Stephen ferris's integrity

First topic message reminder :

Ok I'm not interested in anything he said before the game or any thing Hartley has done previous or the undisputed fact that he did bite Ferris.

But after the published tribunal transcript how long will his reputation take to recover after blatantly telling porkies.

Now I like the player but will refs now listen to any complaints from him justified or not?

Just some questions from reading this thread-

Are people here downplaying biting just because the skin wasn't broken?

Are people here downplaying biting as they think the victim of it was entirely honest about the lead up to it?


Personally, I think biting is up there with gouging and I mean real gouging not just contact with the eyes. There might be provocation but no way does it justify it.

I think the people defending it and Hartley need to have a real think over it. Condemn Ferris for lying, not a problem but don't defend Hartley to emphasise the point.

rugbydreamer wrote:I have only ever played rugby drunk on a beach

Why was i not invited to this match dreamer? Where you worried about where i would put my hands

Triangulation wrote:
Finally chaps im not sure that anyone can really say that either of them has lied per se. Did the tribunal explicitly say that?

Yes. They explicitly said that Hartley would not have felt the pain he claimed from the ruck position he was in but routine discomfort that all rugby players should be prepared for.

He is a liar and a coward in my eyes. Not only did he bite Ferris but he lied to claim self defence.

rugbydreamer wrote:
And just seen your latest post, I know Ferris wasn't cited....what's your point?

My point is that there is a suggestion that Ferris lied to prove he was a victim and innocent of foul play or provocation.

He didn't need to do either. There was clear evidence that Hartley bit him and he was not cited for any foul play so had no charge to defend.

Is the punishment different for biting if the skin is broken? If not then it is an irrelevent piece of detail.

How is biting someone on the finger up there with gouging? Ridiculous comment

Ferris has Hartley round the head, Hartley can't move his head to bite so fingers must have been in or around his mouth. Not a big fan of clearing players from a ruck by their heads.

8 week ban for biting, sounds fair enough if not slightly harsh given the circumstances.

I feel slightly sorry for Northampton, wouldn't a ban for a number of England games be a better punishment?

I would suggest that biting is a despicable act and that Hartley was quite rightly banned for doing so. He did it and has been banned. This is what needs to happen.

As to provocation there seems to be a few points to make here:

- If Mr. Ferris had been unclear about what and where is hand was leading up to the incident this would be one thing. However he made definate statements which seem to have been either wrong or he has made a mistake.
- As to calling people thugs, a man who pleaded not guilty to assaulting two men but then agreed to be bound over for it...seems to be a thug.

Hartley SHOULD not have bitten that is the end point here....but in fact neither come out of the incident well at all.

eirebilly wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:I have only ever played rugby drunk on a beach

Why was i not invited to this match dreamer? Where you worried about where i would put my hands

You wouldn't have got close to me anyways!

A wicked side step on me see (or well, that's what I liked to believe when alcohol fueled!)

roddersm wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:
And just seen your latest post, I know Ferris wasn't cited....what's your point?

My point is that there is a suggestion that Ferris lied to prove he was a victim and innocent of foul play or provocation.

He didn't need to do either. There was clear evidence that Hartley bit him and he was not cited for any foul play so had no charge to defend.

Is the punishment different for biting if the skin is broken? If not then it is an irrelevent piece of detail.

If he didn't need to do either, then why did he exaggerate so much? he's only made himself look bad.

Do you really not see biting as that bad a thing on the rugby pitch?

Buffy and the Twilight movies must have changed people's perceptions on how bad biting people is.

rugbydreamer wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:I have only ever played rugby drunk on a beach

Why was i not invited to this match dreamer? Where you worried about where i would put my hands

You wouldn't have got close to me anyways!

A wicked side step on me see (or well, that's what I liked to believe when alcohol fueled!)

Just as long as you would'nt bite me if i did tag you

MBTGOG wrote:Do you really not see biting as that bad a thing on the rugby pitch?

Buffy and the Twilight movies must have changed people's perceptions on how bad biting people is.

Comment of the day, well done Munsty

MBTGOG wrote:Do you really not see biting as that bad a thing on the rugby pitch?

Buffy and the Twilight movies must have changed people's perceptions on how bad biting people is.

Sure it's bad, but you said it's as bad as serious eye gouging.

If you want to be factious, tell that to Gavin Quinnell

rugbydreamer wrote:If he didn't need to do either, then why did he exaggerate so much? he's only made himself look bad.

What exaggeration? Bar a couple of minor details all of the key findings have been accepted by the panel and supported by evidence.

Rodders, if you can't see where he's exaggerated, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to point it out to you, sorry

Munsty - fair comment!

roddersm wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:If he didn't need to do either, then why did he exaggerate so much? he's only made himself look bad.

What exaggeration? Bar a couple of minor details all of the key findings have been accepted by the panel and supported by evidence.

Rodders, first he said skin was broken. Had the committee accepted that the starting point for Hartley's ban would have been closer to 18 weeks than 12.
Second he said that his hand wasn't on Hartley's face - by implication that would have meant Hartley having to make an extra, conscious movement of his head to deliver a bite. And had Hartley done that I'd have been calling for a life ban.

Hartley comes out of this looking like a thug. Ferris doesn't come out smelling of roses. And that's my opinion as a neutral.

PS, great comment Munsty

Dreamer we'll agree to disagree.

MBTGOG wrote:Just some questions from reading this thread-

Are people here downplaying biting just because the skin wasn't broken?

Are people here downplaying biting as they think the victim of it was entirely honest about the lead up to it?


Personally, I think biting is up there with gouging and I mean real gouging not just contact with the eyes. There might be provocation but no way does it justify it.

I think the people defending it and Hartley need to have a real think over it. Condemn Ferris for lying, not a problem but don't defend Hartley to emphasise the point.

I do not "down play" biting but i say you do have to grade it!!!

To uncritically lump all cases of biting together without any consideration of the severity of the bite is patently absurd. Similarly you need to look at surrounding circumstances.

And guess what?? Surprise surprise there is not a court in the land that would when considering any incidence of violence just apply your ridiculous tick-a-box methodology.

What is really weird about your post is that you then go on to grade fingers in eyes but you wont grade biting.

I don't disagree about grading, never said that.

I certainly wouldn't ever have only 8 weeks for biting. That is not a sufficient deterrent for such an awful act.

Triangulation I notice you didn't respond to my post - you say it is ridiculously over the top to suggest that a guy who is guilty of gouging and biting on a rugby pitch is a thug?

Talking about integrity - you sure your's is alright?

He is a thug. Quote me on it.

Dylan, if you read this, I think you are a thug, a coward and an average and vastly overrated player.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Triangulation I notice you didn't respond to my post - you say it is ridiculously over the top to suggest that a guy who is guilty of gouging and biting on a rugby pitch is a thug?

Talking about integrity - you sure your's is alright?

Ah come on lads, no need for that. You don't know the man at all so to question his integrity is way over the top.

MBTGOG wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Triangulation I notice you didn't respond to my post - you say it is ridiculously over the top to suggest that a guy who is guilty of gouging and biting on a rugby pitch is a thug?

Talking about integrity - you sure your's is alright?

Ah come on lads, no need for that. You don't know the man at all so to question his integrity is way over the top.

Thanks MTBOG. Dodger, MTBOG is correct you dont know me. Pull your head in. Are you a daily mail reader?

Sorry i didnt see yours. I said it was 5 years ago and according to all the character evidence given he is a different person.

roddersm wrote:He is a thug. Quote me on it.

Dylan, if you read this, I think you are a thug, a coward and an average and vastly overrated player.

Why mention his rugby playing skills? What relevance do they have to this?

Artful_Dodger wrote:Triangulation I notice you didn't respond to my post - you say it is ridiculously over the top to suggest that a guy who is guilty of gouging and biting on a rugby pitch is a thug?

Talking about integrity - you sure your's is alright?

Art, pull back Sir, there is no need for that.

As far as I'm concerned the judgement was appropriate and both players will learn something from it. Nothing in this judgement justifies many of the character assessments being offered on either player.

aitchw wrote:As far as I'm concerned the judgement was appropriate and both players will learn something from it. Nothing in this judgement justifies many of the character assessments being offered on either player.

and once again, sanity prevails.

According to Tri...... Ferris's integrity is in the dirt.

According to Tri...... a year or two down the line and it should be restored.

Tri is a fair man - he condemns and absolves in equal measure.

The whole post is questioning Stephen Ferris's integrity yet in the post you're not allowed to question the integrity of someone who is questioning Ferris's integrity - interesting and you're right I dont know him but I very much doubt he knows Ferris either.

red_stag wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:The issue is that ferris did not tell the truth when giving evidence, and while knowing what he had done at the time attempted to get a player sent off/cited

Knackered he brought it to the refs attention thats all. It was one of the most thuggish things a player could do and it was a red card offense.

Hartley has been found guilty of punching players, gouging their eyes and biting them. The man is a scumbag.

Good job that Sin Fein don't apply the same standards of integrity then Staggy.

Art, you know as well as I do that questioning or attacking a poster in a personal capacity can only escalate into an argument that will undoubtedly turn even more personal and degrade the thread to a WUMfest.

So what has Sinn Féin to do with this topic?

Let's add Cromwell to the party then.......................

Artful_Dodger wrote:The whole post is questioning Stephen Ferris's integrity yet in the post you're not allowed to question the integrity of someone who is questioning Ferris's integrity - interesting and you're right I dont know him but I very much doubt he knows Ferris either.

lol interesting that you are questioning someone who is questioning the questioning question

hahaha - Sinn Fein??

If my comment was inflammatory I'd love to know what bringing Sinn Fein into a conversation about rugby is.

SecretFly wrote:According to Tri...... Ferris's integrity is in the dirt.

According to Tri...... a year or two down the line and it should be restored.

Tri is a fair man - he condemns and absolves in equal measure.

I havent called Ferris a liar. I think overall his conduct in all this is questionable.

And yes even though i accept that on this board i am clearly in a minority of one, I do believe in that far fetched and exotic concept of rehabilitation.

The gouging was 5 years ago. Build a bridge and get over it.

Integrity is the issue SF.

It's a measure of fundamental values - and comparing a living man with a long-dead one doesn't help.

In this instance, Ferris claimed an apparently vicious, sustained attack whilst Hartley claimed that he was being fish-hooked. And as no corroborating evidence exists, the citing committee went on with a blind suspicion and presumption of facts that equally could be true or not.

I have no problem with Hartley being banned, but I'd recommend an appeal based on the citings report.

Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

As long as I detect honesty in the conclusions about rehabilitation in the future, I'll live with the idea of any player being able to redeem himself.

But I will remember these pages if I see a lack of getting over it in the years to come. I'll also remember it if I see rehabilitation not working in the years to come. People need to be true to their principles when they stand up so strongly on them.

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Because he exaggerated?

Portnoy wrote:Integrity is the issue SF.

It's a measure of fundamental values - and comparing a living man with a long-dead one doesn't help.

In this instance, Ferris claimed an apparently vicious, sustained attack whilst Hartley claimed that he was being fish-hooked. And as no corroborating evidence exists, the citing committee went on with a blind suspicion and presumption of facts that equally could be true or not.

I have no problem with Hartley being banned, but I'd recommend an appeal based on the citings report.

Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

A long dead man has nothing to do with this thread - agreed. Neither does Sinn Féin - unless you're prepared to elaborate on the connection.

I say Hartley should never have been banned at all if the commissioners heard him say he bit on something that was in his mouth and they believed Ferris's finger was the thing probing in his mouth. The commissioners were the cowards, not the player who complained of a bitten finger or the player who owned up to the 'charge'... They could have so easily concluded that it was a melee that became untidy, a finger got lost in a mouth and in the fuss a mouth might have inadvertantly applied pressure onto it. The case could have been thrown out by braver commissioners. You don't always have to find a 'offence' simply because your job is to deliberate on them.

Portnoy wrote:Integrity is the issue SF.

It's a measure of fundamental values - and comparing a living man with a long-dead one doesn't help.

In this instance, Ferris claimed an apparently vicious, sustained attack whilst Hartley claimed that he was being fish-hooked. And as no corroborating evidence exists, the citing committee went on with a blind suspicion and presumption of facts that equally could be true or not.

I have no problem with Hartley being banned, but I'd recommend an appeal based on the citings report.

Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Right and whats the relationship between Sinn Fein and integrity?

biltongbek wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Because he exaggerated?

Not exactly Biltong.

Because the differing accounts of events are entirely inconclusive and the evidence cannot be substantiated in any way.

I reacted to the well-respected poster RedStag who as an up-and-coming referee of the game can make prejudicial slurs on Hartley whilst remaining 'balanced' on the other party.

biltongbek wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Because he exaggerated?

offcourse, exageratting in the fact that you a have a big .... is ok, exagerating about how good your golf shot is ok, exagerating about how large the fish you caught is ok. Exageratting to a jury/or in this case a citing commitee isnt on..

SecretFly wrote:I say Hartley should never have been banned at all if the commissioners heard him say he bit on something that was in his mouth and they believed Ferris's finger was the thing probing in his mouth. The commissioners were the cowards, not the player who complained of a bitten finger or the player who owned up to the 'charge'... They could have so easily concluded that it was a melee that became untidy, a finger got lost in a mouth and in the fuss a mouth might have inadvertantly applied pressure onto it. The case could have been thrown out by braver commissioners. You don't always have to find a 'offence' simply because your job is to deliberate on them.

I can't agree with you Fly, there are only a few things on a rugby pitch that can fit in your mouth and ...errr fingers are one of them. you bite, you stand to be cited and banned.

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Because he exaggerated?

offcourse, exageratting in the fact that you a have a big .... is ok, exagerating about how good your golf shot is ok, exagerating about how large the fish you caught is ok. Exageratting to a jury/or in this case a citing commitee isnt on..

It may not be on (by the way I liked where you were going with your argument before you got serious ), but to suggest a players has lost his integrity is also not really on.

Integrity goes to the core of a persons belief system, morals and values. Exaggeration, is just that, exaggeration.

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Meanwhile, I'd support the proposition that Ferris's integrity is in question.

Because he exaggerated?

offcourse, exageratting in the fact that you a have a big .... is ok, exagerating about how good your golf shot is ok, exagerating about how large the fish you caught is ok. Exageratting to a jury/or in this case a citing commitee isnt on..

It may not be on (by the way I liked where you were going with your argument before you got serious ), but to suggest a players has lost his integrity is also not really on.

Integrity goes to the core of a persons belief system, morals and values. Exaggeration, is just that, exaggeration.

now now biltonbek , you are taking this way to seriously, infact i am gonna have to take a weeks holiday just to get over your comment!

The suggestion of many here, biltong, (and it seems the citing commissioners themselves - if I'm reading the signals right - I didn't read the report myself) is that Ferris's story of innocent input of finger in Hartley's mouth wasn't believed?

If they questioned Ferris's story they could have reached a more satisfying conclusion... if the implication is that Hatley's mouth was being interfered with (fish-hooked) and the commissioners had no visual proof of either finger in mouth or mouth biting (save for Hartley admitting he bit) but still made it clear that they weren't satisfied by all that Ferris said, then they should have reached a conclusion that confirmed suspicions. The chickened out....in my view.

Fly, I read the report and two thirds of the way through I got bored. So I didn't read the final resolution or summation.

There is a lot of repitition of the same hearsay going on in it, perhaps why I don't perticaularly enjoy legal documents.

From what I read neither player was "sighted" so at the end of the day the summation is based on hearsay.

What I do know though is biting as a retaliation is wrong no matter which way you look at it.

Unfortunately this type of incident only ends in an unsavoury judgement and it is difficult for the judiciary committe to get this right in a way where everyone will be happy with the outcome.

The fact that they gave Hartley a sentence lower than the 12 week e tnry level suggests that they had little choice to find him guilty but did find mitigating circumstances.

SecretFly wrote:The suggestion of many here, biltong, (and it seems the citing commissioners themselves - if I'm reading the signals right - I didn't read the report myself) is that Ferris's story of innocent input of finger in Hartley's mouth wasn't believed?

Actually no fly that is 100% wrong. There was no suggestion in the report that Ferris deliberately put his finger in Hartleys mouth.

The panel accepted that if Ferris hand was near Hartleys mouth that is was accidental and clearly refuted Hartleys claim of biting in self defence.

Its all in the report.

roddersm

Just for accuracy, they didn't reject Hartley's claim of self defence - they rejected that a self defence claim exists against foul play.

The committe also stated it found both provocation & retaliation

is this the same Mr. Ferris who claimed to be innocent of assault but then agreed to be bound over for 12 months?