Stephen ferris's integrity

by Knackeredknees Mon Apr 02, 2012 4:06 pm

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?

by SecretFly Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:00 pm

roddersm wrote:
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.

As I said, I didn't read the report, Rodders. But from what I'm hearing, the commissioners did question one or two pieces of Ferris's claim? And from what Tri and some others seem to be saying, there is enough in the report to question Ferris's integrity? I'm saying if Tri and others can openly suggest such a thing, after I assume reading the full report, then the commissioners didn't do their job very well. Guilt is guilt - innocence is innocence - hearsay is neither and should have had the case thrown out if that was all the were adjudicating on.

Ferris is an Irish player - I demand that all our players operate with integrity. If wrong is done to them, they have every right to make noise. If they have acted in ways that question their integrity then they should suffer the consequences. It seems, from the many various conclusions coming from those here, that the report is not clearcut on guilt and innocence and therefore the commissioners have not reached a satisfactory conclusion. There should be no doubt arising out of their conclusions. Going on the chat here, there very much is.

by **rodders** Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:00 pm

wickedwasp wrote: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

Sorry but that is wrong, They said clearly that Harleys action was "not a justifiable choice of reaction" for the position he found himself in.

Of the mitigating factors that were taken into consideration provocation was not one of them.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:09 pm

roddersm wrote:
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.

Not exactly Rodders. Your first sentence above is correct. However the second isn't quite. The panel accepted that Ferris's hand was near Hartley's mouth as a result of Ferris's judo hold, but that he did not deliberately place his finger in the mouth (so all those fish-hooking accusations are hot air). They then said that self defence was not a valid reason for letting Hartley off, but instead would be used to help determine the seriousness of the act.

The committee accepted that the bite was "a reaction to a situation in which the player found himself" rather than a "premeditated act" as a result of Ferris grasping Hartley's head and neck, and that the bite was of "momentary duration rather than the several seconds claimed by Ferris". It also found that "the effect on the victim was minimal", that there was "no impact on the match", hence placing the bite at the low (12 weeks ban starting point) end of the scale.

Had Ferris's statement been accepted as fact I'd suggest that the sentencing would have started at 18 weeks rather than 12, which is why plenty of posters are critical of his exaggeration in testimony.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:14 pm

I'll add that I'd have preferred a 12 week ban for Hartley - his mitigation to 8 weeks was based on him having not been banned for over 5 years, but there are a couple of incidents in the mean time which should have lead to bans, but weren't cited

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:29 pm

So far as I can see the only one who has come out of this shambles with any plus side on his/their integrity integrity account is Hartley. He admitted a bite.

The citing committee comes out of it, like Ferris with a big, fat ?

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:32 pm

Portnoy wrote:So far as I can see the only one who has come out of this shambles with any plus side on his/their integrity integrity account is Hartley. He admitted a bite.

The citing committee comes out of it, like Ferris with a big, fat ?

I'll give Hartley marks for hiring a pretty good ~~weasel~~ lawyer - getting 4 weeks mitigation was sharp work.

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:44 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:
Portnoy wrote:So far as I can see the only one who has come out of this shambles with any plus side on his/their integrity integrity account is Hartley. He admitted a bite.

The citing committee comes out of it, like Ferris with a big, fat ?

I'll give Hartley marks for hiring a pretty good ~~weasel~~ lawyer - getting 4 weeks mitigation was sharp work.

So far as I understand, biltong, the opportunity exists for the plaintiff to pitch up in person with his own clever brief. But he chose not to. Nor to have his own lawyer at the tribunal.

I'm pretty sure that he would have if he were in the dock.

No plus points either way on the integrity front there, I'd say.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:46 pm

I don't understand two things coming from the report. Firstly, how on earth has the committee come to the conclusion that the bite was of 'momentary duration' rather than a few seconds that Ferris claimed? It seems to me that they simply plucked this observation out of thin air.

Secondly, the question in the report over whether Hartley broke the skin with the bite. They accepted the inferences of the doctor who said it did not require treatment and that he only saw bite marks, yeah dismissed Ferris's claim that the bite broke his skin. From the report it is stated that Ferris produced pictorial evidence to back this claim up. Why was this dismissed.

As for Portnoy, you should be embarrassed by your statements. Neither the accounts of Ferris and Hartley were wholly accepted by the panel. So if, as you assert, Ferris's integrity is brought into question then the comments of the citing commissioners into Hartley's evidence should extend this to Hartley. Of course your inherent bias ignores this fact.

In truth this episode does nothing to credit the citing process, especially after the debacle surrounding Calum Clark (though obviously punished by a different body), Ferris or Hartley. I am astonished this has managed to go to four pages worth of 'discussion'.

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:47 pm

Well, Portnoy, you're entitled to your opinion, I just happen not to agree with you.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:49 pm

I actually think the panel was willing to swallow all the BS from Rowntree an co because they new how ridiculous it is that a minor finger to mouth bit receives a much higher entry point that multiple punches to the face would.

The entry point for bites is stupidly high. The top end sanctions fine, if anything not high enough. You cold chew someones head off and be playing again in less time than Stevens got for an expensive talcum powder habit. It was a lot less dangerous and caused a lot less discomfort than the Davies spear which got a much shorter ban despite being considered a mid range offence.
The recommended tariffs are set assuming things this minor simply go unreported and uncited.

8 weeks is a pretty severe penalty, even more so given the matches he will miss at this time of the year. Sure its fortunate it doesnt

by dragonbreath Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:56 pm

CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I don't understand two things coming from the report. Firstly, how on earth has the committee come to the conclusion that the bite was of 'momentary duration' rather than a few seconds that Ferris claimed? It seems to me that they simply plucked this observation out of thin air.

No they watched the video and looked at the sequence of events, there simply wasnt time.

Secondly, the question in the report over whether Hartley broke the skin with the bite. They accepted the inferences of the doctor who said it did not require treatment and that he only saw bite marks, yeah dismissed Ferris's claim that the bite broke his skin. From the report it is stated that Ferris produced pictorial evidence to back this claim up. Why was this dismissed.

Not so much an inference as a clear statement by someone who inspected and treated it at the time. If there was pictoral evidence they would have seen it and based their decision on that, I assume the pictures dont show that the skin was broken but simply depressed as is stated in the report. If that isnt the case then yes something extremely odd has happened but I find it very unlikely given who the people on the commitee are.

As for Portnoy, you should be embarrassed by your statements. Neither the accounts of Ferris and Hartley were wholly accepted by the panel. So if, as you assert, Ferris's integrity is brought into question then the comments of the citing commissioners into Hartley's evidence should extend this to Hartley. Of course your inherent bias ignores this fact.

Fine Hartley is a big fat poo as well, hes long had a reputation as one. But that doesnt excuse Mr Goody Two Shoes and his team of lawyers from distorting the truth.

In truth this episode does nothing to credit the citing process, especially after the debacle surrounding Calum Clark (though obviously punished by a different body), Ferris or Hartley. I am astonished this has managed to go to four pages worth of 'discussion'.

Whats the debacle there? That they accepted his story he was just trying to clear the player out?

i actually think the discussion, as usual, does the nothing to credit the internerds.

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:59 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I don't understand two things coming from the report. Firstly, how on earth has the committee come to the conclusion that the bite was of 'momentary duration' rather than a few seconds that Ferris claimed? It seems to me that they simply plucked this observation out of thin air.

Secondly, the question in the report over whether Hartley broke the skin with the bite. They accepted the inferences of the doctor who said it did not require treatment and that he only saw bite marks, yeah dismissed Ferris's claim that the bite broke his skin. From the report it is stated that Ferris produced pictorial evidence to back this claim up. Why was this dismissed.

As for Portnoy, you should be embarrassed by your statements. Neither the accounts of Ferris and Hartley were wholly accepted by the panel. So if, as you assert, Ferris's integrity is brought into question then the comments of the citing commissioners into Hartley's evidence should extend this to Hartley. Of course your inherent bias ignores this fact.

In truth this episode does nothing to credit the citing process, especially after the debacle surrounding Calum Clark (though obviously punished by a different body), Ferris or Hartley. I am astonished this has managed to go to four pages worth of 'discussion'.

Sorry H&H?

Which of my statements are you referring to?

I've tried to be even-handed throughout. My only contentious statement is that Dylan admitted the bite and was thus a plus-point in the integrity stakes.

The rest all revolves around supposition combined with no visible evidence to support the testimony one party or the other.

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:59 pm

dragonbreath wrote:CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

That is just a nonsensical statement based on ignorance.

Many teams use judo techniques not only Ireland, and to top it of with a no proper 7 and hence referees feel sorry for them borders on the ludicrous, if you want to create a wum to be chastised about, then at least do it with some sense of pride.

by Artful_Dodger Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:00 pm

Portnoy wrote:So far as I can see the only one who has come out of this shambles with any plus side on his/their integrity integrity account is Hartley. He admitted a bite.

The citing committee comes out of it, like Ferris with a big, fat ?

Portnoy, I always knew your mask with regard to Ireland and Irish rugby would slip one of these days- your comments in this post regrading Ferris, Hartley and bizarrely trying to bring up Sinn Fein has done it.

by Croyman Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:03 pm

I think the reality of it is that technically the Hartley punishment was correct - Roger Wilson for example in an A match some years ago was pinned down by the NZ Maoris and the only thing he could move was his head and duly got red carded & banned for head butting but with mitigation due to record and circumstances.

I get the impression that the outcome was similar in this case in that the ban was lessened due to circumstances and behaviour - albeit still an amazing amount of time for something that was hardly career or life threatening.

The problem is not as to whether Ferris is correct or not more that the reality is that his reputation will have been damaged by it - and for someone like Ferris who walks on ice in terms of the damage people can do to him (like the Aironi prop past year) I personally think he would be better keeping quiet.

Whether you like it or not both players reputations will have been damaged -

by dragonbreath Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:08 pm

biltongbek wrote:
dragonbreath wrote:CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

That is just a nonsensical statement based on ignorance.

Many teams use judo techniques not only Ireland, and to top it of with a no proper 7 and hence referees feel sorry for them borders on the ludicrous, if you want to create a wum to be chastised about, then at least do it with some sense of pride.

Can I be a moderator please? You seem to have great fun being offensive with impunity and I would too.

You need to get over yourself. Seriously warning

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:09 pm

Artful_Dodger wrote:
Portnoy wrote:So far as I can see the only one who has come out of this shambles with any plus side on his/their integrity integrity account is Hartley. He admitted a bite.

The citing committee comes out of it, like Ferris with a big, fat ?

Does that mean I'll have to retract all those glowing testaments I've made supporting Irish rugby?

Portnoy, I always knew your mask with regard to Ireland and Irish rugby would slip one of these days- your comments in this post regrading Ferris, Hartley and bizarrely trying to bring up Sinn Fein has done it.

I try to be fair. Not popular I know.

And take the Sinn Fein comment in context. It was a sort of parable.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:13 pm

biltongbek wrote:
dragonbreath wrote:CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

That is just a nonsensical statement based on ignorance.

Many teams use judo techniques not only Ireland, and to top it of with a no proper 7 and hence referees feel sorry for them borders on the ludicrous, if you want to create a wum to be chastised about, then at least do it with some sense of pride.

Thats right lets not forget the South Africans are much worse thugs eh Biltong Whistle

There was a lot of head pulling at rucks going on in that game, and sometimes on players who were trapped and couldnt be rolled or pulled. I saw an England player do it too.
Its pretty clear players have got smart to an illegal activity that goes unpunished, and until someones penalised and/or cited for it they will keep doing it.
The panel rightly pointing out that such things can happen purely through clumsy play or lack of options, but it isnt unfair to say the Irish ( and quite possibly other teams have been using this as a deliberate tactic. Was it in this case? Hard to say.
Guess all this cant be as dangerous as it looks though, I cant remember anyone getting significantly hurt by it even though its fair common practise.
Apparently the WRU also complained about a lot of their tackles sliding high and going to the neck as the result of a specifically trained technique.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:14 pm

dragonbreath wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
dragonbreath wrote:CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

That is just a nonsensical statement based on ignorance.

Many teams use judo techniques not only Ireland, and to top it of with a no proper 7 and hence referees feel sorry for them borders on the ludicrous, if you want to create a wum to be chastised about, then at least do it with some sense of pride.

Can I be a moderator please? You seem to have great fun being offensive with impunity and I would too.

You need to get over yourself. Seriously

You get ridiculed for a pathetic WUM attempt, and then whinge about it. Nice work!

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:15 pm

dragonbreath wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
dragonbreath wrote:CHEQUERED

"(and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile)"

All the Irush target the head and neck it is an acknowledged tactic both at the breakdown and in the tackle to prevent the ruck being formed. I don't know why they are allowed to get away with it but they do. Maybe refs feel sorry for them because they don't have a proper 7 to win the ball legally. Well as legally as any 7 wins the ball

That is just a nonsensical statement based on ignorance.

Many teams use judo techniques not only Ireland, and to top it of with a no proper 7 and hence referees feel sorry for them borders on the ludicrous, if you want to create a wum to be chastised about, then at least do it with some sense of pride.

Can I be a moderator please? You seem to have great fun being offensive with impunity and I would too.

You need to get over yourself. Seriously

Dragonbreath, you need to put a sock in it mate, your continuous attempts at winding pepole up is getting tiresome.

by ChequeredJersey Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:17 pm

I'm not trying to point fingers at the Irish or Ferris, I mentioned him because it was him I noticed doing it (specifically the Italy game). I just think that it is an issue that is just as dangerous as "tip tackles" when poorly executed and needs addressing

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:18 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Thats right lets not forget the South Africans are much worse thugs eh Biltong

There was a lot of head pulling at rucks going on in that game, and sometimes on players who were trapped and couldnt be rolled or pulled. I saw an England player do it too.
Its pretty clear players have got smart to an illegal activity that goes unpunished, and until someones penalised and/or cited for it they will keep doing it.
The panel rightly pointing out that such things can happen purely through clumsy play or lack of options, but it isnt unfair to say the Irish ( and quite possibly other teams have been using this as a deliberate tactic. Was it in this case? Hard to say.
Guess all this cant be as dangerous as it looks though, I cant remember anyone getting significantly hurt by it even though its fair common practise.
Apparently the WRU also complained about a lot of their tackles sliding high and going to the neck as the result of a specifically trained technique.

PSW, we are the self confessed thugs though aren't we? Very Happy

As I said most teams use the judo techniques it becomes dangerous though when the technique is not executed correctly though and that will be something the refereeing panel will surely look at in the near future.

by wickedwasp Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:21 pm

I suspect if there's one positive to come out of this entire unsavoury episode, it's that refs will start focussing more on the issue.

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:22 pm

Is that it? The Feris/Hartley integrity issue diverted to a random wumfest based on South Africa?

Get a grip guys.

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:24 pm

Portnoy wrote:Is that it? The Feris/Hartley integrity issue diverted to a random wumfest based on South Africa?

Get a grip guys.

WellPortnoy to be fair thuggery on the rugby field originated in SA. Whistle

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:28 pm

but it's not relevant here Biltong.

As a school prefect, you shouldn't join in the playground scuffles.

Step in. separate the feuders and step away.

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:30 pm

But Sir, the school prefect may also play. That is how he sees how everyone behaves. Rolling Eyes

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:44 pm

biltongbek wrote:But Sir, the school prefect may also play. That is how he sees how everyone behaves.

Not in every game they shouldn't.

Sometimes they have to be a linesman. Wink

by **Biltong** Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:45 pm

Portnoy wrote:
biltongbek wrote:But Sir, the school prefect may also play. That is how he sees how everyone behaves.

Not in every game they shouldn't.

Sometimes they have to be a linesman.

Yes sir.

by gregortree Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:53 pm

The silly season. No real i news after the 6n and before the 'summer' tours to winterland. So posters just have to resort to posting silly poopie, err like this. Erm

by GunsGerms Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:47 pm

One player bites another on the hand gets a ban and all the chat is about the integrity of the victim even though the accused admitted his actions. I don't see the need for discussion really. Questioning the integrity of the victim is the oldest trick in the book. Wish Hartley and his fans just accepted the ban and moved on. What's the big deal anyway it's not a huge ban and probably rightly so.

To this day I have bite marks on my left hand from when I played a training match in school. It will make for a great story to my son some day.

by Guest Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:50 pm

leinsterbaby - most on this thread agree with the ban on Hartley, and indeed agree it should have been longer. What is being questioned is why Ferris felt the need to exaggerate the facts is all

by GunsGerms Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:56 pm

Maybe he was angry. Most people when angry exaggerate their story to justify their response, in Ferris' case alerting the ref.

Playground rules dictate he should have ignored it and just got on with the game. Is this what is really bothering people? It grates on me a little maybe but comments ob Ferris' integrity seem like an attempt to discredit the victim to boost the integrity of the accused in a sense making him look like the victim. Oldest trick in the book. Not really fooling anyone though.

by doctor_grey Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:59 pm

biltongbek wrote:
Portnoy wrote:Is that it? The Feris/Hartley integrity issue diverted to a random wumfest based on South Africa?
Get a grip guys.
WellPortnoy to be fair thuggery on the rugby field originated in SA.

Well....I actually thought thuggery in Rugby actually started when a young man who would some day grow up become a doctor and join Her Majesty's armed forces was playing on a pitch down in Devon. On that day, a player on the young man's team was stamped on the head breaking the cheekbone and drawing a lot of blood. This fine young man (handsome dude, as well, I must say), went into the next ruck and puched the offender's genitals up to somewhere behind the kindeys. Walking off with a sense of a job well done, the young man sudeenly realised he was just as bad as the offender. Lesson learned. Never forgotten.
There are other ways to never take that singular step backwards on the pitch.

by Comfort Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:06 pm

I have nothing constructive to add other than this whole thread has been ridiculous enough for me to comment on.

People seem to fall into 1 of the following categories:

1. Ferris is a liar and basically the irish equivalent of voldemort. Hewas trying to finger little Hartleys gums, Hartley had no choice other than to push Ferris fingers out with his teeth as he was stuck at the bottom of the ruck with his arms trapped.

2. Hartleys a cowardly thug who is capable of 'godzilla in tokyo' type destruction with his fire-breathing breathe. He actively sought out innocent Ferris' pinky in a ruck with his sharpened wolf-gnashers and tried to chow down.

3. The truth is, its impossible to deliver a verdict on the intent of either Ferris/Hartley and what most people are saying is pure fantasy. The facts that are supported by evidence seem to show that there was a messy ruck, things went places and got trapped as they do, Ferris hands ended up in and around Hartleys mouth, who tried to defend his face whilst armless. Hence the minimum entry being reduced, biting is a horrible, anyone who's been bitten properly will attest to that, but the circumstances around this dont exactly lead us to Hartley hunting around like a bloodhound for a tasty morsel, still, he had to cop a ban.

by GunsGerms Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:18 pm

Pretty reasonable summary to be fair. I actually thought the ban was harsh enough but a ban was deserved. The whole debate is a mountain out of a mole hill. The real issue is England hammered Ireland and how this freak occurrence can be rectified/avoided in Dublin next year.

by faraway Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:27 pm

The weird thing is there are some people who believe that Hartley is a "scum" and a "thug" for biting Ferris and biting is just as bad as gouging and is never justifiable BUT at the same time believe Wannenburg had the right to bite Hartley because Hartley is a "scum" and "thug". Headscratch

by Comfort Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:33 pm

Im not even gonna go into the use of double standards on this board, best just to accept that sometimes, no matter what you say to people, they just wont see the light! idea

by GunsGerms Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:35 pm

faraway wrote:The weird thing is there are some people who believe that Hartley is a "scum" and a "thug" for biting Ferris and biting is just as bad as gouging and is never justifiable BUT at the same time believe Wannenburg had the right to bite Hartley because Hartley is a "scum" and "thug".

The problem is that Hartley has a lot of history. I myself presumed him guilty based on the sort of player he appears to be and the amount of incidents he has been involved in. With the Wannaberg incident it was on camera in front of the linesman clear as day what Hartley was doing was dirty in the first place which is why not many people feel sorry for him. I probably would had a nibble at him too. Not saying it's right but nobodies right all the time.

by red_stag Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:39 pm

faraway wrote:The weird thing is there are some people who believe that Hartley is a "scum" and a "thug" for biting Ferris and biting is just as bad as gouging and is never justifiable BUT at the same time believe Wannenburg had the right to bite Hartley because Hartley is a "scum" and "thug".

Not at all. I think biting is completely horrible thing to do. Nobody has a right to bite another player.

I simply feel the 3 worst things you can do on a rugby field are Eye Gouging, Biting the Opposition and Twisting Somebody's Gentlemens Area.

Hartley has done two of those three. I've seen guys react by lashing out with a bit of fisticuffs and kicking people. That happens we've all been there. But biting, gouging and ballgrabbing are basically the black list.

by Comfort Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:51 pm

The problem with being so high n mighty about this situation is that all it would take is another dodgey camera angle and Hartley to come out and claim "Gouge! Gouge!" and it could be Ferris banned for having his hands in Hartleys face.

Hypothetical situation of course and Im not saying this is what he was doing, but it doesnt matter in these witch-hunts anymore, all it takes is a grainy bit of footage and players seem more than happy to write pride and prejudice about their 'ordeals'.

by Portnoy Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:52 pm

red_stag wrote:
faraway wrote:The weird thing is there are some people who believe that Hartley is a "scum" and a "thug" for biting Ferris and biting is just as bad as gouging and is never justifiable BUT at the same time believe Wannenburg had the right to bite Hartley because Hartley is a "scum" and "thug".

Not at all. I think biting is completely horrible thing to do. Nobody has a right to bite another player.

I simply feel the 3 worst things you can do on a rugby field are Eye Gouging, Biting the Opposition and Twisting Somebody's Gentlemens Area.

Hartley has done two of those three. I've seen guys react by lashing out with a bit of fisticuffs and kicking people. That happens we've all been there. But biting, gouging and ballgrabbing are basically the black list.

Is it appropriate for an aspiring referee to describe an individual player as 'scum'?

by red_stag Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:57 pm

Portnoy,

What does it matter if I referee or not? Im a rugby fan first and foremost and I have a set of values I consider right and wrong.

Gouging, Biting and Balltwisting are the worst of the worst in my opinion.

Hartley has been found guilty of two of them by the age of 26.

Banned for 2 months for biting an opponent.
Banned for 6 months for gouging another players eyes.

No place in the game for these type of characters. Be a hard man by all means but not this type of thing.

by greenandpleasantland Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:58 pm

Does being a "hard man" include assaulting two men in a pub and then being bound over or is that acceptable behaviour?

by red_stag Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:02 pm

greenandpleasantland wrote:Does being a "hard man" include assaulting two men in a pub and then being bound over or is that acceptable behaviour?

No of course not.

by **Notch** Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:05 pm

rugbydreamer wrote:It wasn't a routine ruck clear out rodders, if it was, Ferris wouldn't have had to justify that he wasn't trying to "twist someone's head off".

I think Billy has summed it up nicely

Whilst I think this is wrong, it is fairly routine at the same time. I see it happen a lot of times in games between players of various teams and nations. Ferris doesn't have to justify anything because he didn't break any laws. Now if you want to talk about what the laws should be when it comes to clearing out thats fine, but as it stands why does he have to justify anything?

by greenandpleasantland Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:08 pm

That's the point. Ferris is one of my favourite players as i happen to think he is brilliant at what he does. He has done something i despise, yet i do not label him scum and nor would i. I am very careful about making moral judgements on players as i am sure if we were to apply such standards uniformly there would be a great many players labelled "scum".

by **Notch** Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:12 pm

faraway wrote:The weird thing is there are some people who believe that Hartley is a "scum" and a "thug" for biting Ferris and biting is just as bad as gouging and is never justifiable BUT at the same time believe Wannenburg had the right to bite Hartley because Hartley is a "scum" and "thug".

Nah, don't be silly. Wannenburg didn't really do anything with his little nibble- not hard enough to leave any marks or cause any pain. I still wouldn't back Wannenburg for it, but he wasn't the instigator. Hartley wasn't the instigator here either but he did cause some damage with his biting. I'm not really so disgusted by Hartley as some. What he did was very wrong, but if ye don't want bit keep your hands of a guys face. Pretty simple. And I'm not endorsing it- the ban is 100% correct, but something like this was bound to occur if players are continuously allowed to clear players out by the head.

And I wouldn't say what happens on the field reflects on either players character off it. I might throw around words like 'thug' for an incident like the Calum Clark one where there was no provocation and a clear desire to injure a fellow pro. But not this one. And yes- some people really do need to chill out. There are no heroes or villains here. Just two would be hard men who let the situation boil over on a rugby pitch, and now it's dealt with.

by red_stag Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:13 pm

Thats fair enough Green. I know the internet - there will always be a record of me saying that I am happy to stand by it.

Once I can understand, twice . . . . .sorry you dont get another chance in my books pal.

Im sorry if I've offended anyone here but Im not sorry for saying what I did. Sadly he has fallen way down in my estimations and at such a young age to be found guilty of biting the opposition and eye gouging is apalling.

I cant pretend Im ok with that.

by Sponsored content