Justice_4_Hartley.

Justice_4_Hartley

What do people expect from today’s disciplinary hearing?

IMO I hope he doesn't play again this season, and I hope he never plays for England again (if found guilty of course!)

As longs as he's available for the SA tour. We are horrifically short at Hooker!

GeordieFalcon wrote: We are horrifically short at Hooker!

<Lee Mears joke>

As long as the prosecution don't give him anything to get his teeth into, and he doesn't make a meal out of it, he has a nibble of a chance.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: We are horrifically short at Hooker!

<Lee Mears joke>

Mears only hops nowadays

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bathrugby/6505693555/in/photostream

If they only have one video angle to prosecute him with, then it should be inconclusive. I hope he has a good reason for the alleged biting and they find him innocent of bad sportsmanship.

BTW At what time is the hearing today?

Haaa

I think I just pee'd a little at Nobbled's post!

I think he should be ordered into the meat grinder and served to Ferris in a bacon double cheeseburger with reggae reggae sauce.

It's important that the punishment fits the crime.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote: We are horrifically short at Hooker!

<Lee Mears joke>

May aswell add in Tom Youngs, Gray to that list....

Surely it depends on if he is guilty or not. If found guilty he is going to have the book thrown at him guven hhis disciplinary record and the six month ban for gouging. Biting is a minimum of 12 weeks and a max of four years. Whilst I would be stunned by a ban running into years I wouldnt be suprised to see a six month ban thrown at him again.

It depends on the evidence surely Osprey? And there doesnt appear to be much...did he actively attack Ferris, or did Ferris have his hand where he shouldnt have?

GeordieFalcon wrote:It depends on the evidence surely Osprey? And there doesnt appear to be much...did he actively attack Ferris, or did Ferris have his hand where he shouldnt have?

To be fair to the Tycroes he did say "If found guilty" but i have previously posed 2 related questions and i'm not sure if anyone has been able to answer them-

1. is self defence recognised as a defence to this kind of charge? ; and

2. is there any discretion whatsoever reserved to the decision makers to move outside the permaters of the "entry level" 12 weeks penalty in say exceptional circrumstances after a finding of guilt?

If the answers to both of these questions is "no" then that is the end of it - he's getting 12 weeks minimum IF FOUND GUILTY. He'll miss the SA tour and that is that.

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes" AND there is some credible evidence from Hartley himself or anyone else that might give rise to either a self defence defence or an exceptional circumstance then we will see.

I dont know because the video footage does not reveal much but if say, and i am speculating now, ferris was fishooking hartley and hartley bit him then that might perhaps ammount to either a defence or to an exceptional circumstance. Not saying Ferris did mind. Just speculating.

TBH I think a ban for Hartley would be pretty harsh, but it would also be the best news England have had for a while. Imagine the experience of facing Du Plessis and co first tour up, or better still imagine how warm the welcome would be for Mears

And that what im saying Traingulation.

Depends on the evidence.

Either way...if he tours we're ok...if he is banned im concerned about our Hookers.

GeordieFalcon wrote:And that what im saying Traingulation.

Depends on the evidence.

Either way...if he tours we're ok...if he is banned im concerned about our Hookers.

Yes indeed and i share your concern!

I am also concerned at the continuing disciplinary issues we face. Young likely to cop a ban. Care - who knows if we will EVER see him in an England shirt again.

We cant afford to keep shooting ourselves in the foot like this.

It is madness.

BUt its the players that arent taking the hint not the management.

I agree with the tough policy.
As much as i dont expect players to be angels...i do expect them to behave properly...they are in a position most of us would give their right leg for....and the likes of Danny Care doesnt deserve to be in that position.

Hopefully it will sink in soon though...

GeordieFalcon wrote:BUt its the players that arent taking the hint not the management.

I agree with the tough policy.
As much as i dont expect players to be angels...i do expect them to behave properly...they are in a position most of us would give their right leg for....and the likes of Danny Care doesnt deserve to be in that position.

Hopefully it will sink in soon though...

Again were agreed. A couple of months ago when SCW and every other man and his dog were giving England advice solicited or not, Graham Henry said that he did not agree with the tough stance on discipline we were taking. He said that the Abs would put " an arm around a player" struggling with off field issues.

But actually our guys are getting into trouble with citing commissioners on the field!!

Will we ever see Delon Armitage in an England shirt? Is he staying in England?

Is he good enough? He's not as good as Brown or Foden...add in others like May (Winger / Fb? ) etc i dont think he will make it back.

If he's innocent I hope he walks free. If no evidence exists, I hope he walks free. If he's guilty, with evidence, then a ban will be imposed. Not interested in the duration as long as it's enough to show that biting is yet another aspect of rugby that won't be tolerated.

The player's name, rank, number or country doesn't interest me.

Just heard he got an 8 week ban

Link??

no link. inside sources. i'n sure there will be one in about half an hour

caoimhincentre wrote:Just heard he got an 8 week ban

Just in time to go on tour - surprise

If thats the case its just a bit - dumb. Its neither one thing nor the other.

I thought 12 weeks was the low end for this type of offense. What mitigating factors brought it down to 8 weeks I wonder. If anything, given his prior record he shouldn’t have gotten any reduction.

caoimhincentre wrote:no link. inside sources. i'n sure there will be one in about half an hour

Let's wait and see then.

IF it is 8 weeks then it could well have been for an exceptional circumstance existing at the time.

Wait and see.

Wait and see.

Thanks for the heads up anyway caomhin. Does seem rather one thing nor t'other. Can't wait to read the transcript!

Mickado wrote:I thought 12 weeks was the low end for this type of offense. What mitigating factors brought it down to 8 weeks I wonder. If anything, given his prior record he shouldn’t have gotten any reduction.

Hartley argued that the thought Ferris's finger was a carrot

Michael Corcoran has just tweeted that it's an 8 week ban.

i would imagine that it was only 8 weeks because the act could not be seen in the video. although if they couldnt see it he shouldnt have gotten any ban.

Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Yarp, it's on the BBC Sports Live feed now. 8 weeks? V odd.

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Carpe Diem wrote:Yeps it's on the BBC Sports Live feed now. 8 weeks? V odd.

Not if Ferris was fishooking him it isnt.

Read my analysis above.

The only thing I can think is he got 12 weeks, which was then reduced for a guilty plea (perhaps halved) then a couple of weeks added for him being a previous bad boy.

Hopefully the hearing transcript will be out in the near future so people have a better understanding.

Strange one indeed. It seems to me he either gets over 12 weeks or else it is inconclusive and he gets nothing

Triangulation wrote:

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Ferris may well have bite marks on his finger. but how do you prove it was hartley???

caoimhincentre wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Ferris may well have bite marks on his finger. but how do you prove it was hartley???

Maybe he pleaded guilty with mitigating circumstances?

caoimhincentre wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Ferris may well have bite marks on his finger. but how do you prove it was hartley???

Easy. Ferris comes along and says Dylan Hartley bit me on the finger. I saw him do it.

Triangulation wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Ferris may well have bite marks on his finger. but how do you prove it was hartley???

Easy. Ferris comes along and says Dylan Hartley bit me on the finger. I saw him do it.

you cant ban someone on someone elses word

8 weeks. fair enough if guilty

caoimhincentre wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

Mickado wrote:Exactly Kev.

If they couldn’t see it then he gets off, if they could see it he gets a bad befitting the crime (12 weeks to 4 years depending on the perceived severity).

Sorry gents but i do not follow this logic at all.

1. You dont need any video at all to find guilt. Ferris' account could be sufficient on its own. Add in the mark on his finger and that could be it. Why the obsession with video evidence ; and

2. the strength of the case does not come into sentence.

Ferris may well have bite marks on his finger. but how do you prove it was hartley???

Easy. Ferris comes along and says Dylan Hartley bit me on the finger. I saw him do it.

you cant ban someone on someone elses word

witnesses

Fair point stand. in which case it should be more than 8 weeks.

mckay1402 wrote:8 weeks. fair enough if guilty

8 weeks would suggest some guilt. No?

8 weeks? Just out of interest ho long until the first test in SA?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? So basically it was Ferris' word against Hartley's (otherwise it would have been a minimum of a 12 week ban). There are hardly going to be any un-biased witnesses - only the ref and he commented numerous times at the time that he didn't see anything. Me thinks Hartley's previous indiscretions have been a factor in the outcome of the hearing and not the punishment.

Really odd as its a min 12 weeks and he's a dirty gouger with previous.

I say sentence him to the role of the new Jaws in the next James Bond. His shortness can be explained by writing in that he's Jaws' equally hideous son, Jaws Jr

Found an article on it
http://www.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/story/161996.html?addata=chromium

The last paragraph is quite interesting...

It was decided that the offence merited a low entry point in the IRB's table of sanctions and allowed mitigation of four weeks. The 26-year-old can resume playing from May 14 and will only play for Saints again this season if they reach the Aviva Premiership final 12 days later.

True caoimhin

i dont see how they arrived at this. but in the fullness of time all will be revealed