Justice_4_Hartley.

First topic message reminder :

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!)

belovedfrosties wrote:Very odd outcome and I am inclined to believe that Hartley has been banned on reputation alone. Which is pretty poor really considering he received a ban for 6 months 5 YEARS ago!!

Hes unlucky that people don't like him and are waiting to stick the boot in as soon as they can. As has been mentioned some for of evidence (photographic/video) must surely be necessary for this? How do we know it was Hartley who bit Ferris? How do we know that Ferris wasn't viciously fish-hooking Hartley? I'm not suggesting this was the case but surely to ban someone you must have irrefutable proof of guilt? Not just the statement of the wronged party?

There should even have been clear evidence and then a ban depending on the severity and any mitigating circumstances or no/inconclusive evidence and no ban. As has been said this is neither here nor there.

By saying Ferris could have fish hooked Hartley is a suggestion, or possibility of what may be the case, and this is wrong. The accusation of foul play has been directed at Hartley, not Ferris. We don't know the full story, and we won't until the report is made public. What we do know is that Hartley has been accused of biting, and has received a ban. Leave the guesswork at home.

Gretgael1

The fact that Hartley received a ban and pleaded guilty is not necessarily end of story.
ENG have a QC at these meetings... he ain't going to advise Hartley to plead not guilty and get 16 wks when he could plead guilty and get 6 wks. The QC will play the percentages and act in the best interests of Hartley and ENG and in that case he succeeded... Hartley will be available for ENG summer tour.

If it were a world cup or at the beginning of a 6N then maybe it would be different.

We know one or two facts in this matter

Ferris complained to the ref and he in turn acknowledged a bite mark on his hand.
Hartley was nearest to him at the offending ruck.
Ferris neither reacted with anger nor pain at the ruck (see the video)
There was not the usual 10 man brawl when these things tend to happen.

Given this and the fact none of his teammates reacted with him would suggest it was very very minor.

Lets not make Ferris out to be a saint... he's a rugby player and he wouldn't have got to where he is now without being able to make a nuisance of himself.

What is the standard procedure if someone has his fist in your face.....

'excuse me young chap, would you mind pulling your hand off my face, thank you'

is not the established method on a rugby field (albeit neither should biting I will add). I still think Ferris was better served keeping it in-house and dealing him a hit (tackle) to remember... if it didn't need medical attention either on or off the pitch it hardly warranted a citing in my view.

fa0019 wrote:Gretgael1

The fact that Hartley received a ban and pleaded guilty is not necessarily end of story.
ENG have a QC at these meetings... he ain't going to advise Hartley to plead not guilty and get 16 wks when he could plead guilty and get 6 wks. The QC will play the percentages and act in the best interests of Hartley and ENG and in that case he succeeded... Hartley will be available for ENG summer tour.

If it were a world cup or at the beginning of a 6N then maybe it would be different.

We know one or two facts in this matter

Ferris complained to the ref and he in turn acknowledged a bite mark on his hand.
Hartley was nearest to him at the offending ruck.
Ferris neither reacted with anger nor pain at the ruck (see the video)
There was not the usual 10 man brawl when these things tend to happen.

Given this and the fact none of his teammates reacted with him would suggest it was very very minor.

Lets not make Ferris out to be a saint... he's a rugby player and he wouldn't have got to where he is now without being able to make a nuisance of himself.

What is the standard procedure if someone has his fist in your face.....

'excuse me young chap, would you mind pulling your hand off my face, thank you'

is not the established method on a rugby field (albeit neither should biting I will add). I still think Ferris was better served keeping it in-house and dealing him a hit (tackle) to remember... if it didn't need medical attention either on or off the pitch it hardly warranted a citing in my view.

Your first paragraph is more or less guessing what happening. Even Hartley is not sure how the panel came to their conclusion, he also has to wait for the written report.

What we do know is that he was banned for 8 weeks.

And as far as saying "lets not make Ferris out to be a saint", I say, lets not make him out to be a sinner, when he has no case directed at him, no case to answer, and has an exemplary discipline record. And the suggestion that he is somehow a cry baby, is another way of trying to besmirch him.

From The Telegraph Poll on Dylan Hartleys sentence.

Too lenient, should have been longer 56.01%


Too long 22.18%


About right 21.81%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9169574/England-hooker-Dylan-Hartley-suspended-for-eight-weeks-for-biting-Irleands-Stephen-Ferris.html

Gretgael1

That is true I accept... although given the 8 weeks is a below minimal ban it was probably the only thing they could do bar let him off (and they do have to think about what message this would give off if they didn't convict if Hartley admitted making contact how ever minimal it was).

Saying that Ferris is a cry baby... personally I highly respect him as a player but if you define a player as a cry baby for complaining about violent play which neither required on field or off field treatment then I would suggest it is a tag which sticks. Especially given his pre-match 'England are bad losers 'whine.

He should have sorted it out himself.... that would have given him 10 times more satisfaction then seeing him have a 8 wk rest all ready for ENG summer tour.

I'm not sure what an out of context quote has got to do with it?

Thank God your sense of justice isn't reflective off of the rugby field. Ferris does deal with people on the field and history would suggest he's very hard but within the laws of the game. You make it sound like he's Cristiano Ronaldo!!

Gretgael1 wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:Very odd outcome and I am inclined to believe that Hartley has been banned on reputation alone. Which is pretty poor really considering he received a ban for 6 months 5 YEARS ago!!

Hes unlucky that people don't like him and are waiting to stick the boot in as soon as they can. As has been mentioned some for of evidence (photographic/video) must surely be necessary for this? How do we know it was Hartley who bit Ferris? How do we know that Ferris wasn't viciously fish-hooking Hartley? I'm not suggesting this was the case but surely to ban someone you must have irrefutable proof of guilt? Not just the statement of the wronged party?

There should even have been clear evidence and then a ban depending on the severity and any mitigating circumstances or no/inconclusive evidence and no ban. As has been said this is neither here nor there.

By saying Ferris could have fish hooked Hartley is a suggestion, or possibility of what may be the case, and this is wrong. The accusation of foul play has been directed at Hartley, not Ferris. We don't know the full story, and we won't until the report is made public. What we do know is that Hartley has been accused of biting, and has received a ban. Leave the guesswork at home.

So in your eyes it is not a possibility that this may have happened? Just because Ferris is the accuser does not exonerate him from any wrong doing either. You say we don't know the full story and you are right, so how can you then compete dismiss any discussion that Ferris perhaps may be doing something untoward in the ruck?

Ferris is becoming something of a professional victim.









Joke Mrs P.

You just fabricated the story, it's guesswork! There's no evidence of it happening and Ferris hasn't been accused of any wrong doing, so your story isn't credible. That's how I dismiss it. The story has no legs whatsoever.

fa0019 wrote:Gretgael1

That is true I accept... although given the 8 weeks is a below minimal ban it was probably the only thing they could do bar let him off (and they do have to think about what message this would give off if they didn't convict if Hartley admitted making contact how ever minimal it was).

Saying that Ferris is a cry baby... personally I highly respect him as a player but if you define a player as a cry baby for complaining about violent play which neither required on field or off field treatment then I would suggest it is a tag which sticks. Especially given his pre-match 'England are bad losers 'whine.

He should have sorted it out himself.... that would have given him 10 times more satisfaction then seeing him have a 8 wk rest all ready for ENG summer tour.

Ferris did receive on field treatment so what you posted is entirely irrelevant. Also has nothing to do with anything he said pre match. Such posts illustrate you as someone who is trying to sound impartial but whose posts are far too thinly veiled to hide your bias.

Ferris complained about a bite (not legal on tepee rugby pitch) and seems to be being vilified because

A) it is assumed he put is fingers in hartleys mouth accidentally
B) it is assumed he put his fingers in hartleys mouth intentionally
C) it was only a little bite

All of which have no bearing on the fact that according to a disciplinary panel Hartley bit him and ferris isn't to responsible for that.

Let's see ferris previous;
Danny grewcock stamping on his forearm (clearly he milked that) couldn't possibly have hurt
David attoub clearly sticking his finger in ferris eye
Julien Dupuy clearly raking ferris eyes not once but twice.

All ferris has done is brought these incidents t the attention of the ref instead of engaging in something similar. Is this not the kind of thing we want or we we rather players who were bitten, gouged, stamped on just do the same back so we can all pay the game with 2/3 players sent off per game?

I'm not saying Hartley is a violent criminal and I have no doubt it wasn't massively severe but people are trying to defend Hartley by saying ferris wasn't hurt or that ferris should have did something equally illegal in the next passage of play. It might well have given him, the fans or whoever more satisfaction but it could/would have been to the detriment of his team and is therefore idiotic.

If Hartley bit him they have no choice but to impose a ban as, even if provoked, it comes under retaliation.

Given the length of the ban, it looks to me as if they considered it very low end or considered a self defence mitigation.

Ferris was obviously within his rights to go to the ref, but I don't think he's exactly enhanced his reputatioin with this episode.

The biggest problem here is the evidence is lacking, so what ever the judicial committee has decided is going to be more on verbal testimony than anything else.

I think due to that there is a difficulty in getting the decision right, hence they are careful not to punish Hartley too harshly, but as someone said earlier, you can't let him get off scott free either as that would send the wrong message.

As far as Ferris is concerned he is between a rock and a hard place. Becuase of his comments before the game there were already a number of fans with their tails up, now this incident has only added to the whole controversy.

What is he to do?

If he keeps quiet about it, then everyone will be none the wiser, he obviously felt at the time he wanted to report it. The match situation was such that Ireland were in trouble and he may have done it for the benefit of his team, hoping to gain a penalty or a man sent off, or whatever he could beneift from it. In my book that should not be held against him, it did happen and he was in his right to report it.

Had he reacted then his team would have suffered the consequences.

The point is it was an unfortunate incident, and we may never know whther any of this was intentional or not.

Ferris is now being criticised for reporting it by some, and some say he is a cry baby, others call for Hartley to get a longer ban, etc.

Perhaps it is best to just let it go. It is done and dusted.

There is at this point not evidence that suggests any foul play on the part of Ferris and only his testimony to suggest Hartley committed an act of foul play unprovocked. I'll be interested to see the citing commissions report but until then I think it is foolish to condemn either player.

Ferris' comments before the game were fine.

England are bad losers ? - so they should be they are professional sportsmen.
Ferris is a bad loser
BOD is a bad loser

Something both have said in the past.
I would be discusted if any team I supported weren't bad losers.

Myabe, just maybe, who Ferris has been stamped, gouged and bitten is because the opposition recognise him as a key player for the opposition and are looking for an opportunity to take a cheap shot....just a thought

Glas a du wrote:Ferris is becoming something of a professional victim.









Joke Mrs P.

May well be, but a fairly cheap shot none the less.

biltongbek wrote:If he keeps quiet about it, then everyone will be none the wiser, he obviously felt at the time he wanted to report it. The match situation was such that Ireland were in trouble and he may have done it for the benefit of his team, hoping to gain a penalty or a man sent off, or whatever he could beneift from it. In my book that should not be held against him, it did happen and he was in his right to report it.

We were only 3 points down with 25 mins on the clock. This wasn't the last act of a desperate man.

Mickado, Ireland were behind, and even if they weren't, players in the professional era will use whatever is at their disposal to their advantage.

Quote from this mornings press.


"It is understood nothing which emerged in the proceedings suggested any actions on the part of Ferris were a mitigating factor. The Ulsterman, 26, who gave evidence via video link, is not thought to have done anything which could be construed as provocation. "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2121111/Dylan-Hartley-lands-week-ban-biting-Stephen-Ferris.html#ixzz1qOnIWY1Q

He was blatantly wearing an Ireland shirt

I can't wait for the full judgement to be published MmeF.

I tend as a matter of prejudice to take anything published in the Mail with a tablespoon of salt.

But I just hope that this hearing didn't come down to one man's word against another.

My prediction is Hartley admitted guilt ("accidental nibble guvnor!"). 12 weeks reduced by half due to said admission, two weeks added due to previous record. No conspiracies, no evil Irishman twirling at his moustache. Over and done with! Moving on...

Portnoy wrote:I can't wait for the full judgement to be published MmeF.

I tend as a matter of prejudice to take anything published in the Mail with a tablespoon of salt.

But I just hope that this hearing didn't come down to one man's word against another.

I would guess it could have come down to one man's word and a bite mark against the word of an individual who bites man at the bottom of rucks.

Is that a manly thing to do?




And, shouldn't the title of this article be,


Justice 2 Hartley?

No, but neither is running to teacher

He's a bully and cheapshot merchant.

biltongbek wrote:Mickado, Ireland were behind, and even if they weren't, players in the professional era will use whatever is at their disposal to their advantage.

Absolutely, I wasn't condradicting you, just enforcing your point. Nothing that Ferris done could was a mitigating factor against the bite, particularly because his actions weren't a last gasp attempt to have a player sent off to salvage the match.

I await the storm of abuse, but I can't help thinking people are overreacting just a touch.

It was a bite - not requiring any significant medical intervention. Stupid - yes, Illegal - yes.

Hanging, drawing & quartering offense - probably not. If you've never had worse than that done to you, you've probably never played.

Idon't condone illegal play, but this seems to me to be more about personal dislike for Hartley.

He has two previous for gouging, he's not going to win popularity contests with anyone.

wickedwasp wrote:I await the storm of abuse, but I can't help thinking people are overreacting just a touch.

It was a bite - not requiring any significant medical intervention. Stupid - yes, Illegal - yes.

Hanging, drawing & quartering offense - probably not. If you've never had worse than that done to you, you've probably never played.

Idon't condone illegal play, but this seems to me to be more about personal dislike for Hartley.

Strange one that indeed wasp? I mean, what's not to like? And yet you are right, he is disliked.

Reminds me of a girl who lived across the road from us when I was a kid. She used to scrab and bite too when she didn't get her own way. Nobody liked her either. I wonder why?

I'm sure she grew out of it eventually though.

OK, last try.

Five years ago, Hartley's disciplinary record was appalling.

Since then up until this event, he's been squeaky clean.

God knows how I've become his apologist - as I said, stupid, illegal, deserved a ban.

However, I don't know the circumstances, nor does anyone else except the 6N committee ho gave him a ban beneath the low end range, which given the offense, sounds about right.

Just slightly worried about all the vitriol

wickedwasp wrote:OK, last try.

Five years ago, Hartley's disciplinary record was appalling.

Since then up until this event, he's been squeaky clean.

God knows how I've become his apologist - as I said, stupid, illegal, deserved a ban.

However, I don't know the circumstances, nor does anyone else except the 6N committee ho gave him a ban beneath the low end range, which given the offense, sounds about right.

Just slightly worried about all the vitriol

Wicked the probem is once painted with the brush of dirty players a clean slate is never forthcoming even if the player has become the prime example of the consumate professional, Schalk burger has been squeeky clean since 2009, and yet is still seen as a dirty player. Perceptions don't change, unfortunately

Why are you worried ? He's an idiot, don't lose any sleep over it.

Don't like vitriol either wasp.

I would settle for hanging and drawing and leave the quartering for really serious offences!



I do think there are a few on here who are trying to sully the reputation of the bitten rather than the biter though. Just wonder why.

How about hanging & half a draw - maybe a sketch

Trouble is, though it's wrong, we all kind of tend towards the sort it out yourself unless it risks serious injury, e.g. gouging or what calum Clark did the other day.

Ferris was of course totally within his rights, but dinosaurs like me still wish he'd waited until he could sort it personally with a big, legal hit a la Joh Lewsey.

MrsP. I'd like to think most people just find it hard to explain why someone would bite someone else without provocation. Rather than trying to besmitch Ferris they're trying to mitigate Hartley. It's all speculation but i'd like to think people were coming at it from that angle rather than trying to deflect away from Hartley by making Ferris the 'bad guy'. Probably not though...

"Ferris was of course totally within his rights, but dinosaurs like me still wish he'd waited until he could sort it personally with a big, legal hit a la Joh Lewsey."

Whereas us young things want all the players on our team concentrating on winning the match rather than personal revenge!!

MrsP wrote:

"Ferris was of course totally within his rights, but dinosaurs like me still wish he'd waited until he could sort it personally with a big, legal hit a la Joh Lewsey."

Whereas us young things want all the players on our team concentrating on winning the match rather than personal revenge!!

Is that still called Rugby

It's weird but I'm not sure who has come out of this looking worse, Hartley or Ferris. For the committee to reduce the punishment from the minimum allowed seems very odd and points the finger at Ferris who is rapidly gaining a reputation as a cry baby. I'd ban both of them!

I agree with wickedwasp, running to the Ref pointing at his finger just reminded me of a school game.

HERSH wrote:I agree with wickedwasp, running to the Ref pointing at his finger just reminded me of a school game.

Don't forget the tear in the corner of his eye.

It was rather pathetic, he should have informed his captain 1st the big baby!

HERSH wrote: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!)

by HERSH on Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:35 am

It was rather pathetic, he should have informed his captain 1st the big baby!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... poor Hartley, someone squealed on the rotund schoolyard bully and he had to go see the Master.

I see a few of his gang are hanging around the Master's door telling passers by that the squealer is a baby.

Oh well, I'm not involved...off I go outside to play rounders!

munkian wrote:

HERSH wrote: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!)

by HERSH on Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:35 am

It was rather pathetic, he should have informed his captain 1st the big baby!

Munk that still stands I hope Hartley doesn't play for England again, but Ferris was rather pathetic too IMO!

Where does it say posters can only have one opinion on a subject?

this incident has raised a serious point though at the end of the day.

Referees should carry plasters and lollipops for any players who suffer a boo-boo.

Running Dragon wrote:It's weird but I'm not sure who has come out of this looking worse, Hartley or Ferris. For the committee to reduce the punishment from the minimum allowed seems very odd and points the finger at Ferris who is rapidly gaining a reputation as a cry baby. I'd ban both of them!

12 weeks is not the minimum. It's the lowest entry level. The RFU and ERC have a maximum reduction of 50% (not sure if this is IRB led).

Comfort wrote:this incident has raised a serious point though

Not as serious as the one Dupuy made

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9169574/England-hooker-Dylan-Hartley-suspended-for-eight-weeks-for-biting-Irleands-Stephen-Ferris.html

The thot plickens! Turns out he pleaded not guilty.

Carpe Diem wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9169574/England-hooker-Dylan-Hartley-suspended-for-eight-weeks-for-biting-Irleands-Stephen-Ferris.html

The thot plickens! Turns out he pleaded not guilty.

Yes but he did admit he bit Ferris

The Daily Telegraph understands that Hartley’s case was based on the fact that he was caught up in a tangle of other bodies and that he felt he was being pulled out forcibly around the head area and responded to that. Hartley did not dispute that he had bitten Ferris’s finger but was at pains to explain why. The full judgment will be released on Friday. Hartley was taken aback by the decision.

This is the same story ESPN is telling.

Comfort wrote:this incident has raised a serious point though at the end of the day.

Referees should carry plasters and lollipops for any players who suffer a boo-boo.

I'm surprised Nigel Owens doesn't carry a lollipop to suck on!