Hartley Out of Lions Tour Best called up.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 4:06 am

Sent off for bad language to the referee Wayne Barnes. Well, this isn't soccer...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22668122

Hartley now given an eleven week ban...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22674429

by formerly known as Sam Sun May 26, 2013 4:12 am

Depends whether he's adjudged to have abused Barnes or directed his language as Mallinder claims at Tom Youngs who had just helped Tigers stuff him and his Saints pack in the scrum.

Will all come down to what the disciplinary committee decide. No preferential treatment was given to Quinlan and his gauge before the last tour though.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun May 26, 2013 4:38 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:Depends whether he's adjudged to have abused Barnes or directed his language as Mallinder claims at Tom Youngs who had just helped Tigers stuff him and his Saints pack in the scrum.

Will all come down to what the disciplinary committee decide. No preferential treatment was given to Quinlan and his gauge before the last tour though.

Even if he gets the benefit of the doubt - and it is more likely he meant to call the opposition cheats rather than Barnes - it won't count well for him that he was already warned about his demeanour. I think he'll cop some kind of ban and it would put him out. I spotted an unconfirmed comment that he'll be replaced if he can't be available for the Force game on the 5th.

If Best does get a call-up, there's got to be a good chance he'd be a real challenge for a starting spot.

by 100%beefy Sun May 26, 2013 4:48 am

looks like Rory Best will go to the ball, and that is the end of Hartley.....former FEC has had 9 months of bans since 07!

by Coleman Sun May 26, 2013 4:51 am

At least he has all of his Lions stash!

by formerly known as Sam Sun May 26, 2013 4:55 am

Croft went to SA under similar circumstances and was awesome, Best could well do the same.

by Duty281 Sun May 26, 2013 4:55 am

Fate smiles sweetly on the Lions, Rory Best should be on the plane now.

by HammerofThunor Sun May 26, 2013 5:05 am

If it's deemed it was aimed at Youngs and he gets a ban it would be a farce. Red card is surely enough for calling a hooker a cheat. If directed at Barnes it should be at least 6 weeks. I was only listening to the game so can't say.

by majesticimperialman Sun May 26, 2013 5:12 am

Brian More says it's his own fault...And if he did swear at Barnes, then he deserves what ever they throw at him.

Is Rory best the next in line? Or is their another Welsh Hooker, Mathew Rees in with a shot?

by 100%beefy Sun May 26, 2013 5:18 am

it's quinlan all over, i just don't get the stupidity, on the cusp of the pinnacle of his rugby career. and barnes of all refs is prone to making bold decisions....why take the risk...he was skipper and had the right to talk to the ref!

by **George Carlin** Sun May 26, 2013 5:21 am

The Lions coaches have been clear - if Hartley misses the second game against Western Force on the 5th, then he won't be in the tour party. Surely the ban will be at least 6 weeks.

Even if he isn't banned, Gatland is going to have to take a long, hard look as to whether that's the kind of player he wants in his touring party. He was the captain of his club today and he let them down on the big stage. Is it reasonable to think that it won't happen again on an even bigger stage?

He must be in bits and I feel incredibly sorry for him but I don't think that anyone can blame Wayne Barnes for this. He warned Hartley repeatedly. What else what he supposed to have done?

Step forward, Mr Best. Ford has Lions experience already and Rees is playing well, but I cannot see it being anyone other than Best. Nor should it be, in my opinion.

by Seagultaf Sun May 26, 2013 5:24 am

majesticimperialman wrote:Brian More says it's his own fault...And if he did swear at Barnes, then he deserves what ever they throw at him.

Is Rory best the next in line? Or is their another Welsh Hooker, Mathew Rees in with a shot?

It has to be Best, he should have been in the tour party all along. Ken Owens was probably 2nd reserve but he is now out injured so its down to Rees or Ford to spend the Summer standing by the phone.

by bedfordwelsh Sun May 26, 2013 5:26 am

If hes not banned then he will still tour but it won't look good on him or have done his chances any good.

If hes banned then surely Best is next in line but will be good to see how Rees goes against England and possibly the L:ions if selected next weekend.

by Mr Bounce Sun May 26, 2013 6:06 am

Hartley really is a first-class plank and should not be anywhere near an international for a while, let alone a Lions tour.

He may be a "motivator" and one the most "fired up" on the pitch but his temperament is that of an angry teenager. He just doesn't learn to keep his fingers/mouth/fists in check during moments of stress. He needs to take a break and have a long hard look at himself. This many bans tells a lot about a player and much more of this means he can wave bye-bye to his International career. There are better, calmer individuals out there.

by Scarpia Sun May 26, 2013 6:13 am

I can't understand why he was ever chosen. 1. His discipline is awful - the Aussies would target him and wind him up knowing that the Lions will be down to 14 for 10mns or longer. 2. Best is a much better player.

by doctor_grey Sun May 26, 2013 7:00 am

Serious question:
What happends if Hartley is exonerated. Many players on the pitch have come forth in statements and in general comments they feel Hartley was talking to Tom Youngs and not to Signore Barnes:

Option 1 - all is forgiven, Hartley gains his Lions position (not likely as captain), but the Premiership trophy is lost due to an overturned decision. Prognosis - not likely as referee eats the bullet. Politically untenable.

Option 2 - Hartley gets a short match suspension for talking near the referee, but still makes the Lions tour (probably spending evenings out with Quade and Beale)

Option 3 - Suspended sentence, goes to Aus to meets Minister Jullia Gilard for truffles.

Option 4 - Saints are still screwed

Option 5 - Barnes suspended, sent to a re-education colony.

Option 6 - Saints still screwed. Barnes becomes PNG in another part of the world.

Option 7 - Saints screwed. - next season I referee the damn final. With my military training I have remaining skill to keep everyone on an even keel, any yellow cards will be accompanied by 10cc scopalomine.

by formerly known as Sam Sun May 26, 2013 7:03 am

Hartley was having a good game before he opened his gob. He hit his jumpers, got around the park and was hitting breakdowns everywhere. Exactly the kind of form that would normally see a valid selection. If only he'd kept his mouth shut he'd be in a good position in terms of selection and his team could have secured a victory in the final.

by red_stag Sun May 26, 2013 7:12 am

No guarantees it will be Best.

Wouldn't surprise me if Ken Owens or Richard Strauss went out instead though Rory would be my choice.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 7:52 am

Can't imagine any citing board going against a referees word. Or allowing a referee to be contradicted.

That said Parisse had his ban shortened for a similar offence.

That said Parisse hasn't a poor disciplinary record. Hartley has one of the worst in rugby union.

by HammerofThunor Sun May 26, 2013 7:57 am

maestegmafia wrote:Can't imagine any citing board going against a referees word. Or allowing a referee to be contradicted.

That said Parisse had his ban shortened for a similar offence.

That said Parisse hasn't a poor disciplinary record. Hartley has one of the worst in rugby union.

Why would they go against his word? He believed Hartley was speaking him so red carded him. Right thing to do with that belief. Doesn't mean that is what happened.

And anytime a panel ban some who had a yellow they're going against a ref judgement. Or if something was just a penalty. The whole point is they are able to make a decision with all the information available instead of just the small sample the ref has.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun May 26, 2013 8:05 am

Hartley could appeal any ban - as Quinlan did - but time will be against him. Quinlan's offence was on the 2nd May 2009 and it took until the 20th for his appeal to be turned down.

In that case, it was a process governed by the ERC. Perhaps the Premiership will move more swiftly but Hartley needs to be in the clear to be available for a match in Australia in twelve days time.

If he gets any ban at the initial hearing - which seems highly likely - then the odds will be against him even if an appeal was successful.

by HammerofThunor Sun May 26, 2013 8:08 am

If he gets an initial ban he's dropped regardless of appeal. He would need to be out by the second game, if not then they will replace him.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 8:16 am

Its very sad that, and I think many would agree, that after stating that he did want to take players that court controversy, Gatland still selected Hartley.

This is another example of his poor behaviour and attitude, that he constantly states how he is working hard to control his anger. He has already served one ban this season and that was far from his first or worst.

I don't think that the coaches will take the risk, I don't think it unlikely that he is dropped before his hearing.

You can't imagine his hearing going well anyway. This is only the latest in a long list of poor and unnecessary behaviour by him.

by cakeordeath Sun May 26, 2013 8:29 am

Apparently the hearing is tomorrow.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun May 26, 2013 8:31 am

maestegmafia wrote:Its very sad that, and I think many would agree, that after stating that he did want to take players that court controversy, Gatland still selected Hartley.

He's named two players to his squad who have been sent off at Test level. He's got another who was banned for drugs, one who was detained by police at a World Cup and banned for brawling in an Aviva semi-final, and one who was arrested on a public order offence and suspended from his national squad. He didn't hold those infractions against any of them, so it's perhaps not such a surprise he was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Hartley, who captained the national team as recently as last year.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 8:38 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:Its very sad that, and I think many would agree, that after stating that he did want to take players that court controversy, Gatland still selected Hartley.
He's named two players to his squad who have been sent off at Test level. He's got another who was banned for drugs, one who was detained by police at a World Cup and banned for brawling in an Aviva semi-final, and one who was arrested on a public order offence and suspended from his national squad. He didn't hold those infractions against any of them, so it's perhaps not such a surprise he was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to Hartley, who captained the national team as recently as last year.

Can you not see the difference in those examples to Hartley?

Hartley was captaining his club in their most important premiership match of the year and swore at the referee after already being cautioned for his language by the referee.

Hartley has previously had an appalling disciplinary record. I think he is too high a risk, he can't deal with pressure.

Rather surprised so many are sticking up for him considering his past.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun May 26, 2013 8:57 am

maestegmafia wrote:Rather surprised so many are sticking up for him considering his past.

I wouldn't be upset if Hartley didn't tour but I don't think Gatland's decision to select him was particularly misguided.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 9:04 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:Rather surprised so many are sticking up for him considering his past.

I wouldn't be upset if Hartley didn't tour but I don't think Gatland's decision to select him was particularly misguided.

I agree.

If Hartley had some common sense and actually did control his attitude on the pitch he could be a very good player. Unfortunately it appears he is not that intelligent.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Sun May 26, 2013 9:15 am

maestegmafia wrote:Can't imagine any citing board going against a referees word. Or allowing a referee to be contradicted.

That said Parisse had his ban shortened for a similar offence.

That said Parisse has ~~n't~~ a poor disciplinary record. Hartley has one of the worst in rugby union.

Minor correction, Parisse got an 8 week ban for gouging in '09 Maes (the same day Burger did), he's no angel either. I didn't see the match (was up in Milton Keynes all day), anyone know if there's some online match highlights up yet?

by **Notch** Sun May 26, 2013 9:33 am

George Carlin wrote:Even if he isn't banned, Gatland is going to have to take a long, hard look as to whether that's the kind of player he wants in his touring party. He was the captain of his club today and he let them down on the big stage. Is it reasonable to think that it won't happen again on an even bigger stage?

It was certainly one of the more controversial selections and thats why. I thought Hartley sealed his fate when the media were talking up Best vs Hartley in the Heineken Cup as a Lions trial. He let that get to him and got cited for punching Best. The Aussies aren't shy of using the media to apply pressure and he didn't deal with that as Captain in a home game.

In the immediate aftermath few Ulster fans were saying "Well hopefully Hartley will pick up another ban and Rory will get in..." I thought, no chance! With his record there's no way he'll be anything other than squeaky clean between now and tour. NOBODY is that stupid.

Nope! He's lost his head in a pressure situation. Again. Do we want him on tour? The Aussies love a wind-up and with his record there will be plenty aimed at him. And he's proven he's stupid enough to go for it.

by MrsP Sun May 26, 2013 9:49 am

Haven't seen the incident but if Gatland was willing to select Hartley despite his appalling disciplinary record does anyone really think this episode will make him change his mind?

Clearly if Hartley gets a lengthy ban he will not tour but Gatland has already shown that he doesn't care that Hartley is an illdiscipilined... censored

.

by flyhalffactory Sun May 26, 2013 10:03 am

Agree with the majority of posters on here. Gatland has banged on about team players, off the field representation being as important as on the field performance and yet he selects a person with such little self control. Mr Gs' double standards could well create a long-running debate in the Ozzie press that could well destabilise the Lions unity before we have set foot on the plane.

by 100%beefy Sun May 26, 2013 12:19 pm

double standards? how so?
should Gatland be held responsible for Hartley's stupidity when he is not even in the squad yet?
As for destabilising unity, this sort of speculation will achieve that nicely.
But i totally agree that Gats should review his selection of Hartley and i am sure he will. That said he probably won't have to as i expect that the hearing means Hartley won't even be able to travel.

by GloriousEmpire Sun May 26, 2013 1:11 pm

Given that Hartley is Kiwi born, perhaps Barnes assumed he was referring to 2007 when he heard the word "cheat" ?

At any rate I think Barnes has over reacted sending him off in the first place. It's just impossible to prove who he was talking to at any date dissent is normally punished with a penalty not a red card so BArnes hAs been a bit precious here.

No need to remove Hartley from the lions squad.

by flyhalffactory Sun May 26, 2013 2:38 pm

100%beefy wrote:double standards? how so?
"Gatland has banged on about team players, off the field representation being as important as on the field performance and yet he selects a person with such little self control."............ Then he selects a player with an atrocious disciplinary record. That's the double standard

should Gatland be held responsible for Hartley's stupidity when he is not even in the squad yet?
He was in the squad from the moment his name was called out on the 30th April 2013. Its not Gatlands' responsibility for his players behaviour on or off the field but it is his responsibility to select players

As for destabilising unity, this sort of speculation will achieve that nicely.
What speculation?, this is not speculation its a fact Gatland selected a player with a very dodgy reputation, and the world media are not stupid, this is a juicy story to cling on to for a fair few weeks, can you imagine Warbs, POC, BOD, North been interviewed and expecting to talk about their own form, performance etc and been wacked on the sly with "give us your opinion of Hartley either called the ref or his fellow Lion and opposite number Youngs a cheat?". Now it could be that 1) He doesn't get banned and the press will then ask if Gatland will take a stance outside of the governing body if that's allowed or the very least he will be quizzed on his opinion that Hartley has called Youngs a "F@@king Cheat" and the pressure will be on the player and his team-mates whenever he gets picked, or 2) he gets banned and then we have to go through the process of reselection of a player and another to go on standby, plus Gatland will get quizzed on his opinion that Hartley thinks that Youngs one of the touring Lions is a "F@@king Cheat". This also could then have an unnecessary knock-on effect on one of the home nations summer tours selections
.

by wanderingdragon Sun May 26, 2013 2:46 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Given that Hartley is Kiwi born, perhaps Barnes assumed he was referring to 2007 when he heard the word "cheat" ?

At any rate I think Barnes has over reacted sending him off in the first place. It's just impossible to prove who he was talking to at any date dissent is normally punished with a penalty not a red card so BArnes hAs been a bit precious here.

No need to remove Hartley from the lions squad.

Having warned Hartley about his language earlier in the game if Barnes believed he was swearing at him, that would be a yellow. As soon as he called him a cheat (which is what Barnes believed) that goes up to a red.

Hartley is claiming he was swearing at Tom Youngs but then if he did call Barnes a cheat he is hardly likely to admit it.

I, for one, would have picked Best above Hartley in the first place and would not be upset to see the obnoxious Hartley banned as I don't think the Lions would be weakened in any way whatsoever.

by GloriousEmpire Sun May 26, 2013 3:06 pm

Does it come down to a numbers game? With few enough lions members representing England, surely Gatland will be forced to add another English hooker? But who has the quality for the calling? Or was the selection of Enoch players with dubious disciplinary records a Gatland plot to reduce England representation even further right from the outset?

by flyhalffactory Sun May 26, 2013 3:14 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Does it come down to a numbers game? With few enough lions members representing England, surely Gatland will be forced to add another English hooker? But who has the quality for the calling? Or was the selection of Enoch players with dubious disciplinary records a Gatland plot to reduce England representation even further right from the outset?

Glorious
If you have another New Zealand born hooker playing for England then of course I am sure Mr G will select him. Just to keep a balance of course.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 4:13 pm

MrsP wrote:Haven't seen the incident but if Gatland was willing to select Hartley despite his appalling disciplinary record does anyone really think this episode will make him change his mind?

Clearly if Hartley gets a lengthy ban he will not tour but Gatland has already shown that he doesn't care that Hartley is an illdiscipilined... .

Hartley has been publicly stating how he has been dealing with his anger management issues since his last ban in December last year. Maybe the lions coaches that know Hartley best, were convinced he had sorted his issues out.

by majesticimperialman Sun May 26, 2013 4:43 pm

I know i commented on this thread yesterday. But thinking about Hartley and what he did/did not say. I am surprised that he or any other Lions tourist was playing yesterday, i thought all the Lions players was in camp.

by Guest Sun May 26, 2013 5:33 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:I know i commented on this thread yesterday. But thinking about Hartley and what he did/did not say. I am surprised that he or any other Lions tourist was playing yesterday, i thought all the Lions players was in camp.

Where did you get that from? All the Leinster Lions played yesterday too, as did Tommy Bowe.

by Taylorman Sun May 26, 2013 5:49 pm

Yet another kiwi who thinks Barnes is a cheat... Whistle

by formerly known as Sam Sun May 26, 2013 6:13 pm

All finalists were to join the camp from Monday Maj. Hence why no finalists are due to play the baabaas in Hong Kong (though I suspect one or two will break that rule, particularly at hooker).

There's no way in hell Tigers would have surrendered nearly half their starting lineup before a major final. Especially when the compensation is only 50k a player and Tigers were in need of silverware.

by MrsP Sun May 26, 2013 6:38 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
MrsP wrote:Haven't seen the incident but if Gatland was willing to select Hartley despite his appalling disciplinary record does anyone really think this episode will make him change his mind?

Clearly if Hartley gets a lengthy ban he will not tour but Gatland has already shown that he doesn't care that Hartley is an illdiscipilined... .

Hartley has been publicly stating how he has been dealing with his anger management issues since his last ban in December last year. Maybe the lions coaches that know Hartley best, were convinced he had sorted his issues out.

But, is not what we have been hearing with each Hartley incident? How is actually a fantastic guy and he has sorted himself out and then....

He may be "dealing with his anger management issues" but not in a very effect way!

by majesticimperialman Sun May 26, 2013 6:46 pm

RiscaRev.

I just thought that with the tour so close. that all the players would be in camp getting used too each other and the various styles of play.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 7:00 pm

majesticimperialman wrote:RiscaRev.

I just thought that with the tour so close. that all the players would be in camp getting used too each other and the various styles of play.

Really?

There must have been at least ten threads that you have posted on that state otherwise in discussion, as well as the many articles in newspapers and on websites about the current training squad missing the players who are playing in finals.

I am pretty sure you even discussed Jonny Wilkinsons possible inclusion after he had finished playing in the finals of the top 14.

by maestegmafia Sun May 26, 2013 7:06 pm

MrsP wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
MrsP wrote:Haven't seen the incident but if Gatland was willing to select Hartley despite his appalling disciplinary record does anyone really think this episode will make him change his mind?

Clearly if Hartley gets a lengthy ban he will not tour but Gatland has already shown that he doesn't care that Hartley is an illdiscipilined... .

Hartley has been publicly stating how he has been dealing with his anger management issues since his last ban in December last year. Maybe the lions coaches that know Hartley best, were convinced he had sorted his issues out.

But, is not what we have been hearing with each Hartley incident? How is actually a fantastic guy and he has sorted himself out and then....

He may be "dealing with his anger management issues" but not in a very effect way!

Unfortunately true, that means that The Lions, England and Saints don't a player who could be a talent but a guy who appears to be more of a brainless thug.

He has after all proved Gatland right about what Warren said about him a few years ago.

Quoting GatlandJan 2011:-

“We saw a couple of weeks ago Hartley go to pieces for Northampton against Leicester with his throwing.

“Some of those Kiwis crack under a bit of pressure, don’t they?” quipped Gatland, alluding to Hartley, like himself a New Zealander, and the All Blacks’ failures at World Cups.

“They have been known to choke and, hopefully, on February 4 he might be one of those ones because he has always got a lot to say, hasn’t he?”

Gatland was asked if he was trying to wind up firebrand Hartley and England by throwing a verbal grenade over the border.

“Absolutely, let’s see what he’s got to offer,” he replied.

by **LondonTiger** Sun May 26, 2013 8:05 pm

I suspect that Gatland would rather have been proven right on 4th Feb 2011, rather than now.

Instead wasn't it AWJ whose ill discipline cost his team that day?

by HammerofThunor Sun May 26, 2013 8:39 pm

MrsP wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
MrsP wrote:Haven't seen the incident but if Gatland was willing to select Hartley despite his appalling disciplinary record does anyone really think this episode will make him change his mind?

Clearly if Hartley gets a lengthy ban he will not tour but Gatland has already shown that he doesn't care that Hartley is an illdiscipilined... .

Hartley has been publicly stating how he has been dealing with his anger management issues since his last ban in December last year. Maybe the lions coaches that know Hartley best, were convinced he had sorted his issues out.

But, is not what we have been hearing with each Hartley incident? How is actually a fantastic guy and he has sorted himself out and then....

He may be "dealing with his anger management issues" but not in a very effect way!

Well that depends doesn't. If he called Barnes a "f-ing cheat" then you're right. If he accused a hooker of cheating and just swore then it's nothing (other than not responding to Barnes and the Saints captaincy should be taken off him, Woods?).

by thomh Sun May 26, 2013 8:39 pm

No, the AWJ trip was at Twickenham in 2010

by Sponsored content