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!)

gowales wrote: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.

I wonder does that suggest that he is guilty but also that they think it is a mountain out of a molehill

Standulstermen wrote:

gowales wrote: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.

I wonder does that suggest that he is guilty but also that they think it is a mountain out of a molehill

That would be my take on it.

All i can say is that they must have had alot better video evidence than what i have seen.

Obviously something has happened for Ferris to react like that but personally i didnt see anything.

8 weeks is a big ban for him and England.

Excellent news! 8 weeks of ban only! Now he can be back by the end of the season to go for the full house with a ball bag grab!

Billy

It is a nothing ban for England. It is a big ban for the saints. Mallinder must be tearing his (arm) hair out.

is there a case for serving your ban for the team you commit the offence for.

i dont know how that would work logistically and it would probably need to be determined on games not weeks missed but i do feel sorry for saints.

I had been given to understand that 12 weeks was minimum. It isnt it a low end starting point.

"4 weeks for mitigation" took it down to 8.

Now all that remains is to see what the mitigation was.

1. early plea of guilty
2. fact that no real harm done to finger
3. ???????? could it be ferris's fingers finding their way where they shouldn't? i.e extreme provocation

Yeah thats true stand, Mallinder will not be a happy man right now.

Seems very lenient as the minimum ban for biting is 12 weeks?

He was found guilty of biting and has a poor disciplinary record.

Can't make any judgement given the paucity of the infortmation given by the article.

Very true MBTGOG, more questions than answers at the moment!

Mitigation - he's frustrated being a New Zealander that the only international team he could get into was England, the only Jeff side who would have him are Northampton and he looks like Chris Ashton and Vicki Pollard's older brother. I'd have given him a formal warning a biscuit and a cup of tea after that mitigation!

Dammit Glas, stop being funny. People are trying to be indignant here!!!!

How do you prove he bit Ferris?

DNA?

Or you could match up the bite mark with Hartley's dental records???

Anyway, guilty he has been found.

8 week ban he has been given

Just in time to play in the prem final should his team get there!

I smell a rat..................

I just hope Hartley comes back with the same apetite for the game he obviously had this 6nations.

Comfort wrote:I just hope Hartley comes back with the same apetite for the game he obviously had this 6nations.

In view of the offence I think it would be better if he left his "appetite" in the changing room

maestegmafia wrote:Seems very lenient as the minimum ban for biting is 12 weeks?

He was found guilty of biting and has a poor disciplinary record.

Clearly 12 weeks is NOT the minimum. 12 weeks is a low end offence starting point or guideline if you like.

They started at 12 and worked down to 8 on the basis that he has been a good boy since he last eye gouged someone.

Anyway its all history now lads.

England hooking crisis partially averted for SA at least for now. This ban puts him in cotton wool for the tour. We still need more depth in this position.

Maybe that was the problem in the first place!

eirebilly wrote:8 weeks is a big ban for him and England.

Worse for Saints who are already down to their 4th choice hooker. I had no problem with a (big) ban if his guilt was proven without doubt but unless there was a camara angle that has not been seen by the public then it just seems to me that they have decided Hartley was guilty based on his previous record. Either that or Steven Ferris is an excellent witness destined for a career in law once his knees finally give up.

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.

It's not just Hartley that has a mouth with teeth, fairly certain other players do too. Who's to say it wasn't ferris's own player that took a chomp thinking it was someone else's? Video evidence is VERY important.

Pardon me for sounding fick but I haven't seen any footage of the incident. How does any rugby player bite someone when they wear gum shields?

Perhaps they did good cop bad cop,

Cop1 "we've got video evidence that you did it,so if you admit guilt you'll only get 8 weeks."
Heartily, "ok, I did it"
Cop2, "no we haven't got evidence we made it up"
Heartily, "that's entrapment!"
Cop1, "yeah, ha ha nah nah ha"

Was he not one of the England players who verbally abused a female member of staff at a hotel in NZ ? Brave, quality individual obviously !

8 weeks ban for Hartley. But what i dont understand is why their was no evedence at the time, no Blood on Hartleys finger for example.

What evedence do/did they have to suggest that it even was Hartley?

majesticimperialman wrote:no Blood on Hartleys finger for example.

Think about that one now Madge.

I don't really agree with this ban one bit. There can't be any proof as has been said, or he would have to have had a longer ban. I guess we'll never know the truth of what really happened.

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

I just hope they feed him in case he gets hungry on the field.

Perhaps he should be ordered to wear a gum shield on the bottom jaw as well so that he can only suck players in the future!

My understanding, and this is thrid hand information so may not be correct, is that Hartley's account is that Ferris hand was in his mouth as an accidental occurence at the bottom of the ruck. Another Irish player was attempting to clear Hartley out at the same time and jolted his head forward causing his mouth to close and to in effect bite Ferris' finger.

Basically he is admitting the bite but saying that it was accidental.

I guess we will find out if that is an accurate reflection of Hartley's account when the hearing transcript is published on Friday.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Was he not one of the England players who verbally abused a female member of staff at a hotel in NZ ? Brave, quality individual obviously !

No, he had a go at Haskell for asking for an Ozzy kiss.

As already pointed out the minimum ban isn't the same as the low entry level. The minimum ban is supposed to be half the lowest entry level (6 weeks in this case).

Anyone who thinks that you need video evidence I suggest you check out the Tincu banning a few years ago by the ERC. No video evidence, Ian Evans' evidence was removed because he was lying mistaken, James' couldn't remember whether Tincu had gloves on (it was for eye gouging). He still got an 18 week ban.

EDIT: Oh and it was nice of the 6 nations discipline panel (i.e. none English) to let him back for the tour. Thanks for that.

For him to say that his top and lower jaw were forced shut is a bit far fetched .
I don't believe Hartley would be foolish enough to suggest something like that.

Why is that far fetched Cymro? Have you never been pushed from behind with your mouth open and ended up biting your tongue?

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Was he not one of the England players who verbally abused a female member of staff at a hotel in NZ ? Brave, quality individual obviously !

You really believe what showbiz gossip journo's write in the press?

Ozzy3213 wrote:Why is that far fetched Cymro? Have you never been pushed from behind with your mouth open and ended up biting your tongue?

Biting my tongue while chewing yes but to leave a mark on a finger would involve much more pressure.

Whatever you say about the slimy little passport swapper - he isn't stupid.

He had the good sense not to take Ferris on in a stand-up brawl!

This is bizarre. If he did it - mitigation or no - how can the 'minimum' ban be reduced further? If he didn't beyond reasonable doubt, why any ban? And if the panel decided there were 'mitigating circumstances' then the report should make fascinating reading.

Sounds like the worst of the worst kind of Judgement of Solomon - 'you're not a very nice player with previous for all sorts of naughty things so we'll sentence you to a bit less than the minimum penalty for the offence, just in case we've got it wrong this time and/or you were provoked, for which we can't find any evidence.'. Sheesh!

This incident screamed for either a lengthy ban or no ban. This is a dreadful, unsatisfactory outcome.

Because 12 weeks isn't the minimum ban. It's been explained here and on every thread ever written on bans lower than the lowest ENTRY LEVEL.

So in a way the closest thing to a minimum ban is no ban.
Entry level is simply a starting off point.

The maximum amount of recommended reductions is 50%. This is only breached in exceptional circumstances (I can only remember one case when Haskell charged into a ruck recklessly because a Worcester player was punching a wasp and the ref ignored it even after it was brought to his attention).

Minimum ban for a bite would be 6 weeks.

The cited offence falls under law 10.4M

The sanction for this kind of offence is

Lower end (minimum 12 weeks)
Middle range (18 weeks)
Top end (24 weeks plus up to 208 weeks)

I can understand the need for a entry level and then work backwards but if they say 12 weeks is minimum then a ban should be no less than that.

If 6 weeks is the minimum then law 10.4M and every other law needs amending.

Here's a link to the IRB recommended sanctions on the ERC website

http://www.ercrugby.com/images/content/IRB_Sanctions.pdf

No mention of minimums. Biting is on the last page.

17.36.12 Having identified the applicable entry point for consideration of a
particular incident, the Judicial Officer shall identify all relevant aggravating factors and determine what additional period of suspension, if any, above the applicable entry point for the offence should apply to the case in question.

Aggravating factors include the following:
(a) An absence or lack of remorse and/or contrition on the part of the offending Player;
(b) The Player’s status as an offender of the Laws of the Game2;6
(c) The need for a deterrent to combat a pattern of offending;
(d) Any other off field aggravating factor that the Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

17.36.13 (a) Thereafter, Judicial Officers shall identify all relevant mitigating
factors and determine if there are grounds for reducing the period of suspension, if any. Mitigating factors include the following:

(i) The presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/guilt by the offending Player;
(ii) A good record and/or good character;
(iii) The age and experience of the Player;
(iv) The Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;
(v) Remorse for the Player’s actions and the victim Player;
(vi) Any other off field mitigating factor that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

So no mention of minimums. The ERC and RFU have a maximum reduction of 50%. Not sure if this is IRB led or not and can't find any official mention of it.

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.

Here is the IRB list of minimum sanctions.

Appendix 1 page 211 - 213

Why do they need to over-complicate things.

They aren't minimum sanctions. They're the entry levels I already posted from the ERC website. Nothing there about minimums that I could see.

Cymro, it's really that complicated. The panel decide if it's low, medium or high entry. Then add time or take time off depending on the circumstances.

Well there are minimum sanctions if 6 weeks is the lowest you can give.

SimonofSurrey wrote:This is bizarre. If he did it - mitigation or no - how can the 'minimum' ban be reduced further? If he didn't beyond reasonable doubt, why any ban? And if the panel decided there were 'mitigating circumstances' then the report should make fascinating reading.

Sounds like the worst of the worst kind of Judgement of Solomon - 'you're not a very nice player with previous for all sorts of naughty things so we'll sentence you to a bit less than the minimum penalty for the offence, just in case we've got it wrong this time and/or you were provoked, for which we can't find any evidence.'. Sheesh!

This incident screamed for either a lengthy ban or no ban. This is a dreadful, unsatisfactory outcome.

Solomon is alive and well and currently resides in Greater Esher.

Well said Simon.

Hartley was probably in a difficult position come the panel... on one side of it there was little or no evidence for the bite (bar Ferris complaint and the ref seeing a slight indentation on his hand) on the other he has history with this sort of thing (mud sticks unfortunately).

Lets not make a storm in a teacup. If this happened 20 years ago the ref would have told him to man up. He didn't react with pain or anger at the offending ruck (watch the video) nor sought immediate retribution on Hartley or the closest ENG player. When he went to the ref it was all a bit embarrassing to se.. miss miss, so & so is bullying me and won't let me play in the paddling pool.... not what you'd expect from a player of Ferris' no-nonsense (until now) reputation.

A player like Johnson, Thorne, Bakkies, Bismaarck, O'Connell would never have gone to the ref... they would have kept it in-house and sorted it out on the pitch.

See Josh Lewsey in 03 for example.. Mat Rogers collars him off the ball in the 75min illegally. Lewsey keeps calm and waits for the next time Rogers looks to be receiving the ball.... within seconds Rogers is on the floor with broken ribs after taking one hell of a legal hit from Lewsey... thats how you sort out minor indiscretions such as these.

I would also question what Ferris hand was doing near Hartleys mouth. We're all old/current players here mostly... we know the score of what goes on, Hartley didn't launch his teeth onto the closest part of Ferris, if Hartley bit him, it was because Ferris' hand was somewhere it shouldn't have been. Maybe it was an accident that it was there.. maybe it wasn't but being a natural cynic I would suggest it wasn't an accident.

Does that mean he should have bit Ferris... no but there is no smoke without fire.

I would say 8 weeks is a bit harsh but at the same time Hartley probably played a bit of game theory and decided/was advised to take a secondary option where he would get a 6-8 wk ban... rather than run the risk of a 12-16wk even though their would have been a possibility of getting off scot free.