get the evidence in that way. This is baloney!

Secondly people are speculating on fish hooking because

a) why pick a finger if youre going to bite? Most would go for a bigger target like a forearm surely? fingers are used for fish hooking and other despicable acts.....

b) irish players routinely illegally choke tackle opponents around the neck, head and face. perhaps when you do this all the time it is easier for a finger to "find its way" where it shouldnt be either deliberately or inadvertantly

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:09 pm

Triangulation wrote:p.s forgot camera evidence which could obviously be decisive. I doubt there will be any since they cant even give tries to England properly when they're scored!

Since when has camera evidence ever been decisive? Theres plenty of people who still deny the moon landings and Sam Warburtons red card.

If anything this debate has stayed relatively civil and sane because there isnt any.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:15 pm

Triangulation wrote:
irish players routinely illegally choke tackle opponents

Evidence? None or else they would have been cited over and over and over by officials as they don't hide their techniques - they're very public, easily seen, by ref and citing commisioners. You use the word 'illegally' and you are simply wrong.

Now the other thing to be said about that point: Priors? What Irish players get up to this year or the year before that has no bearing on this case. Your own argument - not mine.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:17 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Triangulation wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

Quite right!!

I said about a hundred posts ago that it was all SPECULATION.

Of course it is. Just read my posts carefully and we wont have these problems or misunderstandings.

Im now goint to do a bite more speculation for my own amusement. If you dont like it tough.

Evidence against Hartley :

1.Evidence that ANYTHING happened at all - Nigel Owens can come and say he saw a mark on Ferris' finger. I am not sure whether he is qualified to say that it was a bite or something else. He is not a doctor or any kind of expert.

Nigel Owens cant say anymore than that (assuming that the rules of evidence apply). What Ferris said to Owens is hearsay and is inadmissable as proof. So basically the Oirish have to come along and complain for there to be any case at all. If they dont end of story.

2. Evidence that Hartley bit Ferris - Ferris can come along and say it IF he saw it happen.

3. Anyone else who saw it happen can come along and say that too IF they saw it happen.

IF 2 or 3 happens and Hartley wants to fight it or mitigate it on the basis for example that Ferris was fish hooking him and he was defending himself then he'll have to give that account himself.

Conclusions -

IF Ferris was fish hooking him and complains about a bite and denies fish hooking then i have no time for him as a player or a human being. ditto any other irish who come and give a false account along those lines.

IF Ferris was fish hooking him i would be VERY suprised if he was willing to come along and say that in the tribunal. SO if this collapses due to no evidence from Ferris or any other irish i will surmise that this is what happened.

Your SPECULATION is pro-Hartley. You may not see it, other do. So, we're back to square one. If Hartley is guilty and there is evidence to support it, he will be found guilty. If he is guilty and no evidence exists to prove it, he will rightly walk free. If he is innocent and there is no evidence to support guilt, he will rightfully walk free. If he is innocent and/or makes a counter-claim against Ferris then we are back to that word you first used - SPECULATION. Now the onus is on him to support his case with evidence or colleague support.

But if the idea is that Hartley's innocence will, in your eyes, support your evidence-less theory that Ferris is therefore guilty; that's not very cute reasoning at all - surmise or no surmise.

I follow you Secretfly

I do make a big leap there. I accept that. I accept of course that Ferris failing come to the tribunal and repeat his claim of being bitten, made during the game does not mean that he was fish hooking or eye gouging or doing anything else as despicable as that.

I speculate that it means one of two things...

1.) for reason(s) best known to himself he is prepared to make a clear allegation during a match against a player which he is not prepared to repeat in formal proceedings. Hmmm what could that be???.......

OR

2) he was in some way at least partially guilty himself and was attempting to provoke hartley up as a known volatile character to get him red or yellow carded. ( a well known tactic unfortunately)

My money will be on 2

By a country mile!

Street smarts tells me that though i accept its a bigish leap.

Cheers thumbsup

by A World Cup and 3 Finals Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:18 pm

The thing about camera evidence is that it is a 2 dimensional account of a 3D event. If Dowson was French I would have cited Croft and thrown the book at him banning him for weeks as I've seen it replayed countless time and it looks like adeliberate stamp but it wasn't was it?

by The Great Aukster Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:21 pm

In keeping with the speculative nature of this thread I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question of those English posters defending Hartley. If you had photographic or video evidence of Hartley biting Ferris would you:
1. Post it on youtube
2. Sell it to a Newspaper
3. Send it to the citing commissioner anonymously
4. Blackmail Hartley
5. Destroy it pronto

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:31 pm

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:The thing about camera evidence is that it is a 2 dimensional account of a 3D event. If Dowson was French I would have cited Croft and thrown the book at him banning him for weeks as I've seen it replayed countless time and it looks like adeliberate stamp but it wasn't was it?

I dunno some people would do anything to get him out the team

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:32 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:In keeping with the speculative nature of this thread I thought I'd ask a hypothetical question of those English posters defending Hartley. If you had photographic or video evidence of Hartley biting Ferris would you:
1. Post it on youtube
2. Sell it to a Newspaper
3. Send it to the citing commissioner anonymously
4. Blackmail Hartley
5. Destroy it pronto

6. Claim its evidence that Ferris put his hand in Hartleys mouth

by MrsP Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:36 pm

7. Claim that the image was doctored (ala SF!)

by eirebilly Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:38 pm

8. Let MrsP investigate and assign punishment if required Wink

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:46 pm

9. Claim that Hartley wasn't even playing that day.

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:54 pm

ALIENS!!!

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:05 pm

No need to be insulting about little green men, Carpe................. you won, that should be enough. Wink

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:09 pm

Triangulation wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Triangulation wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:Nobody is trying to deflect the issue Geoff. People are merely speculating as to what might have happened in that ruck. Unless there is another camera angle available other than the one shown by the bbc, then I think the only people who are ever going to really know are Ferris and Hartley.

If there is another camera angle and it shows an unprovoked bite by Hartley, then he should get the requisite ban and consideration will need to be given by the powers that be as to whether or not we really want him pulling on the white shirt again.

If however it is shown that there was more to it than a simple act of aggression then that will need to be addressed appropriately.

Quite right!!

I said about a hundred posts ago that it was all SPECULATION.

Of course it is. Just read my posts carefully and we wont have these problems or misunderstandings.

Im now goint to do a bite more speculation for my own amusement. If you dont like it tough.

Evidence against Hartley :

1.Evidence that ANYTHING happened at all - Nigel Owens can come and say he saw a mark on Ferris' finger. I am not sure whether he is qualified to say that it was a bite or something else. He is not a doctor or any kind of expert.

Nigel Owens cant say anymore than that (assuming that the rules of evidence apply). What Ferris said to Owens is hearsay and is inadmissable as proof. So basically the Oirish have to come along and complain for there to be any case at all. If they dont end of story.

2. Evidence that Hartley bit Ferris - Ferris can come along and say it IF he saw it happen.

3. Anyone else who saw it happen can come along and say that too IF they saw it happen.

IF 2 or 3 happens and Hartley wants to fight it or mitigate it on the basis for example that Ferris was fish hooking him and he was defending himself then he'll have to give that account himself.

Conclusions -

IF Ferris was fish hooking him and complains about a bite and denies fish hooking then i have no time for him as a player or a human being. ditto any other irish who come and give a false account along those lines.

IF Ferris was fish hooking him i would be VERY suprised if he was willing to come along and say that in the tribunal. SO if this collapses due to no evidence from Ferris or any other irish i will surmise that this is what happened.

Your SPECULATION is pro-Hartley. You may not see it, other do. So, we're back to square one. If Hartley is guilty and there is evidence to support it, he will be found guilty. If he is guilty and no evidence exists to prove it, he will rightly walk free. If he is innocent and there is no evidence to support guilt, he will rightfully walk free. If he is innocent and/or makes a counter-claim against Ferris then we are back to that word you first used - SPECULATION. Now the onus is on him to support his case with evidence or colleague support.

But if the idea is that Hartley's innocence will, in your eyes, support your evidence-less theory that Ferris is therefore guilty; that's not very cute reasoning at all - surmise or no surmise.

I follow you Secretfly

I do make a big leap there. I accept that. I accept of course that Ferris failing come to the tribunal and repeat his claim of being bitten, made during the game does not mean that he was fish hooking or eye gouging or doing anything else as despicable as that.

I speculate that it means one of two things...

1.) for reason(s) best known to himself he is prepared to make a clear allegation during a match against a player which he is not prepared to repeat in formal proceedings. Hmmm what could that be???.......

OR

2) he was in some way at least partially guilty himself and was attempting to provoke hartley up as a known volatile character to get him red or yellow carded. ( a well known tactic unfortunately)

My money will be on 2

By a country mile!

Street smarts tells me that though i accept its a bigish leap.

Cheers

This is how it is gentlemen. In the real world. I'm just keeping it real.

For the sake of completeness and in the interests of fairness there is another possibility.

4. That Ferris gives his account then Hartley lies about being fish hooked when in fact he wasnt in a bid to get out / get out lightly.

That though really is a bridge too far for me. I just dont see that happening. He'd be risking greater punishment for the lie than was already coming his way.

The court of public opinion is in seeeesssssssssion!

Ferris like it or not is in the dock as much as Hartley is.

IF Ferris doesn't front up to back up his ingame allegation we'll all see the cut of his jib.

PS SecretFly - on the irish illegal choke tackling

The fact that it is unenforced doesn't mean jack mate. Get real. How many scrum feeds are straight these days. I think its a disgrace that illegal high tackles are not enforced and that it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:17 pm

They are not illegal. Take your dangerous complaints to the IRB. They are not illegal. They happen infront of the ref, TV and citing commisioners.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:26 pm

Tri,

I think you are mixing up the choke tackle with whats called a grapple tackle ( which is err a choke hold). There may be occasions where the Irish players go in a bit high, but the choke tackler tactic in itself doesnt require anything illegal, just to stop the tackled player going to ground. Im not aware of anyone having raised concerns regarding the legality of the contact by the Irish players, although the Scots did seek clarification on when the tackle is deemed to be a maul and when its deemed to be complete.
Im also not aware of players getting injured by it, claims of its danger ar ea bit exaggerated there?

Watch the start of this and tell me whats high or dangerous in the choke tackle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:32 pm

Come on Ferris back up your in- game-allegation on oath.

Give evidence and submit yourself to cross-examination about how your finger came to be in Hartley's mouth...

The clock is ticking Ferris….tick..tock…tick…tock…..

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:33 pm

If we re-named the "choke" tackle the "smother" tackle or something similar I think it might not sound as bad. It suffers from a bad press and is a little misunderstood, a bit like Hartley.

by Guest Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:35 pm

PSW - I know Phillips came out quite strongly last year as being against the choke tackle/grapple tackle, due to the amount of neck and head high challanges being put in against the Welsh team.

I know I for one am not a fan of seeing it. Even if the tackle starts chest high, far too often does the arm slide up and the player is then trapped with one player pinning his arms to his side and the other with an arm around his neck as they try and wrestle the ball from said players posession by turning it into a maul or what have you. I don't like it, I think it's dangerous.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:36 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Tri,

I think you are mixing up the choke tackle with whats called a grapple tackle ( which is err a choke hold). There may be occasions where the Irish players go in a bit high, but the choke tackler tactic in itself doesnt require anything illegal, just to stop the tackled player going to ground. Im not aware of anyone having raised concerns regarding the legality of the contact by the Irish players, although the Scots did seek clarification on when the tackle is deemed to be a maul and when its deemed to be complete.
Im also not aware of players getting injured by it, claims of its danger ar ea bit exaggerated there?

Watch the start of this and tell me whats high or dangerous in the choke tackle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIyQTGbSfEc

SeabiscuitWheeler!!

You aren't irish why are you muddying the waters for them. Sometimes its ok, sometimes its illegal and unpunished, sometimes its borderline. Always its reckless bordering on dangerous and should be discouraged.

I suggest that you grapple with my tackle and try not to choke on it!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:36 pm

Triangulation wrote:Come on Ferris back up your in- game-allegation on oath.

Give evidence and submit yourself to cross-examination about how your finger came to be in Hartley's mouth...

The clock is ticking Ferris….tick..tock…tick…tock…..

Tri whats your problem? He cant give his evidence till the hearing, theres nothing to suggest he wont except your wild imagination

by geoff998rugby Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:38 pm

Triagulation has spoken lets string Ferris up now and sod the evidence.........................

The citing comission will throw the book at him....

Whats that you say....

Its Hartley not Ferris in the dock....

details, details

by GunsGerms Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:43 pm

I get that Hartley is a hungry fellow but why would you want to bite someones fingers, they could have been anywhere. Ferris' may have scratched his mickey at the previous ruck.

by Submachine Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:44 pm

"Choke tackle" is just a name. No actual choking takes place. Also, Tight head props head are no tighter than Loose head props heads.
Next week, why Rory Best doesn't turn tricks.

by Submachine Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:45 pm

To be fair, the rest of the pack were scratching their arses.

by SecretFly Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:46 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:I get that Hartley is a hungry fellow but why would you want to bite someones fingers, they could have been anywhere. Ferris' may have scratched his mickey at the previous ruck.

According to one eagle-eyed customer above, no Ferris didn't scratch anything but someone else might have scratched them for him, with his teeth.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:04 pm

Now it seems that I am on trial…

Funny how it works….

I have a genuinely held belief that in the case of Mr Hartley there was a deliberate and express pre- game plan to wind up Hartley. I believe that fish hooking may have been employed as part of that plan.

My belief is grounded in the following….

1. Hartley has had his problems with discipline in the past and it is longstanding practice in rugby to try to wind these types of players up. Brian Moore made a career of it and Warren Gatland tried (unsuccessfully) the verbal variety pre game a year ago.

2. The irish have developed a real habbit of talking to the ref and trying to influence him during matches. Personally I find this distasteful but there it is. The most obvious example being their constant plaintive cries of (usually by Mr Paul O'Connell)…."it's a maul, it's a maul, it's a maul" while 2 or three of them grapple/choke/strangle tackle the opponent to prevent him from going to ground.

3. Presumably too the way things were unfolding on the pitch the need to execute "Operation Provoke Hartley" was dire.

4. The real fuss that was made of the complaint really only serves to reinforce my belief that irish thought they had successfully executed.

But as I say this is all speculation, reasoned speculation but speculation nonetheless.

It is sub judice.

Let's see what evidence Ferris brings with him to the tribunal.

If he brings nothing then to my way of thinking my theory is confirmed 100%.

There can be no other logical explanation and no one has even tried to put one forward.

That is a challenge by the way.....

by MrsP Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:11 pm

Was Ferris standing on the Grassy Knoll when all this happened?

A~~nother~~ logical explanation?

Okay,

How about Hartley didn't like being removed from the ruck and bit Ferris on the finger

by Submachine Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:16 pm

Triangulation wrote:Now it seems that I am on trial…

Let's see what evidence Ferris brings with him to the tribunal.

If he brings nothing then to my way of thinking my theory is confirmed 100%.

There can be no other logical explanation and no one has even tried to put one forward.

That is a challenge by the way.....

He will probably bring his finger. Maybe all of them. I've heard that a mould has been taken of the indentations in Ferris' finger and a celebrity dentist will be on hand to confirm that they are indeed the left front incisor and canine of one Dylan Hartley. But it's all just ipso facto at the moment Rodney.

by SimonofSurrey Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:18 pm

Triangulation wrote:
SimonofSurrey wrote:At this stage, unfortunately, neither party is in a comfortable place.

Hartley, whether he likes it or not, has similar previous for serious foul play which feeds (sorry) into comments of 'there he goes again' and could weigh heavily against him if it comes down ultimately to a balance of probability/(non)benefit of the doubt type ruling. Ferris, meanwhile, made a rod for his own back with his pre-match comments which, whatever his intent and however misquoted he may have been, could be used against him as 'evidence' of an essentially malicious anti-English streak, however inaccurate such a judgement may be. I suspect for example there would have been much less, possibly no, speculation over fishhooking if Ferris had just remained an outstanding, competitive Irish back row forward with personal views on the English which he had not shared publicly. Whatever his intent in going public, it really didn't help him (why bother?) or his country (his comments = a paragraph of S Lancaster's/C Robshaw's pre-match team talk?).

One way or another, maybe both players may wish now that over the course of the past week they had kept their respective mouths shut at key inappropriate moments. And if either of them is found beyond reasonable doubt to have been guilty of serious physical foul play or verbal malice, he will deserve to have the metaphorical book thrown at him.

Firstly priors do NOT usually come into a consideration of whether a person has committed the offence or not!!!!!

Only come in on penalty unless it is "similar fact evidence" he hasnt got priors for biting and even if he did you'd need to make a strong case to get the evidence in that way. This is baloney!

Secondly people are speculating on fish hooking because

a) why pick a finger if youre going to bite? Most would go for a bigger target like a forearm surely? fingers are used for fish hooking and other despicable acts.....

b) irish players routinely illegally choke tackle opponents around the neck, head and face. perhaps when you do this all the time it is easier for a finger to "find its way" where it shouldnt be either deliberately or inadvertantly

Triangulation,

Good points all but I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree, a bit. My carefully worded post (having had a ticking off from biltongbek the other day censored

) was that, unfortunately, this being an imperfect world both players were in danger of having their previous - unrelated - words and actions muddy these tricky waters. I don't believe either the English or Irish packs are stuffed full of innocent angels but await the outcome of this citing with trepidation. In purely playing terms, it would be a crying shame if either player's actions deprived the game of their full on positive contributions for a while.

by doctor_grey Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:20 pm

I have a radical suggestion:
Since we don't have all the evidence in front of us, why not wait until the results of the hearing are published.

If they find Hartley had a bite to eat, then throw him out on his derriere. For a long, long time.
If they find there is no evidence, then we let it go.

Since it is, I presume, too late for any 'fish hooking' complaint against Ferris, the incident will end at the hearing.

by Triangulation Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:20 pm

MrsP wrote:

Was Ferris standing on the Grassy Knoll when all this happened?

A~~nother~~ logical explanation?

Okay,

How about Hartley didn't like being removed from the ruck and bit Ferris on the finger

removed from the ruck by his mouth - yes makes perfect sense - except that if he were being removed from a ruck at all it would have been visible to the camera surely. this happened under a pile of bodies didnt it?

If you're aiming a bite - your doing it defensively to a finger in the mouth or if your doing it offensively (in the sense of attacking without provocation) you would aim for a bigger target than a pinkey for goodness sake.

Forearm for me all day.

Ferris needs to bring live evidence. He needs to get in the box swear an oath and come up to proof under cross examination. Otherwise he is goooooooooooooooone as a credible human.

by asoreleftshoulder Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:21 pm

Submachine wrote:

He will probably bring his finger. Maybe all of them. I've heard that a mould has been taken of the indentations in Ferris' finger and a celebrity dentist will be on hand to confirm that they are indeed the left front incisor and canine of one Dylan Hartley. But it's all just ipso facto at the moment Rodney.

A what!!!!!

by Sponsored content