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?

Here's what gets me:
Someone potentially sticks a finger in Hartley's mouth during a face rub.
What does said finger do whilst in said mouth?
Sit there idly doing nothing?
Or maybe it moves around a bit, checking out the new surroundings?
And if moving, perhaps a little love-bite or reflex to persuade said finger to leave?

OK, that was a little tongue-in-cheek. But it still seems to me after reading the report to be a bit dodgy. We saw nothing on the video. Nigel Owens looked at the finger for one second, and the doctor saw tooth marks which may have come from a bite or may have come from a finger-in-the-mouth reflex.

To be clear, I am not saying there was a bite or not. I simply think in this case the evidence appears thin. Shame.

I want all this crap out of Rugby. Whether Hartley did something or not, or whether Ferris went mouth probing or face twisting, or not, this all sends a bad message to the kids. Crikey, does anyone need to remind these guys they are professionals? And that applies to the citing and adjudicating process as well.

HammerofThunor wrote:Well Ferris said that scabs were produced but the doctor said the skin was unbroken. You can be mistaken by the number of indentations, or where your arm/hand was. But that was a pure exaggeration. Just like Hartley's cowpat about Ferris' little finger causing him pain by tugging on it.

Ferris said that 'small scabby cuts' appeared after the event, this is neither confirmed or denied by the doctor, but it says he used photographs to support this - surely these must be apparent why would you use photographic evidence if it didn't show said scabby cuts' perhaps the doctor may have missed these at the time - small scrapes on the skin can cause scabbing whilst not being visible at the time of the incident.

the doctor said there were three teeth marks on ferris' finger, where as ferris said there were three one side of his finger and one on the other side - this perhaps being the indentation from the gum shield but would not officially be a tooth mark.

Finally there is no video or photographic evidence of Ferris grabbing Hartley by the face or inserting his finger in and pulling Hartleys mouth, these claims were just considered possible but there is no proof one way or the other.

ulster_on_the_up wrote:Ferris said that 'small scabby cuts' appeared after the event, this is neither confirmed or denied by the doctor, but it says he used photographs to support this - surely these must be apparent why would you use photographic evidence if it didn't show said scabby cuts' perhaps the doctor may have missed these at the time - small scrapes on the skin can cause scabbing whilst not being visible at the time of the incident.

Surely if Ferris used photographic evidence then the committee wouldn't have disagreed with him? That's the first mention I've noticed of photographic evidence so if I've missed something then am happy to be proved wrong.

ulster_on_the_up wrote:Finally there is no video or photographic evidence of Ferris grabbing Hartley by the face or inserting his finger in and pulling Hartleys mouth, these claims were just considered possible but there is no proof one way or the other.

They weren't just considered possible. They were considered "probable TO THE REQUISITE STANDARD OF PROOF".

thomh,

'Ferris said there were four teeth marks and broken skin and he referred to the photographs to support that'

I understand that they found it probable to the requisite standard of proof, but this wording and the lack of video/ photographic means it is POSSIBLE he didn't.

My argument is not necessarily against the findings of the report, just against posters who are referring to these conclusions as absolutes and therefore as indisputable PROOF that Ferris is a liar with no integrity

ulster_on_the_up wrote:
I understand that they found it probable to the requisite standard of proof, but this wording and the lack of video/ photographic means it is POSSIBLE he didn't.

OK I understand that, but you originally said that it was only 'possible' that he had done it which is a different thing. It is possible that many things we think are obvious may not actually be true, but that doesn't mean it's a 50/50 probability.

I don't want to condemn Ferris as a liar, as even the committee accepted that he wouldn't have intended to put his finger in Hartley's mouth. I just want to put what Hartley did in context. Biting is a very different thing to gouging, despite what some people have implied, and, as the committee said, can be done in self-defence.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I'm surprised that Health & Safety don't demand that Hartley wears a muzzle. Ferris should also be wearing a big girl's blouse.

Not been following this at all- can someone explain to me (sensibly, level-headedly) in what way Ferris is allegedly lied/exaggerated/misrepresented the incident in his testimony.

Can someone please post a link to the evidence that Ferris lied to the citing committee and the evidence that Hartley was acting in self defence?

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf

The committee's deliberations start on page 10, evidence is before that

Dear Mr Ferris,

Please stop being so rough while playing rugger. While you are not breaking any laws of the game, some of the chaps don't like your abrasive style, please stop being so big and strong. You have forced some of the other boys to start gouging, biting and punching you, you brute! When this happens please accept this thuggery quietly, don't mention it to the ref, or answer any questions about when asked by a citing officer, there's a good chap, otherwise it kind of spoils the thugs chances of doing it again to some other stronger boy.

Thanks awfully,

The above

Thats pretty much it?

Well, Ferris is to an extent getting his comeuppance for his methods in clearing out the ruck. They aren't illegal but should be. The rest of this thread is pretty much a storm in a very, very small teacup.

I'm not too bothered about this incident either way to be honest. I find it hard to get worked up about. Ferris did a stupid thing, and Hartley did a stupider thing as retaliation. One is within the laws of the game (but probably shouldn't be) and one isn't. The biting has been handled correctly but I'm not going to judge Hartley for it because it's a pretty natural thing to do is you get a hand in the face and your arms aren't free. Thats evolution really.

I do find the situation amusing given what happened last year in the quarter-final against Ulster. i.e. Hartley tried to remove Wannenburg from a maul by the head, Pedrie appeared to briefly bite down on his arm (albeit with considerably less force and duration than it seems Hartley applied) and Hartley immediately went to the ref pointing at some imaginary bite marks

I think the moral of the story is keep your hands away from players mouths if you don't want to get bitten.

Thanks Kiwi. There is nothing in that document which justifies some of the nonsence spouted above.

Do we conclude that Harley is a liar because the panel concluded that a finger entering the mouth from that situation would not cause the discomfort claimed by the player and that they did not accept that Hartley had no option but to bite to defend himself as he claimed?... That being in the bottom of a ruck in such uncomfortable positions is something players should be expect and be used too?

Agree with Notch the whole thing is a load of nonsence but players can't go biting other players every time they end up in an uncomfortable position in a ruck.

If Hartley doesn't have the stomach for rucks he should go and play rugby league.

Anyone know where the rugby forum is?

All I seem to have found is discussions on whether someone is a nice chap or not and circular arguments regarding nuances in law 10, part (a) sub paragraph 4f.

Oh, and something about a guy chucking ice cubes.

just to clear a few matters.

The Judo grip Ferris used on Hartley during the match to "clear" him isn't unique to Irish rugby, it has been used for some time by many rugby players, do yourselves a favour and focus more on the rucks. you will see it happens on a regular basis.

The fact is Hartley retaliated, whether you deem him to have been provoked or not. Biting is wrong, as is gouging, tip tackles, and many other actions and all are bannable offences.

Whether Ferris put his hand or fingers in the mouth of Hartley deliberatley is difficult to assume or prove. The fact is logic tells me if you want to "hook" someones head around it is of little use to only get one finger and at that your little finger in a person's mouth.

The reasonable explanation is it was accidental for that reason and also the fact that Hartley being at the bottom of a ruck and ferris couldn't see Hartley's face and as Hartley himself attested he held onto the hand to identify who it was.

So all these accusations of whether Hartley is this or that and Ferris is this or that is simply going around in circles.

These are the facts.

The judiciary committee ruled Hartley to be guilty an bannd him for 8 weeks.
Ferris has not been punished as between the statements made by both players involved there was no reason seen by the committee to punish ferris.

If you beleive Ferris to be a tattle tale then so be it, but the fact is he was in his rights to show the referee he has been bitten.

Well said Biltong

Notch wrote:Ferris did a stupid thing, and Hartley did a stupider thing as retaliation.

Best description of the whole incident I've seen.

Gibson wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I'm surprised that Health & Safety don't demand that Hartley wears a muzzle. Ferris should also be wearing a big girl's blouse.

+1

what a muppet ferris is though- I am not talking about during the event here- because i dont know what really truely happened- but he is exagerating what really happened to the commitee- that is seriously sad- so although people are within there rights to say that the outcome was fairr- the fact is no one is really bothered about the incident and how it was dealt with. We are bothered about the BS ferris spouted even faced with contradictary evidence!!

mystiroakey wrote:what a muppet ferris is though- I am not talking about during the event here- because i dont know what really truely happened- but he is exagerating what really happened to the commitee- that is seriously sad- so although people are within there rights to say that the outcome was fairr- the fact is no one is really bothered about the incident and how it was dealt with. We are bothered about the BS ferris spouted even faced with contradictary evidence!!

Everyone exaggerates when they report someone. I've heard my mother-in-law tell the same story to three different people and it gets significantly worse with every telling. It's normal and the panel probably did the right thing taking it between the two.

Its despicable the way some people are bringing Ferris's integrity into question because he was bitten by Dylan Hartley a man who has tried to physically mame players in the past by gouging their eyes.

The next time Dylan Hartley tries to end someones career I hope he gets more than 6 months.

The pair of them are a bit silly to be honest. The personal attacks aimed at both Hartley and Ferris on here are just pathetic as well. Some of you need to just chill out

Dodger

Two things:

1 - the gouging incident, whilst disgraceful was 5 years ago and his record has been excellent ever since

2 - Ferris's integrity is not in question because he was bitten by Hartley, but by his evidence to the Citing Commission.

Have you read the transcript?

Ill just throw this one in to spice things up....

wasnt Mr Hartley accused of exaggeration during the Rees eye gouge case?

<runs for the hills>

HammerofThunor wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:what a muppet ferris is though- I am not talking about during the event here- because i dont know what really truely happened- but he is exagerating what really happened to the commitee- that is seriously sad- so although people are within there rights to say that the outcome was fairr- the fact is no one is really bothered about the incident and how it was dealt with. We are bothered about the BS ferris spouted even faced with contradictary evidence!!

Everyone exaggerates when they report someone. I've heard my mother-in-law tell the same story to three different people and it gets significantly worse with every telling. It's normal and the panel probably did the right thing taking it between the two.

really? From my experience most people chill with time and see things for what there were. This sort of scenario should have been dealt with between the two players in question. Now it looks like it has escalated it!

wickedwasp wrote:Dodger

Two things:

1 - the gouging incident, whilst disgraceful was 5 years ago and his record has been excellent ever since

2 - Ferris's integrity is not in question because he was bitten by Hartley, but by his evidence to the Citing Commission.

Have you read the transcript?

Apart from this?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53ygseQDp_o

But Richie didnt go grizzling to the ref.

This whole incident reminds me of a forum spat in reality. One person constantly baiting a poster. That poster biting and the instigator runs to the mods. The said poster getting judged and banned for a day.

aucklandlaurie wrote: But Richie didnt go grizzling to the ref.

To be fair, he didn't really need to as it was under the ref's nose and all hell broke loose!

ASBO

Sorry - I can't watch youtube from here.

I never claimed he was a Saint (how many rugby players are?), but his disciplinary record has been exemplary for the last 5 years

Wicked did you google how to spell disciplinary?

wickedwasp wrote:Dodger

Two things:

1 - the gouging incident, whilst disgraceful was 5 years ago and his record has been excellent ever since

2 - Ferris's integrity is not in question because he was bitten by Hartley, but by his evidence to the Citing Commission.

Have you read the transcript?

His record has been excellent ever since?? Are you having a laugh?

wickedwasp wrote:ASBO

Sorry - I can't watch youtube from here.

I never claimed he was a Saint (how many rugby players are?), but his disciplinary record has been exemplary for the last 5 years

Oh aye, he got away with the forearm smash on McCaw, but it a mystery how he did - but he's had no further bannings since

mystiroakey wrote:what a muppet ferris is though- I am not talking about during the event here- because i dont know what really truely happened- but he is exagerating what really happened to the commitee- that is seriously sad- so although people are within there rights to say that the outcome was fairr- the fact is no one is really bothered about the incident and how it was dealt with. We are bothered about the BS ferris spouted even faced with contradictary evidence!!

What contradictory evidence? Ferris claimed he was bitten and the evidence has supported that. Hartley was found guilty based on the doctors report not Ferris account.

The panel did not accept Hartleys claim that he acted in self defence and did not accept that he was in a position in the ruck were he would have felt pain as he claimed.

Hartley has therefore been shown once again to be a liar, a coward and a thug but yet some people are questioning Ferris integrity because he has claimed to have 4 bite marks rather than 3?? Given that the doctor only gave a brief examination during the game and no further after, it is entirely plausable that it is his evidence that is inaccurate.

Ferris had not being charged so had no reason to lie or exaggerate. Hartley on the other hand had every reason to.

roddersm wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:what a muppet ferris is though- I am not talking about during the event here- because i dont know what really truely happened- but he is exagerating what really happened to the commitee- that is seriously sad- so although people are within there rights to say that the outcome was fairr- the fact is no one is really bothered about the incident and how it was dealt with. We are bothered about the BS ferris spouted even faced with contradictary evidence!!

What contradictory evidence? Ferris claimed he was bitten and the evidence has supported that. Hartley was found guilty based on the doctors report not Ferris account.

The panel did not accept Hartleys claim that he acted in self defence and did not accept that he was in a position in the ruck were he would have felt pain as he claimed.

Hartley has therefore been shown once again to be a liar, a coward and a thug but yet some people are questioning Ferris integrity because he has claimed to have 4 bite marks rather than 3?? Given that the doctor only gave a brief examination during the game and no further after, it is entirely plausable that it is his evidence that is inaccurate.

Ferris had not being charged so had no reason to lie or exaggerate. Hartley on the other hand had every reason to.

yoiu have highligted the problem. He had no reason to lie yet he did, probally to try and maximise any punishment- he said that hartley drew blood.

Can you quote the statement were Ferris claimed that Hartley drew blood?

I can find no such statement in the report?

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I'm surprised that Health & Safety don't demand that Hartley wears a muzzle. Ferris should also be wearing a big girl's blouse.

I actually don't know why anyone has looked further than this comment to be honest!

Hartley had only added to his rep of being a dirty player, should have been banned the full 12 weeks as a minimum sanction but whatever.

Ferris has exaggerated/lied (delete as you feel appropriate) and made himself look incredibly silly.

There you go, both come out of it looking worse.

As long as but 100
Sure it was under the referees nose,the ref still penalised New Zealand,but Richie didnt lay any complaint to the ref.

rugbydreamer wrote:
Ferris has exaggerated/lied (delete as you feel appropriate) and made himself look incredibly silly.

Can you post the evidence of this please dreamer?

From what I can see Ferris made various allegations, most of which have been supported by evidence and some haven't.

There has been no evidence that Ferris has either lied or exaggerated and the citing report has not suggested that.

What they have clearly said is that they have not accepted Hartleys account based on the evidence.

roddersm wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:
Ferris has exaggerated/lied (delete as you feel appropriate) and made himself look incredibly silly.

Can you post the evidence of this please dreamer?

From what I can see Ferris made various allegations, most of which have been supported by evidence and some haven't.

There has been no evidence that Ferris has either lied or exaggerated and the citing report has not suggested that.

What they have clearly said is that they have not accepted Hartleys account based on the evidence.

isnt that all you need to know?

sorry my mistake i thought you said ferris- i think they have said that they havent accepted ferris account either

Hmmm 'think' - interesting.

Seems to me most of this thread is about somehow trying to exonerate Hartley so some extent in the most warped way - by saying that Ferris has lied - still havent seen what he lied about.

Rodders - seriously, where Ferris has said the teeth broke the skin, and the doctor has said no they didn't, and they've accepted the doctors version of events and not Ferris'....you honestly can't see that he's exaggerated there?

And when he talks about what arm he uses and leverage etc, and the panel completely disagree with him...you can't see that he's exaggerated/possibly lied there?

Hartley has been rightfully banned, he always was going to be when biting was involved, it's a filthy act. I jsut don't think Ferris comes across well when his version of events, or the key parts at least, have been so disregarded by the panel.

mystiroakey wrote:sorry my mistake i thought you said ferris- i think they have said that they havent accepted ferris account either

No they said there were aspects of Ferris account that they chose not to accept, due to a lack off, or contradictory, evidence.

The key aspects were accepted, namely that Hartley bit Ferris and that Ferris performed a routine ruck clear out and that there was no evidence of Ferris performing any foul play as claimed by Hartley.

In contrast Hartleys whole defence was dismissed. Namely that he was not acting in self defence and that he was not choked or fouled by Ferris as he claimed.

Ferris has probably exaggerated the incident a bit in order to prove he is a victem just as Hartley has probably exaggerated things in order to prove his innocence.

The one fact remains and that is the Hartley bit him and got banned.

Biting is one of the most hated things in rugby and rightly so, i hope that it is eventually erradicated.

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

rugbydreamer wrote:Rodders - seriously, where Ferris has said the teeth broke the skin, and the doctor has said no they didn't, and they've accepted the doctors version of events and not Ferris'....you honestly can't see that he's exaggerated there?

And when he talks about what arm he uses and leverage etc, and the panel completely disagree with him...you can't see that he's exaggerated/possibly lied there?

Hartley has been rightfully banned, he always was going to be when biting was involved, it's a filthy act. I jsut don't think Ferris comes across well when his version of events, or the key parts at least, have been so disregarded by the panel.

The key parts have not been dismissed by the panel.

I think the teeth breaking skin and not breaking skin is an irrelevent and insignificant piece of detail. I would be inclined to believe Ferris anyway as the doctor only gave a brief examination.

The panel have accepted that it was a routine clear out.

Have you played rugby dreamer?

I can honestly say that I wouldn't remember exact details of the mechanics of every ruck or tackle I was involved in, in fact I would barely remember at all. Ferris probably hits 50+ rucks a game. Not knowing which hand he used to leverage in a particular ruck is not evidence of lying.

roddersm wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:sorry my mistake i thought you said ferris- i think they have said that they havent accepted ferris account either

No they said there were aspects of Ferris account that they chose not to accept, due to a lack off, or contradictory, evidence.

The key aspects were accepted, namely that Hartley bit Ferris and that Ferris performed a routine ruck clear out and that there was no evidence of Ferris performing any foul play as claimed by Hartley.

In contrast Hartleys whole defence was dismissed. Namely that he was not acting in self defence and that he was not choked or fouled by Ferris as he claimed.

Correct me if i am wrong but i thought that they found that Ferris hand was applying pressure to Hartley's face in the region of his mouth.

Look calling Hartley a thug is over the top. He did get a ban for gouging 5 years ago and he served his time. Since then he has been pretty clean.

I fail to see how the guy is a coward. That is a big call and way over the top again.

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

There can be many reasons (bad memory, heat battle etc etc ) for someone's evidence to be not accepted as RELIABLE.

This is very different from saying someone's evidence is not CREDIBLE. If any finder of fact says that then they are calling someone a liar basically.

That hasnt happened so let it go.

Ferris has come out of this whole affair very badly but i dont think anyone has found that he lied. His integrity in that regard is safe.

Bottom line and seperate discussion (?) as i have said many times before Ireland need to desist from grabbing players round the head.

p.s Biltong i know that SA do it too so i can include them as well if it makes you feel better. In fact i think the irish copied this from SA basically.

Triangulation - if gouging and biting doesn't constitute a thug then what the hell does?

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".

Ferris didn't have to prove that or anything for that matter, he wasn't cited.

Hartley claimed that to try and get a lesser ban but this was dismissed by the panel.

Its all over i suppose and the outcome isnt that harsh . I dont think the incident warranted much more. So i am done with It.

Good luck to both of em!

I have only ever played rugby drunk on a beach

And it's not irrelevent about the teeth breaking the skin Rodders, that's a key difference between what could be a rather minor injury or a serious one. It's a massive difference.

I can see we aren't going to agree on this, and I've not even out and out said he was lying, just that it appears that he has, but that he has most definitely exaggerated when he had no need to.

He just looks incredibly foolish from it all imo.

Hartley...well we all know what he's like, it's not a surprise he's gotten banned, just disappointing it's only for 8 weeks.

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