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!)

It died a Wumming death.

That reminds me of a song. Now how did it go...................

Oh yes

A WUM away, A WUM away - in the jungle, the mighty jungle.....

Feel free to join in

Good to see it was removed, this site doesn't need stuff like that

The wums roam free tonight...

Biltong

biltongbek wrote: The wums Lions roam free tonight...

err.... Sorry fixed that.

Q: Is it a must that the citing commissioner release the transcript of the hearing?

I have just read a release by the Press Association which sheds a bit of light on what the mitigating circumstances may have been, namely Mallinder and Rowntree's testimonies, notice aswell their seem to be no mention of Ferris gouging or fish hooking. It seems the finger was inadvertently in or near Hartleys mouth.

I cannot post a link as i am a new member, but if you type 'Dylan Hartley in frame for england captaincy' into google it should be the first result

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h__owVLFc5KjxQsfs-mcy2-HLe8w?docId=N0052921333288982270A


The full written judgement details Rowntree describing Hartley as "a beacon and a leader" during England's recent troubled times and he added "no-one had more credibility with his peers".
Rowntree finished by saying Hartley's reputation is "completely unfounded" and that "if you look at the many videotapes of the matches in which he has played you will see a man of humility and respect".

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h__owVLFc5KjxQsfs-mcy2-HLe8w?docId=N0052921333288982270A


The full written judgement details Rowntree describing Hartley as "a beacon and a leader" during England's recent troubled times and he added "no-one had more credibility with his peers".
Rowntree finished by saying Hartley's reputation is "completely unfounded" and that "if you look at the many videotapes of the matches in which he has played you will see a man of humility and respect".

Wow until i read that I had always thought of Rowntree as a pretty honest coach. What a load of rubbish, you'd think no one has ever seen Hartley play.

" Ferris' finger inadvertently in or near his mouth"

And there you have it.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:" Ferris' finger inadvertently in or near his mouth"

And there you have it.

So he bit it.

You can not condone Hartley's behaviour.

Here is the official judgement text: http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf

maestegmafia wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:" Ferris' finger inadvertently in or near his mouth"

And there you have it.

So he bit it.

You can not condone Hartley's behaviour.

Looks like you've both got it in one from the judgement - the committee found that Ferris's hand was "exerting strong pressure" in the vicinity of Hartley's mouth. While this was not justification for a bite, it was considered as justifying mitigating the sentence somewhat.

Well the evidence shows bite marks and it is clear he did the biting.

biltongbek wrote:Well the evidence shows bite marks and it is clear he did the biting.

Yep. I think that's pretty well established.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:" Ferris' finger inadvertently in or near his mouth"

And there you have it.

So he bit it.

You can not condone Hartley's behaviour.

Looks like you've both got it in one from the judgement - the committee found that Ferris's hand was "exerting strong pressure" in the vicinity of Hartley's mouth. While this was not justification for a bite, it was considered as justifying mitigating the sentence somewhat.

Mitigation goes against one of the fundamental principles of rugby's ethics, retaliation is unforgivable..! If someone tries something, you walk away, you don't bite them, thats what a wild animal would do...!

Biting is rightly chastised behaviour, but I wonder how many of those so vehemently condemning Hartley here would just happily take the fish-hooking when trapped at the bottom of a collapsed ruck and not do what they can to prevent it continuing.

I didn't think that much of Hartley before this incident, but I also now find my opinion of Ferris somewhat diminished. It's pretty lacklustre to yank at someone's mouth then go running to teacher to complain about the consequences.

Is it confirmed that Ferris was fish hooking him. because if thats the case I dont blame hartley at all!!

Well, I just read the whole thing twice, once because I felt compelled to do so, the second because I didn't understand everything the first time.

To me the evidence reads pretty thin.
Ferris had hands on and around the face and lower jaw.
The finger went into Hartley's mouth, accidentally or not.
Impressions on both sides of the finger, with no broken skin.

Questions:
How does one get teeth impressions on both sides of a finger in the presence of a mough guard?
How can a finger get forced into someones mouth whose head is being crushed from above and bent to the side (as testified) without some teeth marks?
How can one tell the difference between teeth impressions (no telltale broken skin remember) and the marks from being spiked of otherwise battered in a Rugby match?
How does someone keep their hand in a pile while normal human behaviour is to pull it out?

This reads to me they felt they had a probable, but not a difinite. But they still wanted to make some form of statement about discipline. I read this conclusion as thin. I would also love to see this pictures which were shared. But this is thin. If Hartley appeals, he might have a case for further reduction. But then, maybe Saints and England are happy for him to have a rest before the Premeirship finals.

mystiroakey wrote:Is it confirmed that Ferris was fish hooking him. because if thats the case I dont blame hartley at all!!

Very little is proven one way or another in the report. The more relevant part of the verdict to Ferris' actions with his fingers are:

"Holding the Player firmly in the region of the Player's neck, chin and lower part of his face. The Player, pinned to the ground, would not have been able to move his head such that his mouth might have sought out Ferris's (sic) hand. It was probable to the requisite standard of proof that Ferris's (sic) hand - and particularly the little finger of his right hand - was exerting strong pressure in the region of the Player's mouth."

so he gave him a little bite(no bleeding) because he shoved his finger in his mouth.

Why was there even a ban, why did ferris whinge? seems like he only did it at the time to try and get a penality and it has escalated beyond belief!

HERSH wrote:What happened to the who's going to win the 2013 6 nations thread?

No point. Scotland have it in the bag.

It's certainly interesting that the committee chose not to accept some of Ferris' version of events, principally the nature of the injury to his finger (differing from those described my the Ireland team doctor) and the manner in which he handled Hartley (differing from what they saw in the video evidence).

johnpartle wrote:It's certainly interesting that the committee chose not to accept some of Ferris' version of events, principally the nature of the injury to his finger (differing from those described my the Ireland team doctor) and the manner in which he handled Hartley (differing from what they saw in the video evidence).

I know, that what shocked me.
What they rejected from Ferris testimony were:
- length of the bite (he complained it went on for seconds)
- the severity of the bite (he stated it was 4 teeth marks and broken skin and needed treatment afterwards, the doctor states 3 teeth marks, no broken skin and didn't need treatment afterwards)
- his right-arm pressure (he states that his right hand was doing nothing and that he using his arm only, from the video the committee concluded that from he was in fact using his wrist not his arm i.e exerting pressure on Dylan's face)
- that his hand wasn't on Dylan's mouth (he states that his hand was on Dylan's jaw and neck, but then accepts that it might have been on his face as well, last time I checked the mouth was part of the face)

I think that's why they gave it a low entry level, because a bite is a bite and there's no self-defense law in rugby, if there's was then everyone would be using and citations would become redundant. But still I would've preferred 6 weeks and maybe that's what they'll give him if he appeals.

I too have read the full written report and as I feared, it came down to one man's account against another's.

It appears that what is not in dispute, it that Ferris's little finger was bitten (but DrGrey (above) still notes that even that is possibly disputable).

So far as I can see there is no positive proof at all one way or the other and that the disciplinary committee just guessed on the sequence of events.

If I were Hartley/Mallinder, Id be tempted to appeal the judgement.

Port,
I would too.

The silence of supporters of St Ferris of Assisi is deafening...

MrsP?

So bassicaly he got screwed by the entry point for a bite being 12 weeks.

Its pretty obvious that the panel thought it was a non incident, but are bound by the regulations

With so little evidence................................ why was Hartley binned at all?

I said if nobody could make up their minds what actually happened (and by all accounts those who read the thing seem to think the commissioners couldn't) then Hartley should have been considered innocent.

It seems the commissioners did a circular dance, made themselves dizzy, didn't know what to think so booked Hartley to give themselves a reason for turning up at all.

SecretFly wrote:With so little evidence................................ why was Hartley binned at all?

I said if nobody could make up their minds what actually happened (and by all accounts those who read the thing seem to think the commissioners couldn't) then Hartley should have been considered innocent.

It seems the commissioners did a circular dance, made themselves dizzy, didn't know what to think so booked Hartley to give themselves a reason for turning up at all.

Hartley admitted the bite though Fly - albeit as an involuntary reaction to having a finger in his mouth.

Just read the whole document. Since when are 'judo style actions' acceptable ways of clearing out a ruck? Surely the point of judo is that the other chap knows you are about to 'do' judo on him and prepare for it. Are we going to see ninjitsu style clear outs soon. Or maybe bushido, flanker legs it onto the pitch with a bamboo sword and starts tw@tting all and sundry. Jaysus, i'd appeal on that bit alone!

Once Hartley admitted biting then a ban was inevitable. The mitigating circumstances just reduced it's length - personally thought 2-4 weeks would have been ok.

As for Ferris - he should be forced to play his next test wearing a tutu.

"His reaction to being called a f****** c*** was that he thought it a 'bit rich' at the time"

Classic, good dig to get in there Dylan.

Have to say that Ferris is made to look like a very sore loser who was trying to a) gloss over the illegal head/neck grab with additional fingers to the face he used in removing Hartley from the ruck and b) generate as large as possible a ban for Hartley. Ferris has dropped severely in my estimations.

Hartley, did bite him and biting is illegal so there was always going to be a ban. Whether 8 weeks was justified when so little visual evidence was available I'm not sure but the commissioners rightly point out that taking the law into your own hands by retaliation is illegal.

Has document http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

been changed?

I read the document closely this morning. But among one of the many things that jumped out at me was that (I'm 90%) certain that there was a comment made by Rowntree in his character statement in support of Hartley in which he made reference to the possibility of Dylan being reinstated as England captain.

But I've re-scanned the document a few times, but I can't find the reference

Does anyone else who read the document recall reading it?
Has it been quietly redacted or is my short-term memory failing?

not sure i understand why ferris hasnt been cited- but there you go.

surely if the england team had threatened the irish with that it would have all been dropped?

My speculation and educated guesswork was entirely well founded it seems.

Ferris, DOC

You are individually and collectively a disgrace for the way in which you have conducted yourselves in this.

DOC less so because you did not necessarily have all the facts when you bleated to the ref.

Ferris - what are you playing at? You HAD an impeccable reputation.

Then out of nowhere you came out with Anti- English cliched bile about us being arrogant and bad losers.

THEN to a player lying prone at the bottom of a ruck with his arms pinned you get your big mit and stick it on his face and apply pressure.

You get a nibble on your pinky for your troubles which does not break the skin.

THEN at the first available opportunity you bleat about it with righteous indignation to the referee in a blatant attempt to get Hartley carded. There can be no other logical reason for your complaint.

DOC seeing the opportunity joined in with you as 1 complaint was clearly not deemed sufficient.

THEN Ferris you come along to the citing hearing and give your "account" of being bitten while refusing to take any blame yourself.

Notably your account is NOT fully believed by the tribunal.

We have seen the mark on the man tiny as it is, now we see the mark OF the man.

Portnoy wrote:Has document http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

been changed?

I read the document closely this morning. But among one of the many things that jumped out at me was that (I'm 90%) certain that there was a comment made by Rowntree in his character statement in support of Hartley in which he made reference to the possibility of Dylan being reinstated as England captain.

But I've re-scanned the document a few times, but I can't find the reference

Does anyone else who read the document recall reading it?
Has it been quietly redacted or is my short-term memory failing?

Page 8 has Rowntree's statement Portnoy. "... might well soon become captain"

Biting - no excuse, had to be a ban.

Trying to rip someones head off whilst they are trapped in a ruck and then sticking his finger in his mouth, two illegal actions - no excuse - he has admitted it and therefore should get the same punishment as Hartley.

Lying to the committee - make it the full 12 weeks. Even the Irish doctor disagreed with his versionof events.

Yup Kiwi. I see it. Thanks.

[note to self - read - don't scan]

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Biting - no excuse, had to be a ban.

Trying to rip someones head off whilst they are trapped in a ruck and then sticking his finger in his mouth, two illegal actions - no excuse - he has admitted it and therefore should get the same punishment as Hartley.

Lying to the committee - make it the full 12 weeks. Even the Irish doctor disagreed with his versionof events.

I agree with almost nothing of that post WPI.

All I think is that Hartley has great grounds on which to appeal.

Law Change proposal:

No player shall grab any other player above chest high.

We'll call it the Irish amendment.

They have had some success with it but enough is enough.

The irish have got far too carried away with the neck, throat, face choke/strangle/call- it- what- you- will tackle.

They seem to think it's fair play.

Enough with their antics!

Law Change proposal:

No player shall grab any other player above chest high.

Or below the belt.

So, pretty much what we all thought then. Ferris is a good player, but my respect for him has gone through the floor.

I suspect that, even though Hartley got the ban, it will take a lot longer for Ferris to live this down.

Pathetic.

biltongbek wrote:

Law Change proposal:

No player shall grab any other player above chest high.

Or below the belt.

I know Ferris' antics were not a tackle but a "clear out" but i do see a correlation between them being coached to deliberately incapacitate an opponent by taking control of their head/neck and keeping them off balance/more concerned with their head/neck than anything else. (a very effective technique) and what Ferris did.

It's not that great a leap. All of a sudden you have players being cleared by their faces and when they get some retaliation they call them all names under the sun and complain to ref.

It's all fair play to them.

They have it wrong.

Did`nt the player concerned suspect something when Hartley asked what sort of Mustard he wanted on his hand.Lucky man should have been 12 weeks could have been 4.years.Wallabies reserve Hooker on tour 1958,was sent home from tour for a similar offence[ear biting] never capped again.

emack2 wrote:Did`nt the player concerned suspect something when Hartley asked what sort of Mustard he wanted on his hand.Lucky man should have been 12 weeks could have been 4.years.Wallabies reserve Hooker on tour 1958,was sent home from tour for a similar offence[ear biting] never capped again.

Do you honestly think that biting someone's ear is similar to biting a finger than was put in your mouth in a ruck?

HammerofThunor wrote:

emack2 wrote:Did`nt the player concerned suspect something when Hartley asked what sort of Mustard he wanted on his hand.Lucky man should have been 12 weeks could have been 4.years.Wallabies reserve Hooker on tour 1958,was sent home from tour for a similar offence[ear biting] never capped again.

Do you honestly think that biting someone's ear is similar to biting a finger than was put in your mouth in a ruck?

+1 to hammer. If this was an act of mutilation on someone who was trapped in a ruck the perpetrator should get the book thrown at them. In no way could this event be described as anything like that

oh come on guys . he did a tyson on him- if you cant work that out.......

It was mean`t to be a bit of levity,the cynic in me says,IF England was`nt going on tour it would have been longer.He had previous for gouging too,not discussing the rights and wrongs of his citings.He was found guilty right or wrong
BUT the book says 12 weeks minimum.