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?

Notch wrote:

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?

I don't know why he felt the need to justify how he attempted to clear out Hartley from a ruck Notch. I was just commenting on what he said, and if it had been a routine clear out, he wouldn't have had to add the bit I put in" ".

There's no need to apologise for your views here Red. I may not agree with them but you have made a considered and cogent argument stating your beliefs and i absolutely back your right to make it.
I questioned how you arrived at your opinion and you clearly stated it without rancour or opprobrium or resorting to childishness and i applaud you for your coolness.
You're ok in my book.

Thank pal.

<awkwardmanhug>

Cheers Red...manly handshake...harumph...

reffs need to be completly unbiased on the field- they should never bring with them there own views on players- thats obvious though. Yeah gauging sounds disgusting- i think biting a finger because you could be in a very unconfortable position and a hand showed in your face is much less a problem- maybe just reactionary and didnt cause damage. gauging on the other hand is premeditated and horrid!!

Mysterioakey,

I dont expect to ever be asked to referee a match involving Dylan Hartley. I'm not that worried.

I'd be more worried if Nigel Owens or Craig Joubert were to come out and express their views on Hartley.

especially in Nigels case.....

How funny would it was discovered that Nigel made a list of the best and worst looking players before each match.

Thats a story that would sell newspapers.

I'd only be worried if Hartley appeared on anyones Best looking list as it would imply they have greater problems that impartiality!

haha i like it! or, if after the game, in the newspapers we could have Nigel's very own player rating with a brief description of the performances from his p.o.v.....

3. Adam Jones 8/10 - His hair was going absolutely everywhere, and my gosh he can be lazy sometimes, always waddling back onside in front of the attacking team. But, I just cant bring myself to penalise him, hes just too cuddly!!!!

red_stag wrote:Mysterioakey,

I dont expect to ever be asked to referee a match involving Dylan Hartley. I'm not that worried.

I'd be more worried if Nigel Owens or Craig Joubert were to come out and express their views on Hartley.

Well that's a private conversation I'd like to be a fly on the wall to hear that.

Comfort wrote:haha i like it! or, if after the game, in the newspapers we could have Nigel's very own player rating with a brief description of the performances from his p.o.v.....

3. Adam Jones 8/10 - His hair was going absolutely everywhere, and my gosh he can be lazy sometimes, always waddling back onside in front of the attacking team. But, I just cant bring myself to penalise him, hes just too cuddly!!!!

Superb, Comfort

I meant to reply to this earlier but I update to Lion on Mac yesterday and it really buggers up my Safari browser. I got so peed off that I lost what I had written that I went back to work (as I should have done in the first place).

Just to reiterate my earlier points, I am not defending Ferris through this. As I said in the last line of my previous post the whole affair does nothing to the credit of either player.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:No they watched the video and looked at the sequence of events, there simply wasnt time.

I reread through the report and have not seen this train of though stated by the committee. If I have missed it then definitely quote from the report to set me straight, otherwise you are simply inferring what you believe they did. It appears they have absolutely no rationale for either accepting or denying what Ferris and Hartley said about how long the bite lasted for.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: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.

According to the committee there was an 'inconsistency' about the bite marks, with Dr Falvey stating there were three depressions with the skin not broken, while Ferris claimed four marks and broken skin. Now if this was the only evidence I would go for the doctor over a player on a weight of expertise. However, the committee noted that Ferris 'referred to the photographs to support' his accusations which included scabbing on the finger. Now, unless the pictures were doctored, or for example did not show the injury then why did the committee feel 'compelled to accept' the evidence of the Doctor? This is my question based purely on a evidential basis and nothing to do with Hartley or Ferris and I do not want you to misunderstand my intentions in asking it again. The committee gives absolutely no justification for this decision.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: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.

I have said nothing of the sort about Hartley. To me he's a thug who clearly has a short fuse that leads him to commit cowardly acts of violence on the pitch. But you get cited and the whole thing gets cleared up. You 'do your time' so to speak and move on. This is his first offence in quiet some time, and as others have stated, Ferris is not unblemished in his behaviour. I have not excused Ferris at any point, though it seems perfectly clear from the committee that he did absolutely nothing wrong, nor did Hartley accuse him in order to defend himself.
Ferris had no lawyers present as far as I am aware, though Hartley did and it appears they were the only ones 'distorting the truth' so to speak given that the committee did not wholly accept Hartley's testimony. This begs the question that if his testimony was not accepted by the committee then surely his 'integrity' should as equally be called into question as much as Ferris? Maybe one might more accurately say we are dealing with two players whose memories of the event are imperfect and it is an episode that does no one any favours. Nonetheless, I am simply asking a question about the committee as to how they came to their decision given a lack of clarity over some of their decisions. It seems to me that they had already decided this was a pretty insignificant affair (which I think it is too) and have simply picked and chose some of the evidence to give Hartley a suitable penalty. I think the ban he received is totally reasonable, perhaps even a little excessive, but some of the committee's arguments don't make sense.

As for Portnoy, how can Hartley escape with integrity for admitting he bit someone? Thats a seriously warped understanding of moral fibre you have. Admitting it just means we cannot add 'liar' to his roll of dishonour.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Whats the debacle there? That they accepted his story he was just trying to clear the player out?

The debacle revolves around the fact that a QC led a committee to believe that Clark had last been banned due to a headbutt occurring when he was 17, when he was actually 19, with the committee concluding that this was a major factor in having his ban halved. So either a major QC in the British judicial system cannot count, knowingly lied, or the citing committee are totally incompetent.

Well said Hookie

roddersm wrote:I would be inclined to believe Ferris anyway as the doctor only gave a brief examination.

Yeah fair one, I would take Ferris' diagnosis as gospel over a qualified doctors too.

rodds lol, was the doc colour blind as well- how long does it take to see if something is bleeding- Can i also point out that if it was brief , it tells us something.. It tells us that the bite was as minor as possibe.

So if Ferris did not tell the whole truth about how Hartley came to bite him, then surely Ferris should get a longer ban than what was given to HARTLEY?

Here are excerpts from the report, first the doctors assessment of the fingers and then from the potographs produced at the hearing.

Spoiler:

majesticimperialman wrote:So if Ferris did not tell the whole truth about how Hartley came to bite him, then surely Ferris should get a longer ban than what was given to HARTLEY?

Yeah absolutely MADGE

red_stag wrote:

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.

Youve obviously never seen ciprianis dancing

red_stag wrote:

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.

I personally think that repeatedly punching someone in the face is worse than a minor bite. I'd say picking someone up off the ball and dropping them on their head/neck is worse than a minor bite. I'd say stamping on someone's head is worse than a minor bite. I'll define a minor bite as one which does not break the skin and was a result someone firmly pulling on someone's mouth. In fact if you want to know what a minor bite is see how hard you have to bite to leave a mark on your finger (I have been trying to get my finger to spontaneously start bleeding a couple of hours afterwards but so far my skin seems to be holding up so no luck there).

BTW my wife is a biter but she's not a thug (even if she's Welsh).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

red_stag wrote:

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.

Youve obviously never seen ciprianis dancing

What do you think Diamond would do if he did it at Sale? Love to be a fly on the wall there.

I am amazed that there are so many, so called, rugby fans claiming that biting an opposition player is in any sense justifiable....?

You have a seriously warped sense of the game.

The real debate is in the adjudication at the hearing. Mitigation in Hartleys favour goes against one of rugbys most ancient refereeing principles, DO NOT RETALIATE.

The game has issues with poor discipline, the IRB need to deal with players who are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. Too many brainless thugs in the game.

maestegmafia wrote:

The game has issues with poor discipline, the IRB need to deal with players who are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. Too many brainless thugs in the game.

Quite right, stop Ferris from twisting trapped players heads

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

The game has issues with poor discipline, the IRB need to deal with players who are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. Too many brainless thugs in the game.

Quite right, stop Ferris from twisting trapped players heads

NO

If a player is twisting something he shouldn't don't react...!

How can you misunderstand that?

so you think its ok to do something wrong on the field as long as the opposition doesnt react!

really struggling with your odd logic.


what ferris did was wrong maest- if he didnt do what he did , no bite would have happened- yes your right about not retaliating- however the more important concern is the rugby playings that do wrong in the first place!- then you eliminate the source of the problem!

Maes and PSW this is an argument very difficult to win either way.

It is wrong to retaliate as Maes says, however and this is a big however, if the only way I can stop a guy from breaking my neck, is to bite the living daylights out of his finger, then I will do so in desperation.

Consider this, if you are at a bottom of a ruck, and there is no way of notifying anyone in time that your neck is about to break, I will not hesitate to use any method to stop that from happening.

Even if it risks being banned form the game forever.

What we do not know, is how severe or close it was for Hartley to have had his neck broken.

In my opinion there is always that circumstance where extreme measures are the only way to avoid severe injury.

And if I am judged in a circumstance like that, then so be it. I ain't gonna sit in a wheelchair becuase I am afraid I will be judged a thug.

That is why it is imperative that referees are educated to look at the technique and execution used to clear players from a ruck, they have a responsibility as representatives of the IRB for my safety, and sure as hell, the IRB will answer if they cannot prevent that type of injury due to illegal execution of a clear out.

A lot of people still making assumption and stating things which havent been proven, first of all Ferris was fish hooking now its twisting people's heads - some people really are making this stuff up as they go a long in a warped and vein attempt to justify Hartley's actions.

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

The game has issues with poor discipline, the IRB need to deal with players who are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. Too many brainless thugs in the game.

Quite right, stop Ferris from twisting trapped players heads

NO

If a player is twisting something he shouldn't don't react...!

How can you misunderstand that?

Yes but I can also understand what you wrote, the IRB needs tp deal with players who are are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. It isnt legal to grab someone by the neck to clear them out. Its even more unseemly when its done to trapped players to cause them discomfort as was routinely being done in this game. Weve seen the dangers of that kind of thing (" I was trying to clear hinm out") from Calum Clarke.
Now in the specific Hartley incident I would probably side with Ferris and accept that it was a genuine attempt to roll Hartley out, if somewhat clumsy in the way it was executed to end up with his arm round the neck and face (illegaly). That refs hardly ever punish this doesnt mean it should be allowed, because it goes unpunished Ferris and other like him routinely use it as a way of intimidating and winding up opposition players. The WRU are the ones that raised the issue of Irish players going in high.
Can youd see past your own "have to hate Hartley" bias and accept that your thinking has to apply to people other than him including those who seek to wind him up. Even before the bite incident came to light this issue had been raised regarding this game. There were several incidences of this in the game that didnt lead to reactions. Yes it doesnt excuse Hartley but in your own words players shouldnt be doing things that provoke such reactions either.

Artful_Dodger wrote:A lot of people still making assumption and stating things which havent been proven, first of all Ferris was fish hooking now its twisting people's heads - some people really are making this stuff up as they go a long in a warped and vein attempt to justify Hartley's actions.

so you think that hartley just bit him without provocation- even though it states there was provaction in the report- lol its you that is making stuff up dude!!

Artful_Dodger wrote:A lot of people still making assumption and stating things which havent been proven, first of all Ferris was fish hooking now its twisting people's heads - some people really are making this stuff up as they go a long in a warped and vein attempt to justify Hartley's actions.

Art, I am not justifying Hartley's actions, that's why I said we don't know the severity of the situation, I am also saying you shouldn't retaliate, BUT, if it is the only way I can prevent my neck from being broken I will do whatever is necessary to prevent that.

This is hilarious - from mild antagonization, to fish hooking to attempting to break a 17 and half stone rugby players neck.... all this from a guy with no record of foul play.

OR MAYBE

Hartley is just a dirty thug who gouges people eyes, drops elbows and bites people?

Some people on this thread are starting to believe their own....

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

The game has issues with poor discipline, the IRB need to deal with players who are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. Too many brainless thugs in the game.

Quite right, stop Ferris from twisting trapped players heads

NO

If a player is twisting something he shouldn't don't react...!

How can you misunderstand that?

Yes but I can also understand what you wrote, the IRB needs tp deal with players who are are more obsessed with antagonising the opposition than playing rugby. It isnt legal to grab someone by the neck to clear them out. Its even more unseemly when its done to trapped players to cause them discomfort as was routinely being done in this game. Weve seen the dangers of that kind of thing (" I was trying to clear hinm out") from Calum Clarke.
Now in the specific Hartley incident I would probably side with Ferris and accept that it was a genuine attempt to roll Hartley out, if somewhat clumsy in the way it was executed to end up with his arm round the neck and face (illegaly). That refs hardly ever punish this doesnt mean it should be allowed, because it goes unpunished Ferris and other like him routinely use it as a way of intimidating and winding up opposition players. The WRU are the ones that raised the issue of Irish players going in high.
Can youd see past your own "have to hate Hartley" bias and accept that your thinking has to apply to people other than him including those who seek to wind him up. Even before the bite incident came to light this issue had been raised regarding this game. There were several incidences of this in the game that didnt lead to reactions. Yes it doesnt excuse Hartley but in your own words players shouldnt be doing things that provoke such reactions either.

You do not need to type lines like the one I highlighted. It seriously derides from any point you may be attempting to explain.

I still completely dissagree with you.

Retaliation only encourages more violence and a ridiculous chain of accusations.

Point is that if you don't retaliate there is far more chance of the instigator being identified.

maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him.

Problem is we dont know if the above is true- however we dont know its false either-- so bear that in mind!!

It seems as though you dont fully understand this situation at hand. he could well have felt half paralyised at the time, not a nice feeling!

This is not about someone getting into a spat and then smacking the person after a dodgy tackle- we are talking about a split second thing- not a premeditated one!

[quote="Comfort"]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.
quote]

Im going to start a game, Im going to label people either number 1 or number 2. I will eventually publish these lists as 'memoirs of a integrity biter' online.

Comfort wrote:

Comfort wrote: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.

Im going to start a game, Im going to label people either number 1 or number 2. I will eventually publish these lists as 'memoirs of a integrity biter' online.

I fear most of your type 3s got bored and walked away from the debate a day or 2 back - I know I'm only still reading it in case I need to moderate something. All that's left seems to be those who can't differentiate the shades of grey in between the black and the white.

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.

biltongbek wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:A lot of people still making assumption and stating things which havent been proven, first of all Ferris was fish hooking now its twisting people's heads - some people really are making this stuff up as they go a long in a warped and vein attempt to justify Hartley's actions.

Art, I am not justifying Hartley's actions, that's why I said we don't know the severity of the situation, I am also saying you shouldn't retaliate, BUT, if it is the only way I can prevent my neck from being broken I will do whatever is necessary to prevent that.

Agreed but it should be emphasised that Hartley was not deemed to be in such a predicament by the citing panel, who felt that he was in a standard ruck position where that rugby players should be prepared for. They stated quite clearly that they did not accept Hartleys claim that he was in pain and had no choice but to defend himself by biting.

Its all in the report.

This nonsence about neck twisting and fish hooking exists only in some peoples overactive imagination. Ferris was not cited for foul play and the citing panel have not found anything wrong or unusual about the ruck position Hartley found himself in.

Hartley is a nasty piece of work who by his own admission needs the help of a sports psychologist to curb the urge to gouge opponents. It beggars belief how its Ferris, the victim here, integrity is the one being questioned.

Agreed but it should be emphasised that Hartley was not deemed to be in such a predicament by the citing panel

Hence I am not defending him.

I don't understand how the thread got this long when the thread title and subject is about Ferris's integrity, not about Hartley and whether the ban was right length/justified or not.

Hartley has lost game-time. But Ferris has lost his integrity, he evidence was disputed by the Irish Doctor and the over arching question of why his finger found its way into Hartley's mouth has been glossed over. Just as well Hartley didn't complain else Ferris would've been cited too.

The main direction the discussion has gone is about clearing using the head or neck (in another thread).

mystiroakey wrote:maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him.

Problem is we dont know if the above is true- however we dont know its false either-- so bear that in mind!!

It seems as though you dont fully understand this situation at hand. he could well have felt half paralyised at the time, not a nice feeling!

This is not about someone getting into a spat and then smacking the person after a dodgy tackle- we are talking about a split second thing- not a premeditated one!

Presuming Ferris was doing something he shouldnt the first thing anyone would normally do is shout to the ref "sir, this bloke is trying to break my neck" there is no need what so ever to bite a player.

The refs report said that he heard swearing coming from the two players involved. So there is no way that the ref would not have heard Hartley tell the ref what was happening.

You can not condone Hartleys actions.

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him.

Problem is we dont know if the above is true- however we dont know its false either-- so bear that in mind!!

It seems as though you dont fully understand this situation at hand. he could well have felt half paralyised at the time, not a nice feeling!

This is not about someone getting into a spat and then smacking the person after a dodgy tackle- we are talking about a split second thing- not a premeditated one!

Presuming Ferris was doing something he shouldnt the first thing anyone would normally do is shout to the ref "sir, this bloke is trying to break my neck" there is no need what so ever to bite a player.

The refs report said that he heard swearing coming from the two players involved. So there is no way that the ref would not have heard Hartley tell the ref what was happening.

You can not condone Hartleys actions.

meast i havent- however its not a black and white scenario. and its not for me to judge- he has been judged and tried. lets leave it at that shall we, his ban was reduced because he was proven to have been provoked, you need to be able to seperate certain situations- this is not like a premiditated action!

mystiroakey wrote:
meast i havent- however its not a black and white scenario. and its not for me to judge- he has been judged and tried. lets leave it at that shall we, his ban was reduced because he was proven to have been provoked, you need to be able to seperate certain situations- this is not like a premiditated action!

His ban was reduced because his pervious ban was over 5 years ago and because of the character references he recieved from Roundtree and Mallendar, Not because he was deemed to have been diliberately provoked.

mystiroakey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him.

Problem is we dont know if the above is true- however we dont know its false either-- so bear that in mind!!

It seems as though you dont fully understand this situation at hand. he could well have felt half paralyised at the time, not a nice feeling!

This is not about someone getting into a spat and then smacking the person after a dodgy tackle- we are talking about a split second thing- not a premeditated one!

Presuming Ferris was doing something he shouldnt the first thing anyone would normally do is shout to the ref "sir, this bloke is trying to break my neck" there is no need what so ever to bite a player.

The refs report said that he heard swearing coming from the two players involved. So there is no way that the ref would not have heard Hartley tell the ref what was happening.

You can not condone Hartleys actions.

meast i havent- however its not a black and white scenario. and its not for me to judge- he has been judged and tried. lets leave it at that shall we, his ban was reduced because he was proven to have been provoked, you need to be able to seperate certain situations- this is not like a premiditated action!

You are making this up as you go along - his ban was not reduced because he was found to have been provoked, but almost certainly because of Rowntree's testimony - the way you have gone through this post accusing Ferris of thing like trying to break someone's neck with absolutely no basis for it is unscrupulous , you are slandering a players name purely to protect a player with a serious history of foul play - unbelievable.

Artful_Dodger wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him.

Problem is we dont know if the above is true- however we dont know its false either-- so bear that in mind!!

It seems as though you dont fully understand this situation at hand. he could well have felt half paralyised at the time, not a nice feeling!

This is not about someone getting into a spat and then smacking the person after a dodgy tackle- we are talking about a split second thing- not a premeditated one!

Presuming Ferris was doing something he shouldnt the first thing anyone would normally do is shout to the ref "sir, this bloke is trying to break my neck" there is no need what so ever to bite a player.

The refs report said that he heard swearing coming from the two players involved. So there is no way that the ref would not have heard Hartley tell the ref what was happening.

You can not condone Hartleys actions.

meast i havent- however its not a black and white scenario. and its not for me to judge- he has been judged and tried. lets leave it at that shall we, his ban was reduced because he was proven to have been provoked, you need to be able to seperate certain situations- this is not like a premiditated action!

You are making this up as you go along - his ban was not reduced because he was found to have been provoked, but almost certainly because of Rowntree's testimony - the way you have gone through this post accusing Ferris of thing like trying to break someone's neck with absolutely no basis for it is unscrupulous , you are slandering a players name purely to protect a player with a serious history of foul play - unbelievable.

quite shocked by this lol- i am not slandering anyone. you are doing the slandering pal. read the report!!!!

when the heck have i siad he tried to break his neck- seriously stop lieing- i am about the only one with a balanced opinion on this thread!

roddersm wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:
meast i havent- however its not a black and white scenario. and its not for me to judge- he has been judged and tried. lets leave it at that shall we, his ban was reduced because he was proven to have been provoked, you need to be able to seperate certain situations- this is not like a premiditated action!

His ban was reduced because his pervious ban was over 5 years ago and because of the character references he recieved from Roundtree and Mallendar, Not because he was deemed to have been diliberately provoked.

I don't think that coaches who have vested interests in a players availability are valid character references. Players would be far better.

Mallinders inclusion was amusing, I wonder whether he said the same at the tribunals for Clarke or Ashton, or the other various Times Hartley has appeared before the board?

Copy and paste were in the report it says the mitigating circumstances were that Hartley was provoked- you are making it up my friend.

Yes you are slandering Ferris by incinuating that he has done things like fish hooking or twisting someone's head to try and break their neck when there is absolutely no basis for that what so ever. I'm all for defending a player at my club but not to the point were I will start coming up with accusation about the player they attacked.

I'll say one good thing for this debate in that nobody has resorted to the kind of truly vitriolic mud-slinging as was demonstrated after the O's game with the Tigers. No squealer Wheeler comments of real bile.

"Yes you are slandering Ferris by incinuating that he has done things
like fish hooking or twisting someone's head to try and break their neck
when there is absolutely no basis for that what so eve"

nope that is slander from my pov- copy and paste when i have done the above. This is not a black and white situation. now just stoping making stuff up on forums because your debating skills are inadequate

The irony - the guy making stuff up tells me to stop making stuff up....

Here is one occassion of many in this post where you have incinuated Ferris was committing foul play

"maest you dont know the situation- he may have been in so much pain that he didnt know what else to do. If he felt completly helpless and the only way to get him off was to bite- then i dont blame him."

As I said unscrupulous.