Sticks and Stones?

Let me preface this post by saying I am no apologist for the abuse of officials, and I am no particular fan of Mr Hartley. By the same token I have no particular fondness for Wayne Barnes who too often appears to believe rugby exists to allow him to showcase his refereeing style and sate his ego with match altering decisions (or lack thereof).

Referees do a tough and largely thankless job and are under increasing pressure and scrutiny, impeded by unworkable laws and an increasing fast and physical game in which the stakes continue to rise.

However I can't help but be confounded by the harshness of the 11 week ban handed to Hartley for what seems like reasonably innocuous abuse which may or may not have been directed at Wayne Barnes.

The thrust of my argument is the disparity between the severity of his ban, and its ramifications versus the apparent leniency of recent judicial outcomes for foul play.

Consider Andrew Hores three week suspension for a king hit on Bradley Davies that rendered him unconscious and hospitalised him. Or Adam Thompsons one week ban for stomping. Contrast Bradley Davies own seven week ban for a vicious and career threatening tip tackle. Kevin Mealamu got just one week in effect for a head but. Dean Greyling suffered just a one week suspension for a flying elbow to the head of a prone Richie McCaw. Without digging up past controversies Lions tours have been marred with unpunished physical violence and recently Simon Shaw got away with just two weeks for a knee to the head in such a series.

So why such a harsh ban now? Dylan Hartley's chequered past no doubt featured in the decision but surely his physical indiscretions might have warranted lengthier bans in the past? Maybe we would never have reached this stage if he had been forced to learn to control his temper in the past? Say, for example when he walked free after executing a WWF style elbow drop on Richie McCaw's head?

The IRB now run the risk of appearing as self protective elitist bureaucrats who have more concern for protecting their own officials than concern for player welfare or sorting out the games shambolic and dangerous scrum engagement or mind numbingly confounding break down laws.

What happened to the notion that sticks and stones may break bones but words are altogether less concerning?

The RFU heard this case not the IRB. The IRB would only be involved if if was a test match, or if they were to set a precident law, which would likely be a bad idea as all cases vary.

captain swearing at ref....what next?

deserved ban in my view, yes his previous lends itself to a harsher ban but i think it is his status as capt i.e. authority figure who shows disdain for THE authority figure; the ref.

the guy is a complete idiot, not just for doing it but also for not recognising he was dealing with mr work to rule, who has his own ego, in a final.

100%beefy wrote:captain swearing at ref....what next?

deserved ban in my view, yes his previous lends itself to a harsher ban but i think it is his status as capt i.e. authority figure who shows disdain for THE authority figure; the ref.

the guy is a complete idiot, not just for doing it but also for not recognising he was dealing with mr work to rule, who has his own ego, in a final.

Also the lying to try and get himself off the charge. In all credit to Hartley he usually admits his guilt and pleads such.

what did he say to lie maesteg?

100%beefy wrote:what did he say to lie maesteg?

Tried to claim he was accusing Tom Youngs and not the referee.

fncking cheat

Hartley does seem to get into trouble a lot, the question is will he ever learn.

How many times has he been banned now?

Biltong wrote:Hartley does seem to get into trouble a lot, the question is will he ever learn.

How many times has he been banned now?

Can't be far from a year of his career in total.

He needs council, or someone to talk to.

I played rugby because I could take my frustartions out on a rugby field, a hard game of contact sport should be sufficnet for anyone, if you still get wound up and lose your cool as often as Hartley then you seriously need to sort it out.

What is it that Barnes did that Hartley could hav e constured as cheating?

Biltong wrote:He needs council, or someone to talk to.

I played rugby because I could take my frustartions out on a rugby field, a hard game of contact sport should be sufficnet for anyone, if you still get wound up and lose your cool as often as Hartley then you seriously need to sort it out.

What is it that Barnes did that Hartley could hav e constured as cheating?

probably allowed the early shove by Tigers in the scrum which then was adjudged to have been brought down by the Saints forwards.

Surely it had to be more than that?

also perhaps Barnes told Myler he could not kick the preceding free kick out on the full which he did. If he had kicked it out properly half time would have come round.

it looks as though Myler just muffed the kick but shook his head as though Barnes had said he CAN kick it out on the full.

all irrelevant really as they should know the rules.

this sequence of events was only very shortly after Hartleys warning re swearing & no doubt his blood was boiling.
not much sympathy for Hartley. But it was a very early shove by Tigers & the events no doubt gathered momentum in Dylan's head!

Wayne Barnes did the Lions a huge favour. Thank you Wayne, much appreciated.

heres what Brian Moore says what caused it Biltong

"It's Dylan Hartley's own fault. Not only is it half-witted and wrong to talk to a referee like that but he doesn't know the rules of the game. Northampton kicked the ball straight out from a 22-drop-out which is completely stupid. Yes, Leicester pushed early at that scrum and the referee fell for it but Hartley is captain and he let his team down. The referee clearly told him it was his last chance after earlier dissent and has had to follow that through."

Hartley could have could have become England captain in 2012 but missed out after being given an eight-week ban for biting Ireland's Stephen Ferris.

He was also given a two-week ban in December 2012 for striking Best.

Those incidents followed a 26-week ban in 2007 for "making illegal contact with the eye area" of Wasps players Johnny O'Connor and James Haskell. That ban ended his chances of making England's squad for the that year's World Cup.

8+2+26 week bans aready against him

For this
"The entry point for mid-range is a suspension of 12 weeks and that was reduced by one week to reflect his good conduct at the hearing."

To be honest I thought it would be 12 weeks + 6 weeks taking into account his previous record.

They really have to change it from weeks to games, as over the summer a 12 week ban matters less than in the middle of the season.

After this it will have been a total of 47 weeks he'll have been banned so far in his career,

I'm glad this has happened now,as he's a liablity, and the Lions don't need players that have a poor temperment for the game. Poor ambassador for Saints, poor ambassador for England, poor ambassador for the sport, and I'm gald he won't get the chance to be a poor ambassador for the Lions.

I would have thought he would have got away with the swearing but calling the ref a cheat, even without the invective, is just completely unacceptable.

There does have to be a separate set of sanctions for that level of abuse of officials and it is pointless to say that he got 11 weeks for swearing while someone else got 2 for hospitalising another player.

Calling the ref a cheat is disgraceful and deserves a very lengthy ban. He got off lightly.

Why pointless? I think it's an intriguing comparison.

Glorious Empire.
I wouldnt have called it a Kinghit...Just a bit of a shove.

Biltong wrote:Surely it had to be more than that?

Nope.

Tigers had got a bit of a nudge on before the ball was put in. Which Barnes ignored (as do pretty much all top flight refs). Saints front row fell apart and they got pinged.

This incensed Hartley into verbal action.

I for one am delighted Rory Best is now going on tour!

I see is still alive and well on the forum.

It's like saying that you condone assault if you give a longer sentence to someone who commits fraud. Or that conspiracy to commit a crime is more aceptable than theft because of sentencing.

The game will survive the odd punch thrown and even, though I despise the practice, the odd gouge, but it may not survive if we do not protect the officials.

No ref, no game.

We have already heard on another thread of one of the young refs who posts here getting fed up with it. We need to support the officials because we need people to be willing to do that job.

Why would you call a ref a 'cheat' anyway? Biased maybe, but not a cheat. It doesn't make sense.

Perhaps he was referring to the opposition. In which case, he's been very badly treated. I guess we'll never know the truth.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The thrust of my argument is the disparity between the severity of his ban, and its ramifications versus the apparent leniency of recent judicial outcomes for foul play.

Consider Andrew Hores three week suspension for a king hit on Bradley Davies that rendered him unconscious and hospitalised him. Or Adam Thompsons one week ban for stomping. Contrast Bradley Davies own seven week ban for a vicious and career threatening tip tackle. Kevin Mealamu got just one week in effect for a head but. Dean Greyling suffered just a one week suspension for a flying elbow to the head if prone Richie McCaw. Without digging up past controversies Lions tours have been marred with unpunished physical violence and recently Simon Shaw got away with just two weeks for a knee to the head in such a series.

Apologies for picking out certain pieces of your post. However, to me the inconsistency between sanctions for verbal abuse and physical actions are bad for Rugby. I have no problem with Hartley being banned, nor with the length of the ban - seemingly for failing a basic intelligence test really (don't swear at the ref). The referees, whether good or bad, cannot be abused and must remain in charge of the games. This actually protects Rugby, and maintains our standards.

I believe the other side of the coin is penalties for extreme and dangerous play are too mild. A gouge, for instance, should be automatic 26 weeks. Full stop. Any clear act of commission needs higher penalties. I am not talking about a little roughhousing, everyone does it. That happens in a physical and competitive sport. But any clear intent to injure requires tough and longer bans.

Hibbard is the best hooker anyway so all this is mostly irrelevant.

Not a big fan of Hibbard to be honest.

Best or Youngs to start.

This thread is not really about who goes and plays for the Lions, right? Really about appropriateness and consistency of sanction. I would like to know other peoples feelings about this (sorry, dudes).

DP

Biltong wrote:Surely it had to be more than that?

That's one of the reasons I'm inclined to believe he was actually aiming his comment at the opposition - who had just won a penalty through an early engagement.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Perhaps he was referring to the opposition. In which case, he's been very badly treated.

I think that it was happened, but I don't think he has been harshly treated. Barnes had every reason to think Hartley was aiming the comment at him and made the correct decision. The hooker almost certainly intended Barnes to hear what he said, if only to highlight the illegality. While I've got some sympathy for the man, it would have been wrong for the disciplinary committee to take his side against the referee. Once they were in that position, they followed the RFU guidelines:

http://www.rfu.com/~/~/media/files/thegame/regulations/rfu%20regulation%2019%20appendix%202%20%281213%29.ashx

As you can see, the minimum ban of four weeks would have been enough to put him out of the tour. Given his previous record, though, it had to be higher than the minimum.

As the good dr says - this isn't about whether Hartley was stupid, is a thug, deserves punishment or who is a good hooker. It is about the fact that had Hartley not said "f***ing cheat" but run over and punched the opposition hooker in the face he would,based on all evidence have received a lighter sentence. Is this a good message to be sending to our kids? Or by their discrepancy are the law makers actually doing more to bring the game into disrepute than Hartley's silly mouth has done?

But, as the good doctor said, the problem is likely to be with the other bans being too short.

And, as I said, this is about the integrity of the game. You can not get away with calling a ref a cheat.

As you can see from those RFU guidelines, the ban for abuse of officials is specifically designed to be a heavier penalty than punching or stamping. As far as violent conduct is concerned, only gouging, biting and bagsnatching carry heavier penalties than abuse.

GloriousEmpire wrote:As the good dr says - this isn't about whether Hartley was stupid, is a thug, deserves punishment or who is a good hooker. It is about the fact that had Hartley not said "f***ing cheat" but run over and punched the opposition hooker in the face he would,based on all evidence have received a lighter sentence. Is this a good message to be sending to our kids? Or by their discrepancy are the law makers actually doing more to bring the game into disrepute than Hartley's silly mouth has done?

It is a good message to be sending our kids yes. If they want to play rugby that is. Refs need to be protected for the good of the game.The greater the protection the higher quality of referreeing we will get in theory.

Anyway Im glad in rugby you are allowed to throw the odd punch un sanctioned. The alternative would be where players are diving and rolling around on the floor fishing for red cards at the slightest contact ala football.

GloriousEmpire wrote:As the good dr says - this isn't about whether Hartley was stupid, is a thug, deserves punishment or who is a good hooker. It is about the fact that had Hartley not said "f***ing cheat" but run over and punched the opposition hooker in the face he would,based on all evidence have received a lighter sentence. Is this a good message to be sending to our kids? Or by their discrepancy are the law makers actually doing more to bring the game into disrepute than Hartley's silly mouth has done?

Im not sure what ban he would have got for punching an opponent, but IMO abusing the ref is a worse crime anyway. Most on here im sure grew up watching/played rugby where a few punches were thrown routinely in games. All through this time rugby was still seen as a great game of full of respect, played hard but in a good spirit.
Personally, as far as messages go, the old rugby tale(cant think of right word) a player throw a punch, get red carded then leave the field without argument and shake hands/have a drink with the opposition after, is not bad at all. Accusing the ref of cheating, moaning at him, trying to get other players carded, faking being hurt, to me is all just pathetic and sends much worse messages to kids, who one day as a parent you would like to see grow up to be good men(and woman) who behave with respect to others, and who can take lifes misfortune on the chin. Rugby is a game that will be played for fun by kids but will also hopefully teach them things that will help them as they grow up, which is why, insulting the ref cannot be tolerated.

I think a one or two week ban would have sufficed, he was sent off and his team lost the game; he already has to accept the subsequent guilt from that. He didn't hurt anyone in fact he might not even have said it to the referee only he knows that for certain. I understand that it isn't acceptable to talk to referees like that but Wayne Barnes will have been called worse in fact I've called him worse and he reacted accordingly but for a player to miss out on the pinnacle of his career for a thing he said in the heat of the moment is ridiculous. I don't like the guy and the other things that he's done warrant long suspensions but this is excessive. An alternative would be to ban him from playing for England for a year or a suspended sentence but I think, bearing in mind no one was hurt, they should have allowed him to tour.

GloriousEmpire wrote:As the good dr says - this isn't about whether Hartley was stupid, is a thug, deserves punishment or who is a good hooker. It is about the fact that had Hartley not said "f***ing cheat" but run over and punched the opposition hooker in the face he would,based on all evidence have received a lighter sentence. Is this a good message to be sending to our kids? Or by their discrepancy are the law makers actually doing more to bring the game into disrepute than Hartley's silly mouth has done?

This scenario is between the ref and a player. The player called the ref a cheat, not a player, so the act of physical violent equivalence would be Hartley punching Wayne Barnes which if he had done I would want to see him never play rugby ever again.

If you are actually trying to compare calling the ref a cheat to gouging someone's eyes, an example of an unnecessary act of violence, then the punishment is not the same.

Hartley previously served a 26 week ban for gouging but is now only serving a 12 week ban for swearing at a referee and accusing him of being a cheat.

I asked this on another related thread. Just what did people see that they are basing their own opinions of Hartley's guilt on now?

Some of us have said that we didn't see the game so couldn't form an opinion on the detail. Those who are now commenting on the detail of guilt or innocence, are they basing it on visual evidence or on Hartley's volatile reputation and record?

123456789 wrote:I think a one or two week ban would have sufficed, he was sent off and his team lost the game; he already has to accept the subsequent guilt from that. He didn't hurt anyone in fact he might not even have said it to the referee only he knows that for certain. I understand that it isn't acceptable to talk to referees like that but Wayne Barnes will have been called worse in fact I've called him worse and he reacted accordingly but for a player to miss out on the pinnacle of his career for a thing he said in the heat of the moment is ridiculous. I don't like the guy and the other things that he's done warrant long suspensions but this is excessive. An alternative would be to ban him from playing for England for a year or a suspended sentence but I think, bearing in mind no one was hurt, they should have allowed him to tour.

Would 2 weeks have made any difference to Hartley's summer?

Would he have been allowed to join the tour 2 weeks after calling a ref a cheat? (I hope not.)

This will hopefully put down a marker to all that you must NEVER abuse any of the officials.

I am learning to be an athletics official. At the weekend we had a kids meet. One of our injured athletes offered to help out with the event. One of the events he was helping at involved some lads about the same age as him who he knows very well. They thought it was very funny that he was helping and were trying to give him a bit of a hard time. (Very gentle joshing etc.) I had to remind them that while "John" had a clip board he should be treated with the same respect as they would treat an other official. They "got" it immediately and apologised. Now, I should add that there was no unpleasantness involved in any way, just messing, but the kids immediately recognised that it was not appropriate for them to behave that way to an official. They are great kids.

That is why the RFU needed to come down like a ton of bricks on Hartley. No-one should be left in any doubt that they must never speak to an official like that!

SecretFly wrote:I asked this on another related thread. Just what did people see that they are basing their own opinions of Hartley's guilt on now?

Some of us have said that we didn't see the game so couldn't form an opinion on the detail. Those who are now commenting on the detail of guilt or innocence, are they basing it on visual evidence or on Hartley's volatile reputation and record?

On what I have heard of the disciplinary result.

SecretFly wrote:I asked this on another related thread. Just what did people see that they are basing their own opinions of Hartley's guilt on now?

Some of us have said that we didn't see the game so couldn't form an opinion on the detail. Those who are now commenting on the detail of guilt or innocence, are they basing it on visual evidence or on Hartley's volatile reputation and record?

Im not sure anyone cares whether he is innocent or guilty. Bottom line is he didnt deserve to tour and Im very glad he wont be.

Part of this is that because of his rap sheet he no longer gets the benefit of any doubt and thats to be expected. He just needs to take stock now and focus on improving his game and his dicipline.

MrsP wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I asked this on another related thread. Just what did people see that they are basing their own opinions of Hartley's guilt on now?

Some of us have said that we didn't see the game so couldn't form an opinion on the detail. Those who are now commenting on the detail of guilt or innocence, are they basing it on visual evidence or on Hartley's volatile reputation and record?

On what I have heard of the disciplinary result.

Well, as I always say, innocent guys have been hung (literally so) on water-tight evidence before. So I'd still be cautious on that one.

I'm just interested now what the RFU would have used in their judgement. Witness statements, I'm sure. Footage from the game happening live (which from my YouTube looking - proved worthless in making any conclusion).

Did you see any footage, Mrs P? Close up, slow-mo footage? I did on the ESPN site a while ago. I initially felt it probably was true that Hartley was up to his old antics but when I saw the footage that I saw, it wasn't so clear cut at all. I just hope the RFU had that footage or similar footage too to help them make a ruling.

MrsP wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think a one or two week ban would have sufficed, he was sent off and his team lost the game; he already has to accept the subsequent guilt from that. He didn't hurt anyone in fact he might not even have said it to the referee only he knows that for certain. I understand that it isn't acceptable to talk to referees like that but Wayne Barnes will have been called worse in fact I've called him worse and he reacted accordingly but for a player to miss out on the pinnacle of his career for a thing he said in the heat of the moment is ridiculous. I don't like the guy and the other things that he's done warrant long suspensions but this is excessive. An alternative would be to ban him from playing for England for a year or a suspended sentence but I think, bearing in mind no one was hurt, they should have allowed him to tour.

Would 2 weeks have made any difference to Hartley's summer?

Would he have been allowed to join the tour 2 weeks after calling a ref a cheat? (I hope not.)

This will hopefully put down a marker to all that you must NEVER abuse any of the officials.

I am learning to be an athletics official. At the weekend we had a kids meet. One of our injured athletes offered to help out with the event. One of the events he was helping at involved some lads about the same age as him who he knows very well. They thought it was very funny that he was helping and were trying to give him a bit of a hard time. (Very gentle joshing etc.) I had to remind them that while "John" had a clip board he should be treated with the same respect as they would treat an other official. They "got" it immediately and apologised. Now, I should add that there was no unpleasantness involved in any way, just messing, but the kids immediately recognised that it was not appropriate for them to behave that way to an official. They are great kids.

That is why the RFU needed to come down like a ton of bricks on Hartley. No-one should be left in any doubt that they must never speak to an official like that!

I don't think that it's acceptable to talk to an official like that, I've played rugby since I was five and have never spoken to an official in a similar way at least not in ear shot however do you not think the red card in a final would have affected him, or the looks on his team mates faces or the final score or Leicester lifting the trophy?

I think what he did was deplorable yet for him to miss out on an opportunity very few people will ever receive is excessive, also the events leading up to it suggest Hartley was talking to Youngs, the use of the word cheat directed at Tom Youngs and the fact Leicester had just won a debatable penalty at the scrum suggests Youngs had tricked the ref. Whereas if you were frustrated enough at the ref to swear at him its unlikely you'd use cheat instead I think they'd just use a standard insult. I think a two week ban and the benefit of the doubt as well as a suspended 11 week suspension would have sufficed and therefore he'd know if he ever did it again he'd receive a very, very long ban.

I think for somebody to miss out on a Lions tour they should have water tight evidence and the only person who will know for certain is Dylan Hartley, I think Barnes wanted his own moment, I've seen too many games that he's dominated and also his ability to bear a grudge against a certain team or seemingly decide a winner in advance. In a lot of Scotland games he's formed a dislike for either Scotland or the opposition and it has clearly influenced a number of his decisions.

GunsGerms wrote:



Im not sure anyone cares whether he is innocent or guilty. Bottom line is he didnt deserve to tour and Im very glad he wont be.

Part of this is that because of his rap sheet he no longer gets the benefit of any doubt and thats to be expected. He just needs to take stock now and focus on improving his game and his dicipline.

Oh I do, Guns.

If a person is innocent, he's innocent. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If an innocent man was dropped from a Lions tour then nope, I wouldn't be content that he deserved his fall from grace for previous misdemeanours anyway.

Secret,

I have only seen the youtube clip and it doesn't even show the incident. They are watching the kids run on, and then off again and a very bewildered looking Cockerill.

I have absolutely no idea who Hartley was calling a cheat but I do think that the RFU have taken exactly the correct stand in backing the ref on this one. To do anything else would have been madness.

The ref must be respected both on and off the pitch.

If he says he was called a cheat by a player then the onus, for me, is definately on the part of the player to convince everyone that that could not have been what happened.

You don't have a link to the other footage, do you?

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:



Im not sure anyone cares whether he is innocent or guilty. Bottom line is he didnt deserve to tour and Im very glad he wont be.

Part of this is that because of his rap sheet he no longer gets the benefit of any doubt and thats to be expected. He just needs to take stock now and focus on improving his game and his dicipline.

Oh I do, Guns.

If a person is innocent, he's innocent. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If an innocent man was dropped from a Lions tour then nope, I wouldn't be content that he deserved his fall from grace for previous misdemeanours anyway.

I dont because in the lead up to this on another thread I predicted Hartley wouldnt tour because he would get a red card. If it didnt happen now, guilty or not, the chances are it would happen in Australia. There is absolutly no point in taking a player with such a record of indicipline on a Lions tour unless you are certain he has cleaned up his act.

In any case I dont think he is as good a player as Best so I honestly dont care if he is innocent or guilty. Just glad the Lions have dodged a bullet and he more than likely wont be on the plane.

MrsP wrote:Secret,

I have only seen the youtube clip and it doesn't even show the incident. They are watching the kids run on, and then off again and a very bewildered looking Cockerill.

I have absolutely no idea who Hartley was calling a cheat but I do think that the RFU have taken exactly the correct stand in backing the ref on this one. To do anything else would have been madness.

The ref must be respected both on and off the pitch.

If he says he was called a cheat by a player then the onus, for me, is definately on the part of the player to convince everyone that that could not have been what happened.

You don't have a link to the other footage, do you?

I wish I did Mrs P, it'd make my point easier to put across.

I saw it I think early yesterday or Saturday evening (my weekend mind is a blur!) and I tried to get it up again this morning and can't find it. It just looked like all Hartley's annoyance and dirty look was directed at a player still on the ground.
He gazes at the player or players with a serious dirty gaze and then seems to raise his eyes to someone (I assume Barnes but you can't see Barnes in frame) and mouths "f**king cheat* and then glowers onto the ground again where obviously an offending player still is. And it seems to me, I have to say it, that Hartley is telling Barnes what he thinks of the guy on the ground. Hartley isn't a friend of mine! I have no other reason for reading the incident my way than I think I see him moaning about a player and not accusing Barnes of anything.

Anyway, I just hope the RFU had all footage of the game available to them to make their call on it.

Well, I think you all know my opinion of Hartley but I am really trying to separate that from these events.

In this case I actually think video footage may not be the way to go. No one except Hartley actually knows who he was calling a cheat but they have to go with what the ref decided. In this instance i think we have to say, guilty until proven innocent.

Otherwise you are basically calling the ref a liar and also leaving the door wide open to the,

"I wasn't talking to you Sir!"

defence to every other future episode.

A player can say what he likes to the ref so long he looks away. I am happy that the message they send is,

"You do not say anything within ear shot of the ref or any other other official which could be in anyway misconstrued as abuse."

Watched a video of the incident and Hartley looked genuinely shocked and bemused by the red card. Maybe he was directing his abuse at a player but he had just been warned and only has himself to blame.

I agree with Mrs P above. Undermining the authority of the officials threatens the entire future of the game...I've already seen how much refs struggle at school level with kids (and parents) questioning their every decision. It's not a a good direction to be heading in and needs to be stamped out emphatically...

Agreed. I coach kids from 5-16 yrs and the football mentality is starting to creep in.
Our player code of conduct outlines the standards required from our kids. They all have to sign the code of conduct which has to be countersigned by a parent. Those who repeatedly fail to adhere to the agreed standards will not be tolerated within the club.

Fundamental to all this is respect.