How long will Hartley be banned for ?

First topic message reminder :

Call me a cynic, but I think it'll be a month

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/video-dylan-hartley-sent-off-for-an-ugly-elbow-on-matt-smith-30852389.html

Scroll down the article for the video

Hmm.

I think you are right on the TMO doing the replays, it really is whatever the camera crew could be ar$ed to throw up rather than them actually picking the angles and replay frame rate.

Love the comments on it being a tickle or a tap. You 'tap' any size of a man at the right point with an elbow and they'll fall (downwards).

Didn't think there was much 'thinking about it either', in real time he gets tapped and goes down. Hartley has to cut this out of his game, he is meant to be the pack and club leader. I thought in the last few months he really had matured his game and was looking like he was developing into a very tasty player. This is another set back. He is a player everyone loves to hate, and he makes it very difficult for any kind of neutral to take his side.

I started watching that game and was just thinking to myself for all his faults Hartley is England best choice for the No 2 shirt in the WC but after another transgression that has to be in doubt.

One act like and England could be out of the World Cup at the group stage - can they take the risk ?

LondonTiger wrote:

The Saint wrote:

nathan wrote:

In fairness, Liam doesn't really help himself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-30568658

Then maybe Tagikabau should also apologise for his sexist costume unless I'm missing something? Oh yeah, it's the hate-LW brigade. It's a daft costume but not an act of racism. Nobody said that about Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder...

Bearing in mind the flak the ulster boys got a few months ago, LW has to be pretty dim to do the same thin,

As to Downey Jr, in a dreadful film, a white actor who plays a white actor who blacks up is mocked withinn the film. It also got slated in the press. So get your facts right maybe?

Did the Ulster boys get any flak?

I didn't read into Downey Jr, just an example off the top of my head. A google search doesn't show me that he was slated for it though.

Are you on the hate LW brigade too LT? Sounds like you are.

3 Weeks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30594475

Shambles.

Sounds about right to me. Reckless not intentional.

The Saint wrote:
Are you on the hate LW brigade too LT? Sounds like you are.

i know little about him certainly not enough to be a hater, just think it is pretty dim for any player to black up following the highly publicised Ulster incident.

LondonTiger wrote:

The Saint wrote:
Are you on the hate LW brigade too LT? Sounds like you are.

i know little about him certainly not enough to be a hater, just think it is pretty dim for any player to black up following the highly publicised Ulster incident.

But the point is, was the Ulster non-incident highly publicised? I didn't hear of it. Not until somebody brought it up when Liam 'blacked up.' As I understood, the Swansea player also gave it his blessing. Like I said though, I think it's a daft costume. I also thinking guys dressing up as women is daft, as are girls dressing up as cats on Halloween.

BTW - seems Downey Jr got an Oscar nomination for his role in Tropic Thunder. Now who's the one who should get their facts right .

I said that the part was slated - which it was by certain parts of the press and society. Of course these were people who had not watched the film (cannot blame them it was dire) and therefore not seen that the decision by the character Downey Jr was playing (an actor) was mocked within the film.

As to Liam Williams - I have hardly seen him play so cannot comment on his abilities, but Scarlets seem to be happy he has re-signed.

The Saint wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Saint wrote:
Are you on the hate LW brigade too LT? Sounds like you are.

i know little about him certainly not enough to be a hater, just think it is pretty dim for any player to black up following the highly publicised Ulster incident.

But the point is, was the Ulster non-incident highly publicised? I didn't hear of it. Not until somebody brought it up when Liam 'blacked up.' As I understood, the Swansea player also gave it his blessing. Like I said though, I think it's a daft costume. I also thinking guys dressing up as women is daft, as are girls dressing up as cats on Halloween.

BTW - seems Downey Jr got an Oscar nomination for his role in Tropic Thunder. Now who's the one who should get their facts right .

Then your wrong, the Ulster incident was well publicised. I don't see who does it makes any difference to you. It's wrong on any level

nathan wrote:

The Saint wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Saint wrote:
Are you on the hate LW brigade too LT? Sounds like you are.

i know little about him certainly not enough to be a hater, just think it is pretty dim for any player to black up following the highly publicised Ulster incident.

But the point is, was the Ulster non-incident highly publicised? I didn't hear of it. Not until somebody brought it up when Liam 'blacked up.' As I understood, the Swansea player also gave it his blessing. Like I said though, I think it's a daft costume. I also thinking guys dressing up as women is daft, as are girls dressing up as cats on Halloween.

BTW - seems Downey Jr got an Oscar nomination for his role in Tropic Thunder. Now who's the one who should get their facts right .

Then your wrong, the Ulster incident was well publicised. I don't see who does it makes any difference to you. It's wrong on any level

I didn't see it, so it can't have been well publicised as The Saint sees all. What's wrong on any level? Nothing has happened as far as I know.

My point about different people doing it was that it would only be mentioned if LW does it (as usual). He's gathered a following of haters lately due to his playing ability.

Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

geoff999rugby wrote:Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

Lived out of Wales for 2 years +, and venture out of Wales every day . Silly man.

Well, well, well Just in time for the 6 Nations ... shocked, stunned

April 2007 - 26 weeks for eye-gouging
March 2012 - 8 weeks for biting
December 2012 - 2 weeks for punching
May 2013 - 11 weeks for verbally abusing a match official
December 2014 - 3 weeks because the 6 Nations is coming

PenfroPete wrote:Well, well, well Just in time for the 6 Nations ... shocked, stunned

April 2007  - 26 weeks for eye-gouging
March 2012 - 8 weeks for biting
December 2012  - 2 weeks for punching
May 2013 - 11 weeks for verbally abusing a match official
December 2014 - 3 weeks because the 6 Nations is coming

Actually it seems Hartley is getting a nice rest before the 6 Nations and should be raring to go. In addition to their recent signings, Saints have just inked Stevie Myler after significant interest from south of the Channel.  Also, other important cogs in the Saints machine were re-signed:  George Pisi, James Wilson (who has been terrific playing a  bit in every position from 10-15 this season, and Tom Stephenson.  The future appears in good hands.  

The big question is how to replace Samu Manoa, one of those rare high quality players who is comfortable and very effective all over the back 5.  He is a big loss.  Losing Ma'afu is a loss, but mostly to restaurants in the area.

PenfroPete wrote:Well, well, well Just in time for the 6 Nations ... shocked, stunned

April 2007  - 26 weeks for eye-gouging
March 2012 - 8 weeks for biting
December 2012  - 2 weeks for punching
May 2013 - 11 weeks for verbally abusing a match official
December 2014 - 3 weeks because the 6 Nations is coming

If that's Hartley's record, then it is a lot more horrendous than I thought. And your first point... Yeah, reminds me of Tuilagi's ban for punching in 2011.

So two weeks for the offence. Correct imo - it didn't do any real damage, which is taken into account. Sentence doubled for previous record, fair enough, reduced by one week for pleading guilty.

I don't see anything wrong with the length of the ban if you remove the fact that it's Hartley. But some people can't do that and bring their own feelings about a player into the equation.

The Saint wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

Lived out of Wales for 2 years +, and venture out of Wales every day . Silly man.

You're the silly man for implying Williams is being treated differently from the Ulster boys.

You might have left 2 years ago but clearly haven't taken the blinkers off

Hound of Harrow wrote:So two weeks for the offence. Correct imo - it didn't do any real damage, which is taken into account. Sentence doubled for previous record, fair enough, reduced by one week for pleading guilty.

I don't see anything wrong with the length of the ban if you remove the fact that it's Hartley. But some people can't do that and bring their own feelings about a player into the equation.

Surely he is the only player in rugby to have been banned four times cumilating in a year of his career, he and to other parts were forced to apologise for lewd comments made to a female hotel worker at the last world cup.

In two games this autumn he was singled out, one where he was carded and another where he should have been.

Maes - agreed his record is poor. But there's that old 'emotion' thing coming out again. I'm only commenting on the length of the ban; the subject of this article.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't allow his previous offences to cloud their judgement on 1) whether DH is guilty in this instance (clearly he is, and 2) the length of the ban.

It is similar to a criminal court, or any properly constituted disciplinary panel in any walk of life. If the defendant is guilty you decide the sentence, then you consider  the 'previous convictions' before deciding whether to increase the sentence as a further deterrent. Afterwards you decide on whether there are any mitigating factors whereby the sentence can be reduced.

The only debatable point here is whether the initial two week ban is sufficient for the offence. Given previous sentences handed out for similar offences - e.g. punching - I would say it is.

The hotel incident in NZ is irrelevant to this, and far worse things have happened on tours that have never been reported

geoff999rugby wrote:

The Saint wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

Lived out of Wales for 2 years +, and venture out of Wales every day . Silly man.

You're the silly man for implying Williams is being treated differently from the Ulster boys.

You might have left 2 years ago but clearly haven't taken the blinkers off

I think 'the saint' goes around the forums purposefully infecting each thread with the LW persecution complex.

Hound of Harrow wrote:So two weeks for the offence. Correct imo - it didn't do any real damage, which is taken into account. Sentence doubled for previous record, fair enough, reduced by one week for pleading guilty.

I don't see anything wrong with the length of the ban if you remove the fact that it's Hartley. But some people can't do that and bring their own feelings about a player into the equation.

+1

Pete330v2 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

The Saint wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

Lived out of Wales for 2 years +, and venture out of Wales every day . Silly man.

You're the silly man for implying Williams is being treated differently from the Ulster boys.

You might have left 2 years ago but clearly haven't taken the blinkers off

I think 'the saint' goes around the forums purposefully infecting each thread with the LW persecution complex.

Says the two 'ulster fans' who had nothing better to do than run in him into the ground during a certain couple of fixtures lately...

I think three weeks is fair. He plead guilty it's at the lower end of the scale and he took an extra week for previous. He also got sent off at the time so effectively missed that game as well. A long ban would have been harsh.

EPS discount card didn't need to be used. Tom Youngs and Rob Webber are both fit and ready to go.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Maes - agreed his record is poor. But there's that old 'emotion' thing coming out again. I'm only commenting on the length of the ban; the subject of this article.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't allow his previous offences to cloud their judgement on 1) whether DH is guilty in this instance (clearly he is, and 2) the length of the ban.

It is similar to a criminal court, or any properly constituted disciplinary panel in any walk of life. If the defendant is guilty you decide the sentence, then you consider  the 'previous convictions' before deciding whether to increase the sentence as a further deterrent. Afterwards you decide on whether there are any mitigating factors whereby the sentence can be reduced.

The only debatable point here is whether the initial two week ban is sufficient for the offence. Given previous sentences handed out for similar offences - e.g. punching - I would say it is.

The hotel incident in NZ is irrelevant to this, and far worse things have happened on tours that have never been reported

I disagree that we should be discussing the ban. It seems rather short and as pointless as the other 48 weeks of banishment he has served...!!!

This player doesn't learn. 50 weeks of being banned from the sport in under a decade.. His behaviour can not go on. The rugby world needs to be stricter on him and other players who bring the game in to disrepute through ignoring the laws of the game and behaving like a thug physically or verbally.

The reason I mentioned the incident in the hotel, in which Hartley asked a member of the staff for felatio so that he would return her VHF, was to show that this idiots name always comes up. It is apparent to judge him on all misdemeanours and the RFU should work out what happens from here.

Rejoicing because he is now available to play for England is a very very poor show... As is the condoning and excusing of errant ways.

The Saint wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

The Saint wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Saint that is tripe the Ulster incident was as heavily publicised as the LW one.

You need to get out of Wales and see the big world -- your developing a persecution complex

Lived out of Wales for 2 years +, and venture out of Wales every day . Silly man.

You're the silly man for implying Williams is being treated differently from the Ulster boys.

You might have left 2 years ago but clearly haven't taken the blinkers off

I think 'the saint' goes around the forums purposefully infecting each thread with the LW persecution complex.

Says the two 'ulster fans' who had nothing better to do than run in him into the ground during a certain couple of fixtures lately...

What a delusional comment.
I have made absolutely no posts about Liam Williams, regarding recent fixtures, in months - the old persecution complex kicking in again.

Also avoiding the point that the premise, that in some way Liam Williams has been picked on, is totally bogus

maestegmafia wrote:The reason I mentioned the incident in the hotel, in which Hartley asked a member of the staff for felatio so that he would return her VHF, was to show that this idiots name always comes up. It is apparent to judge him on all misdemeanours and the RFU should work out what happens from here.

Except he didn't, did he? He had no involvement in that exchange except for telling Haskell to shut up. But you never were one to let facts disturb a narrative were you?

maestegmafia wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:Maes - agreed his record is poor. But there's that old 'emotion' thing coming out again. I'm only commenting on the length of the ban; the subject of this article.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't allow his previous offences to cloud their judgement on 1) whether DH is guilty in this instance (clearly he is, and 2) the length of the ban.

It is similar to a criminal court, or any properly constituted disciplinary panel in any walk of life. If the defendant is guilty you decide the sentence, then you consider  the 'previous convictions' before deciding whether to increase the sentence as a further deterrent. Afterwards you decide on whether there are any mitigating factors whereby the sentence can be reduced.

The only debatable point here is whether the initial two week ban is sufficient for the offence. Given previous sentences handed out for similar offences - e.g. punching - I would say it is.

The hotel incident in NZ is irrelevant to this, and far worse things have happened on tours that have never been reported

I disagree that we should be discussing the ban. It seems rather short and as pointless as the other 48 weeks of banishment he has served...!!!

This player doesn't learn. 50 weeks of being banned from the sport in under a decade.. His behaviour can not go on. The rugby world needs to be stricter on him and other players who bring the game in to disrepute through ignoring the laws of the game and behaving like a thug physically or verbally.

The reason I mentioned the incident in the hotel, in which Hartley asked a member of the staff for felatio so that he would return her VHF, was to show that this idiots name always comes up. It is apparent to judge him on all misdemeanours and the RFU should work out what happens from here.

Rejoicing because he is now available to play for England is a very very poor show... As is the condoning and excusing of errant ways.

Well, I don't see any 'rejoicing' on here. One mention that Hartley will get a 'nice rest' prior to the 6N, which I took to be irony Had his ban covered the Wales game I suspect you would have been happy.

But, as has been pointed out, England have two very capable Replacements in Webber and Youngs.

The only thing that really irks me about it, is the way it was reported through Welsh channels really. Made a point of saying he was available for the Ospreys game too to build anger. Personally, whilst the ban might be technically correct, he has a catalogue of various offences that don't make pretty reading (even without the ref one) and I fail to see anything too accidental about elbowing and find the fact that the Leicester boy made a meal of it and the fact he didn't connect rather moot.

I also find the guilty plea lessening of a ban, a load of guff too. At least he didn't get another week less for not scoffing biscuits, I guess

Risca Rev wrote:The only thing that really irks me about it, is the way it was reported through Welsh channels really. Made a point of saying he was available for the Ospreys game too to build anger. Personally, whilst the ban might be technically correct, he has a catalogue of various offences that don't make pretty reading (even without the ref one) and I fail to see anything too accidental about elbowing and find the fact that the Leicester boy made a meal of it and the fact he didn't connect rather moot.

I also find the guilty plea lessening of a ban, a load of guff too. At least he didn't get another week less for not scoffing biscuits, I guess

He did connect though

Hound of Harrow wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:Maes - agreed his record is poor. But there's that old 'emotion' thing coming out again. I'm only commenting on the length of the ban; the subject of this article.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't allow his previous offences to cloud their judgement on 1) whether DH is guilty in this instance (clearly he is, and 2) the length of the ban.

It is similar to a criminal court, or any properly constituted disciplinary panel in any walk of life. If the defendant is guilty you decide the sentence, then you consider  the 'previous convictions' before deciding whether to increase the sentence as a further deterrent. Afterwards you decide on whether there are any mitigating factors whereby the sentence can be reduced.

The only debatable point here is whether the initial two week ban is sufficient for the offence. Given previous sentences handed out for similar offences - e.g. punching - I would say it is.

The hotel incident in NZ is irrelevant to this, and far worse things have happened on tours that have never been reported

I disagree that we should be discussing the ban. It seems rather short and as pointless as the other 48 weeks of banishment he has served...!!!

This player doesn't learn. 50 weeks of being banned from the sport in under a decade.. His behaviour can not go on. The rugby world needs to be stricter on him and other players who bring the game in to disrepute through ignoring the laws of the game and behaving like a thug physically or verbally.

The reason I mentioned the incident in the hotel, in which Hartley asked a member of the staff for felatio so that he would return her VHF, was to show that this idiots name always comes up. It is apparent to judge him on all misdemeanours and the RFU should work out what happens from here.

Rejoicing because he is now available to play for England is a very very poor show... As is the condoning and excusing of errant ways.

Well, I don't see any 'rejoicing' on here. One mention that Hartley will get a 'nice rest' prior to the 6N, which I took to be irony Had his ban covered the Wales game I suspect you would have been happy.

But, as has been pointed out, England have two very capable Replacements in Webber and Youngs.

I agree England have better players, as an example they should drop Hartley from the international game to show young lads that thuggish behaviour is not acceptable in the sport.

He has had fifty weeks to contemplate his behaviour, has held press conferences to announce his change to be a better player and he has not changed.

Move on and make an example, he is not worthy of the shirt

I know it's Christmas, but I think the mods may need to look at the potentially libellous comments on this thread.

The same poster is also being a bit 'free and easy' with his accusations about the AP salary cap on other threads too.

I think people need to be a bit a careful in this digital age!

Behave Cyril.

LordDowlais wrote:Behave Cyril.

Hartley (like anyone) should only be criticised for things he's actually done. I'm sure you would agree.

Cyril wrote:I know it's Christmas, but I think the mods may need to look at the potentially libellous comments on this thread.

The same poster is also being a bit 'free and easy' with his accusations about the AP salary cap on other threads too.

I think people need to be a bit a careful in this digital age!

I see that the original libellous comment has been officially reported, as has the quote containing it.

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:I know it's Christmas, but I think the mods may need to look at the potentially libellous comments on this thread.

The same poster is also being a bit 'free and easy' with his accusations about the AP salary cap on other threads too.

I think people need to be a bit a careful in this digital age!

I see that the original libellous comment has been officially reported, as has the quote containing it.

Ah, good. I didn't notice the flags. Cheers.

I guess the mods are catching up after too much Christmas pud!

Edit: although oddly enough, that weird spam post on the International board seems to have been removed already. Hmmm.