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!)

irfon17 wrote:The 'minimum' ban for this offence is 12 weeks. The panel decided to give a 4 week reduction for mitigating factors. I understand that usually this means having a clean record and/accepting responsibility- Hartley has not and did not so what possible mitigating factors could there be?

No it isn't. The lower entry level. If Ferris' fingers were in Hartley's mouth (purely by accident) that would also be mitigation. The maximum reduction would have been 6 weeks so he wasn't given the full reduction, probably because he doesn't have a completely clean record. Pretty sure he pleaded guilty as well so that would also be mitigation.

According to one of the Irish papers (can't remember which one - Chronicle?), Ferris admitted his fingers were in Hartley's mouth, so you're almost certainly right.

maestegmafia wrote:Referee Nigel Owens was the lead witness, he saw Ferris' finger at the time. He advised that there should be a citing.

Is this true?

During or after the incident?

If during, he should have made it clear at the time and Hartley sent off.

If afterwards, then we are no nearer the truth of the progression actual events.

He said he saw the bite marks Portnoy but not the incident, therefore he couldn't show the red card so he advised the citing.

Just as everyone always knew then. A still mirky set of 'facts' led by speculation, assertion and heresay.

When does the citing decision report get published?

wickedwasp wrote:According to one of the Irish papers (can't remember which one - Chronicle?), Ferris admitted his fingers were in Hartley's mouth, so you're almost certainly right.

If you are going to make such a claim at least come up with the name of a daily paper in Ireland.
Here are the latest circulation figures to help you

Irish Independent 131161
Irish Examiner 42083
The Irish Times 96150
Irish Daily Star 81105
Irish Daily Mirror 59221
The Irish Sun 75819
Irish Daily Mail 50486
Total Daily Titles Circulation: 536025

geoff

Chill a little - I said I couldn't remember - I saw the extract on PlanetRugby

I am truly sorry if I have personally offended you or fallen short of the evidential standards you require

HELP!

I can't get the image of Ferris moving his finger in and out of Hartley’s mouth in a slow seductive way!!!!!

Justice

Portnoy wrote:Just as everyone always knew then. A still mirky set of 'facts' led by speculation, assertion and heresay.

When does the citing decision report get published?

Well the facts are that Hartley has been found guilty of biting. Everything else is speculation or hearsay.

wickedwasp wrote:geoff

Chill a little - I said I couldn't remember - I saw the extract on PlanetRugby

I am truly sorry if I have personally offended you or fallen short of the evidential standards you require

Well I have just taken a look on Planetrugby and have the following observations to make:

1 - I went on the Hartley Banned thread and couldn't find anything
2 - I was amazed at the standard of contribution on ther eis there a requirment to have an IQ below 90 ? - 90% of postings were purile and/or inane i nthe extreme. A morons paradise.

So to answer your last point yes your contribution provides no evidence whatsoever in my book.

I await an actual link to back up what remains totally unsubstantiated speculation.

But why was Ferris's in his mouth?

Folks, please just chill a little, the report will be out tomorrow, and I will be posting it here as soon as it's out (I'm on the 6N media mailing list).

Yesterday's (London) Times said that they "understood" that "significant provocation" from Ferris was a reason for the reduction, but that, along with probably everything we can say here, is at best heresay until the report is out.

geoff - you're a lawyer aren't you - go on, you can tell me

A bit of lazy posting I admit. I did see it on PlanetRugby & (for the record) I totally agree about the level of debate on there.

As I said, I can't remember the name of the paper, so, as I'm sure you would say,

It is hearsay and thus ineligible M'Lud

HERSH wrote:But why was Ferris's in his mouth?

They were being eaten, where else would they be?

"It is understood Ferris admitted he had his finger inside Hartley’s mouth and the England hooker may well have gagged before biting to be released"

source is

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/northampton-saints-mallinder-saints-are-a-clean-club-1-3676109

just some food for thought. if Hartley gagged you have to wonder how far the finger was into his mouth! its a very tricky one because the speed that people hit those rucks and move in them fingers can end up in mouths.

I have to be honest if I stuck my fingers in somebodies mouth I would expect to get a bite. You do have to wonder
A) how the finger got in the mouth (could well have been an accident)
B) why was the finger in the mouth so long that Hartley had time to gag then bite

as everybody said, we need to see the hearing notes in order to make an informed opinion on the matter, but I think its fair to say al at Northampton are disappointed with the hearing result and its been a shocking week for the clubs reputation!

I would like to say this about Hartley...

a few years back he did a shocking thing and gouged two players. he was rightly Heavily punished and has served his time. since then he has been a largely clean and niggley player who causes problems for opposition players at the breakdown (not just by trying to eat them! ) I suspect most of the animosity towards him comes on the ground that he is an effective player and spoils your teams ball. I cannot believe that it is purely due to the gouging incident or we would see similar comments about Alan Quinlan of Munster ad the scrum half from wales who did similar.

Well I personally don't like Hartley and have no problem admitting it, and its not because I think hes an effective player because I don't.

However if you bite or gauge then you should get a hefty ban, regardless of the provocation. Both are cowardly acts that shouldn't be condoned.

If Ferris deliberately 'fishhooked' Hartley, and it is only speculation that he did, then he should be banned too. Maybe I'm bias but I doubt that he did because he's never been a dirty player.

I think it goes without saying we all have our biases, mine as you may have guessed is in favour of Northampton and England.

I strongly disagree with you about him not being effective, he slows ball down and his set piece is outstanding. If he could make a bigger impact carrying the ball into contact I PERSONALLY see him as a first choice Lions hooker, however thats going off point.

I would like to see an appeal and the ban being significantly shortened IF the comment on the finger being in his mouth is correct, especially if it was so far in that it caused hartley to gag.

I don't think a person would be prosecuted for that happening in the street (biting somebody for shoving their fingers in your mouth) however somebodies hand finding its way in your mouth in the street is a completely different thing!

Lets be honest in the heat of battle if someone puts their finger in your mouth and makes you gag, who wouldn't bite?

I know I would.

How exactly do you bite someone who’s fish-hooking your mouth?

That’s kind of one of the points of fish-hooking, your finger is pulling someone’s cheek and is as such, not very bitable.

Maybe Ferris doesn't know how to do it properly?

Perhaps he didn't fish hook, just had his finger in his mouth...

Wickedwasp fair play good response

geoff

Get a room guys.

Hersh - just avert your gaze

roddersm wrote:Well I personally don't like Hartley and have no problem admitting it, and its not because I think hes an effective player because I don't.

However if you bite or gauge then you should get a hefty ban, regardless of the provocation. Both are cowardly acts that shouldn't be condoned.

If Ferris deliberately 'fishhooked' Hartley, and it is only speculation that he did, then he should be banned too. Maybe I'm bias but I doubt that he did because he's never been a dirty player.

Ferris wasnt cited for his fish hooking/face massaging/gag inducing digital-oral intrusion and it way too late to cite him now.

Why wasnt he cited?

1. As with Hartley there was no clear video evidence; AND
2. Unlike Hartley's case there was no complaint from the opponent............

Nice one Ferris....nice one too DOC.......

Didn't they change the rules after Hartley that someone can be cited if new evidence turned up. So if it had come out in Hartley's hearing that Ferris had been carrying out an illegal act he could ahve been cited. The fact he hasn't suggests Ferris didn't do anything dodgy. I never thought he did.

Triangulation wrote:

roddersm wrote:Well I personally don't like Hartley and have no problem admitting it, and its not because I think hes an effective player because I don't.

However if you bite or gauge then you should get a hefty ban, regardless of the provocation. Both are cowardly acts that shouldn't be condoned.

If Ferris deliberately 'fishhooked' Hartley, and it is only speculation that he did, then he should be banned too. Maybe I'm bias but I doubt that he did because he's never been a dirty player.

Ferris wasnt cited for his fish hooking/face massaging/gag inducing digital-oral intrusion and it way too late to cite him now.

Why wasnt he cited?

1. As with Hartley there was no clear video evidence; AND
2. Unlike Hartley's case there was no complaint from the opponent............

Nice one Ferris....nice one too DOC.......

(3). He didn't do anything?

Triangulation wrote:

roddersm wrote:Well I personally don't like Hartley and have no problem admitting it, and its not because I think hes an effective player because I don't.

However if you bite or gauge then you should get a hefty ban, regardless of the provocation. Both are cowardly acts that shouldn't be condoned.

If Ferris deliberately 'fishhooked' Hartley, and it is only speculation that he did, then he should be banned too. Maybe I'm bias but I doubt that he did because he's never been a dirty player.

Ferris wasnt cited for his fish hooking/face massaging/gag inducing digital-oral intrusion and it way too late to cite him now.

Why wasnt he cited?

1. As with Hartley there was no clear video evidence; AND
2. Unlike Hartley's case there was no complaint from the opponent............

Nice one Ferris....nice one too DOC.......

Probably the same reason why Hartley wasn't cited for elbow on McCaw a couple of years back (though in fairness I suspect that's the real reason why Mealamu's ban from the same match was reduced to a paltry 2 weeks).

MrsP wrote:

Triangulation wrote:

roddersm wrote:Well I personally don't like Hartley and have no problem admitting it, and its not because I think hes an effective player because I don't.

However if you bite or gauge then you should get a hefty ban, regardless of the provocation. Both are cowardly acts that shouldn't be condoned.

If Ferris deliberately 'fishhooked' Hartley, and it is only speculation that he did, then he should be banned too. Maybe I'm bias but I doubt that he did because he's never been a dirty player.

Ferris wasnt cited for his fish hooking/face massaging/gag inducing digital-oral intrusion and it way too late to cite him now.

Why wasnt he cited?

1. As with Hartley there was no clear video evidence; AND
2. Unlike Hartley's case there was no complaint from the opponent............

Nice one Ferris....nice one too DOC.......

(3). He didn't do anything?

(4) At the moment we think that he didn't do anything. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he did. Wait for tomorrow's written reasons.

5. maybe we should wait, before making anymore assumptions?

Absolutely Tri!

I am not saying that I know he didn't do anything, just that it is another possible reason for him not being cited.

Tri... I like the idea of legally objective 'patience' - "Wait for tomorrow's written reasons". Hmmm, you didn't exactly wait for the written reasons yourself and this thread has been running for some time now.

No, I say let's not wait and rather continue the wild and varied speculations

...I also say that many of us should not listen to tomorrow's 'written reasons' if they don't agree with our deeper convictions that we know the truth - even though we also say there's scant evidence on camera that would convict either Hartley or Ferris.

I think it's only fair to point out that the Northampton Chronicle may not be an entirely neutral source.......

Did like Mallinders comments that Saints are a clean club , apart from the hair pulling, trying to pull someones arm out of its socket, biting, sort of thing......

biltongbek wrote:5. maybe we should wait, before making anymore assumptions?

6. Can we have some stats to back 1-5 up?

I would contribute, but I'm currently writing 100 times on the blackboard:

I must not let myself get drawn into this debate again. I must wait for the facts to come out.

Damn, I'm not sure it's working...........................

It's not working because that thing you are trying to write on with chalk isn't a blackboard, it's a computer screen!

Good point Mrs P - so should I use Tippex instead?

Absolutely NOT!

SecretFly wrote:Tri... I like the idea of legally objective 'patience' - "Wait for tomorrow's written reasons". Hmmm, you didn't exactly wait for the written reasons yourself and this thread has been running for some time now.

No, I say let's not wait and rather continue the wild and varied speculations

...I also say that many of us should not listen to tomorrow's 'written reasons' if they don't agree with our deeper convictions that we know the truth - even though we also say there's scant evidence on camera that would convict either Hartley or Ferris.

SecretFly

You are quite right. It is boring to wait and see but that is what we must do to get to the bottom of this sorry saga.

Until then i and anyone else who feels the urge should continue to speculate wildly. Hopefully i did put my "i'm ony speculating" disclaimer on all my posts on this one.

If i've missed one i'm sorry.

wickedwasp wrote:

Good point Mrs P - so should I use Tippex instead?

I used to contract for a well known westcountry helicopter manufacturer, one of their more mature engineers wasn't well versed with computers and had drawn lines across the screen of his monitor to help him read word docs. They walk amongst us and they can vote.

MmeF. You are absolutely certain that it's a Ferris saint v a (Saints) Hartley sinner aren't you?

I have no banner to carry for Hartley, but what I'd like to know is what the tribunal reports.

And was he condemned on reputation or evidence.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

biltongbek wrote:5. maybe we should wait, before making anymore assumptions?

6. Can we have some stats to back 1-5 up?

243 posts including this one and we are still none the wiser.

I think we are, Ferris is also a dirty player

Portnoy wrote:MmeF. You are absolutely certain that it's a Ferris saint v a (Saints) Hartley sinner aren't you?

I have no banner to carry for Hartley, but what I'd like to know is what the tribunal reports.

And was he condemned on reputation or evidence.

We'll find out tomorrow when the judgement is released Portnoy. It appears on the face of it that there is solid evidence that Ferris was definitely bitten. How it was proven to be Hartley, and what, if any, provocation occurred should be detailed in the report.

HERSH wrote:I think we are, I'm speculating wildy that Ferris is also a dirty player

Fixed that for you Hersh

Carpe Diem wrote:

wickedwasp wrote:

Good point Mrs P - so should I use Tippex instead?

I used to contract for a well known westcountry helicopter manufacturer, one of their more mature engineers wasn't well versed with computers and had drawn lines across the screen of his monitor to help him read word docs. They walk amongst us and they can vote.

MrP once went to a meeting with a colleague which he had arranged by email. The colleague didn't turn up. When they bumped into each other later the colleague apologised but said he didn't know about the meeting.

"Did you tell my secretary about it? There was no message on my computer."

MrP, "I emailed you directly."

Further investigation revealed that, when the guy said he looked for a message on his computer he meant that he checked for a "Post-it" note which his secretary would stick to his computer screen with any messages!

Portnoy,

Hopefully my comment here will answer your question as to what I am or am not certain of!

MrsP wrote:Absolutely Tri!

I am not saying that I know he didn't do anything, just that it is another possible reason for him not being cited.

Put it this way I wouldn't want to sit next to Ferris on a bus or a plane as I'd dread to think where his finger will end up!