Sticks and Stones?

First topic message reminder :

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?

I know the technicality of what Mrs P say. But for no reason should a player suffer a wrongful decision simply to keep the structure of not being seen to disagree with a ref.

If evidence suggests the player is guilty, so be it. If evidence suggests he isn't guilty then a ruling shouldn't be made that runs counter to evidence simply because a referee remains adamant he has the 'real deal' truth backing him up.

Evidence or none should be the deciding factor. A player of Hartley's reputation doesn't need it polished for the world by an untruth.

I'm not saying I know what the truth is, I obviously don't, but certainly a referee shouldn't be always believed simply because of a principle that a referee's testament should never be contradicted.

SecretFly wrote:I know the technicality of what Mrs P say. But for no reason should a player suffer a wrongful decision simply to keep the structure of not being seen to disagree with a ref.

If evidence suggests the player is guilty, so be it. If evidence suggests he isn't guilty then a ruling shouldn't be made that runs counter to evidence simply because a referee remains adamant he has the 'real deal' truth backing him up.

Evidence or none should be the deciding factor. A player of Hartley's reputation doesn't need it polished for the world by an untruth.

I'm not saying I know what the truth is, I obviously don't, but certainly a referee shouldn't be always believed simply because of a principle that a referees testament should never be contradicted.

Barnes said to Hartley in the run up to the card to watch his language and if he feels that the comments are being directed at him (Barnes) he will take action. This is the cue for any intellegent person to keep their mouth shut. Even if Hartleys comments werent directed at Barnes as another poster mentioned Hartley failed the intellegence test and deserves a ban.

Id like to think that the diciplinary system is fair and consistent and not over burdensome. However, where Hartley is concerned I really dont care as he have proven time and time again he doesnt have the temprement for international rugby.

Secret,

I agree wholeheartedly but what evidence could exist?

In fact, if we are going to demand evidence in situations of this sort then no one will ever be sanctioned.

"I said that while looking at the ref but I was actually thinking about someone else at the time!"?

"I said, "Wayne Barnes is a cheat!", but I was talking about another Wayne Barnes!"?

The only person who knows who was being called a cheat is Hartley. I think it is up to him to convince the disciplinary hearing that he was not talking to the ref. he doesn't seem to have done that.

GunsGerms wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I know the technicality of what Mrs P say. But for no reason should a player suffer a wrongful decision simply to keep the structure of not being seen to disagree with a ref.

If evidence suggests the player is guilty, so be it. If evidence suggests he isn't guilty then a ruling shouldn't be made that runs counter to evidence simply because a referee remains adamant he has the 'real deal' truth backing him up.

Evidence or none should be the deciding factor. A player of Hartley's reputation doesn't need it polished for the world by an untruth.

I'm not saying I know what the truth is, I obviously don't, but certainly a referee shouldn't be always believed simply because of a principle that a referees testament should never be contradicted.

Barnes said to Hartley in the run up to the card to watch his language and if he feels that the comments are being directed at him (Barnes) he will take action. This is the cue for any intellegent person to keep their mouth shut. Even if Hartleys comments werent directed at Barnes as another poster mentioned Hartley failed the intellegence test and deserves a ban.

Id like to think that the diciplinary system is fair and consistent and not over burdensome. However, where Hartley is concerned I really dont care as he have proven time and time again he doesnt have the temprement for international rugby.

Oh I know, I know, I know your feelings Guns. I know people's feelings on the topic. But that's why there is meetings and ruling, to take decisions away from what fans feel. If we were to go on what fans feel, a lot of players would have been lynched long ago amid the often times melodramatic reactions to events on the field.

I was that person who said I felt on looking at footage that Hartley's words weren't directed at Barnes but to him about another player. Whether Hartley is right, I'm right or Barnes is right; you don't or shouldn't get 11 weeks of a ban because fans think you probably deserve it anyway for past infringements. If so then O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Heaslip and Healy (mentioning only a few Irish players) are going to be paying heavy prices if they get carded over the summer.

I hope I don't think this is the right decision just because it's Dylan Hartley.

And I don't think he past record has anything to do with whether or not I think he should be banned. It should/will dictate the length of any ban but not be used to decide guilt or innocence.

I think the ref's word that he felt the insult was directed at him is enough here. The officials must be protected from any abuse.

MrsP wrote:Secret,

I agree wholeheartedly but what evidence could exist?

In fact, if we are going to demand evidence in situations of this sort then no one will ever be sanctioned.

"I said that while looking at the ref but I was actually thinking about someone else at the time!"?

"I said, "Wayne Barnes is a cheat!", but I was talking about another Wayne Barnes!"?

The only person who knows who was being called a cheat is Hartley. I think it is up to him to convince the disciplinary hearing that he was not talking to the ref. he doesn't seem to have done that.

And he'll hang by whatever judgement is finally given to him (after an appeal). If that's 11 weeks, that will be 11 weeks. So be it. Rules are rules and judgements are judgements.

But there'll be more to it than that. From here on in, for those who believe the judgement or want to believe it, that ruling will be added to Hartley's list of wrongdoing by fans. And it will furnish them with more 'evidence' of his character. And if people question anything, they'll be told to look up his disciplinary record that speaks for itself.

I guess I'm saying 'No, that is not evidence of his seasonal guilt - that is strictly a ruling and judgement made by the RFU. Given what I saw on video, I'll choose to keep an open mind on this one, despite any 11 week ban, as it remains a matter of opinion who Hartley was talking to or about. No proof of guilt can be made here as the visual evidence is insufficient in detail.'

Anyway, that's my duty done on this particular ref drama. Onwards to the next one

Secret,

Just how much worse does this one ban make Hartley's record look?

It was already so horrendous that he was not going to get any kind of reduction on any future ban, was he? He already has a ban this season so it isn't even going to extend his "bad behaviour" period by more than a few weeks.

Anyway, the RFU have already shown they don't check so all he needs is a QC to tell them his last offence was more than 5 years ago and Bob's yer Uncle!

Bottom line: is Barnes beyond reproach?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Bottom line: is Barnes beyond reproach?

Yes probably but it isnt beyone the realms of possibility that Hartleys ban will be reduced significantly. Parisse's ban for something similar was reduced to 10 days on appeal.

maestegmafia wrote:

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.

Combined bans of 47 weeks now it seems

Gatland said he has been lead to believe that Hartley will not appeal.

brennomac wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

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.

Combined bans of 47 weeks now it seems

That is quite telling, how many years has he now been playing pro rugby?

Even Bakkies Botha is an angel compared to him.

Biltong wrote:

brennomac wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

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.

Combined bans of 47 weeks now it seems

That is quite telling, how many years has he now been playing pro rugby?

Even Bakkies Botha is an angel compared to him.

Bilts, if you include ban time, he has been playing pro rugby for, I'd guess, about 56 weeks in total

Seriously, though, I know that Scotland always planned to wind him up if he was hooking for England. Undoubtedly (but not necessarily correctly) his reputation as a hot head goes before him. Opponents know it so it is entirely likely that refs may have preconceptions too.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:

Biltong wrote:

brennomac wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

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.

Combined bans of 47 weeks now it seems

That is quite telling, how many years has he now been playing pro rugby?

Even Bakkies Botha is an angel compared to him.

Bilts, if you include ban time, he has been playing pro rugby for, I'd guess, about 56 weeks in total

Seriously, though, I know that Scotland always planned to wind him up if he was hooking for England. Undoubtedly (but not necessarily correctly) his reputation as a hot head goes before him. Opponents know it so it is entirely likely that refs may have preconceptions too.

Referees definitely have preconcieved ideas mate.

Andre Watson was on Supersport last year and was asked about when he started his international refereeing career.

He basically explained that the xperienced referees told him to watch out for the Argentinian forwards at the breakdown as they infringed a lot a the time.

So when he did a game against them, that was his focus.

I am pretty sure every referee before he goes onto the pitch has an awareness of problem players etc.

All refs watch TV - sky over here, Supersport with you, The Rugby Channel for NZ and are bound to see analysis where the pundits highlight so-and-so always hangs around off side, player X is always collapsing scrums when put under pressure, player Y runs blocking routes in midfield etc so they absolutely must be looking out for certain players to be doing, or not doing, certain things
I'm a wee bit surprised that Andre Watson came out and said that on national TV. If I was Argentinian, I would be a bit miffed about refs basically colluding to keep perhaps more of an eye on "our" activities at the break down that, say, Richie McCaw's antics

InjuredYetAgain wrote:All refs watch TV - sky over here, Supersport with you, The Rugby Channel for NZ and are bound to see analysis where the pundits highlight so-and-so always hangs around off side, player X is always collapsing scrums when put under pressure, player Y runs blocking routes in midfield etc so they absolutely must be looking out for certain players to be doing, or not doing, certain things
I'm a wee bit surprised that Andre Watson came out and said that on national TV. If I was Argentinian, I would be a bit miffed about refs basically colluding to keep perhaps more of an eye on "our" activities at the break down that, say, Richie McCaw's antics

According to McCaw's book his Dad once overheard a conversation between Paddy O'Brien & Steve Walsh where they complained McCaw was so fast they couldn't see if he was doing anything wrong

Yes, I had the same problem myself.
Well, I say the same problem, what I mean is that by the time I got to the breakdown the ball was so far away that if I strayed off side or left my feet (due to extreme fatigue) I never got penalised for doing anything wrong as the ref was miles away looking at the next phase

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Yes, I had the same problem myself.
Well, I say the same problem, what I mean is that by the time I got to the breakdown the ball was so far away that if I strayed off side or left my feet (due to extreme fatigue) I never got penalised for doing anything wrong as the ref was miles away looking at the next phase

maestegmafia wrote: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.

He wasn't, Maes. He was drawing a comparison between calling the ref a cheat and punching someone. Under RFU guidelines, the first carries a heavier punishment than the second (gouging carries a heavier penalty than both).

I'd agree with the others here who think that abusing the ref should be punished more harshly than punching a player.

i agree. rugby's cornerstone is repsect for the ref, it's what sets us apart and we have to maintain it. now refs such as barnes might test that resolve but nevertheless it's vital. Otherwise in future we will be debating whether punching a player is worse than punching the ref! (Unless it was Barnes)

Fly, the RFU reports on discipline are usually pretty good. I don't think they are put up until the appeal process has been sorted.

It's funny how if a hearing does result in what some want they call shenanigans before reading he report. But if the result is what they want its "well that's what hearing found"

I still haven't seen any footage (listening on the radio and only caught highlights from half time). It still seems a wired thing to say to the ref and its much more plausible that he was attempting to highlight Young's 'cheating' to Barnes. I will read the report with interest.

But I will also say that given Barnes thought he was talking to him red is right call. Also since the hearing panel must have thought it was directed at Barnes a ban is also right. However, given it was a mi offence what exactly is a low entry offence? I'm curious how the judge these things.

HammerofThunor wrote:However, given it was a mi offence what exactly is a low entry offence? I'm curious how the judge these things.

My understanding is it went from a low to a mid offence because of Hartley's previous disciplinary record.

[quote

He wasn't, Maes. He was drawing a comparison between calling the ref a cheat and punching someone. Under RFU guidelines, the first carries a heavier punishment than the second (gouging carries a heavier penalty than both).

I'd agree with the others here who think that abusing the ref should be punished more harshly than punching a player.[/quote]


On that basis should Hartley have punched Barnes

RubyGuby wrote:[quote

He wasn't, Maes. He was drawing a comparison between calling the ref a cheat and punching someone. Under RFU guidelines, the first carries a heavier punishment than the second (gouging carries a heavier penalty than both).

I'd agree with the others here who think that abusing the ref should be punished more harshly than punching a player.

On that basis should Hartley have punched Barnes [/quote]

No... striking an official is a life ban (I think?).

Then again....

Metal Tiger wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:[quote

He wasn't, Maes. He was drawing a comparison between calling the ref a cheat and punching someone. Under RFU guidelines, the first carries a heavier punishment than the second (gouging carries a heavier penalty than both).

I'd agree with the others here who think that abusing the ref should be punished more harshly than punching a player.

On that basis should Hartley have punched Barnes

No... striking an official is a life ban (I think?).

Then again....it's only Barnes

Rugby Fan wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:However, given it was a mi offence what exactly is a low entry offence? I'm curious how the judge these things.

My understanding is it went from a low to a mid offence because of Hartley's previous disciplinary record.

I didn't that was how it worked. I though they picked an entry point based on the offence and then looked at things like character after. It might have been because he was captain. That could be seen as a worse offence

As a group do we feel it is a worse offense to mouth off to an official or to deliberately injure? I feel both are unacceptable and, since both are wrong, more severe penalties are appropriate. I am not so concerned about penalties as they are, but as they could/should be.....

I am staying legalistic on this point and away from discussion about Hartley because:
(1) I am a Saints fan and have been so for a long long time
(2) He is/was my captain, and let the team down
(3) He knows he in under a microscope and has less latitude than others

It's not a matter of which is worse. Nothing in theory is worse than physically injuring someone. However, without a referee we have anarchy and therefore the penalty for an offence toward an official needs to be partucularly hard and effective to send out the right message to everyone concerned.

Grey,

There are, thankfully, very few incidents I can recall where one could say one player deliberately set out to injure another.The one I can think of the disciplinary panel took the opposite view, completely messed up the sanction and generally made the whole process look ridiculous.

And, Hartley was said to have done more than "mouth off" at an official. He is thought to have called the ref a cheat!

If you are asking if I think Callum Clark or Dylan Hartley deserved the greater ban then there is no doubt in my mind that Clark would be my answer.

Saints fan deserve better.

The real story here is actually about the Lions tour. Without this on the horizon his ban would receive far less attention and it would be just another misdemeanour in a long list of misdemeanours. Indeed, the best predictor of future behaviour remains past behaviour

Quite agree re Clark and after his heinous assault - there is no other word for it- he is now in the england fold...now some on here reason Gatland is somehow at fault for selecting Hartley, can the same be said for Lancaster selecting Clark? Persoanlly think it is rubbish to suggest that coaches should be held accountable for the conduct of a player on the pitch, it's the sort of blame game that i get sick of as the player has done the crime and served the time. However in Clark's case i can make an exception and feel his selection is somehow at odds with what i think lancaster stands for and that if he is the sort of player who does what he did and thinks flying headbutts are accptable then he will only embarass himself and england in future.

MrsP wrote:Grey,

There are, thankfully, very few incidents I can recall where one could say one player deliberately set out to injure another.The one I can think of the disciplinary panel took the opposite view, completely messed up the sanction and generally made the whole process look ridiculous.

And, Hartley was said to have done more than "mouth off" at an official. He is thought to have called the ref a cheat!

If you are asking if I think Callum Clark or Dylan Hartley deserved the greater ban then there is no doubt in my mind that Clark would be my answer.

Saints fan deserve better.

You have four points here, all rolled up together. First, how do we determine an attempt to injure from, say, a gentle little shoeing? Was Healey trying to injure Cole? If not, just suggest he moves his leg (regardless of the position of the leg). What about Justice 4 Bakkies, or only a little punishment for Schalk Burger? Or about the next guy who goes after a ball carrier with no attempt to tackle, just hit. These were/are all different in my opinion (and I don't like, but was not fussed about Healey, just used it an example). Please understand, I am not saying each guy should be sent to Tyburn Hill for public hanging. But I am asking how can we discriminate between those actions, and which is more severe, and are the punishments sufficient to get it out of Rugby? Clearly not talking about argy-bargy. Big things only. And I don't think the current laws deal properly here.

I had used the term mouth off more generically, to include everything from comments abut the referees parentage to cheat to anything else. What he said was beyond the Pale.

I agree the Clark injury was worse than what was said to the referee. That was brutal. He paid the consequences. But he must also understand he is now under a microscope and needs to keep his behaviour on a higher plane. That''s the bed he laid out for himself.

Saints fans do deserve better, Thanks for agreeing.
Want to buy a Hooker, slightly used?

I notice Wynne Gray has written a similar article for the New Zealand herald this morning, contrasting the Sanctions imposed on Graham Henry for suggesting the referee was blind and allowed the opposition to cheat, The Stormers for heckling a linesman and Hartley for swearing at Barnes and he raises many if the same issues about consistency.