Dylan Hartley; villain or just misunderstood?

He's considered by many as the villain in rugby. I've never been overly concerned by his disciplinary record but then again I'm not a Saints or England fan. In spite of this he is a pretty good hooker from what I've seen, and his villainous is perhaps exaggerated. I recently read an article which stated that he'd be seeing a psychologist to deal with his disciplinary problems and I thought that was a bit of an extreme measure. Now today I've just witnessed him lie on the floor and trip a scrum half as he made the break; another yellow card to add to Hartley's record. So perhaps seeing a psychologist may be the right answer? The following article highlights his worst offences: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30955529

He's involved in a fair share of misdemeanours, but I think a lot of players are. Does Hartley get a bit of unfair stick, or is it justified?

you don't clock up 50 weeks of bans without there being an issue. Well done him for taking steps to sort it out and for making this public

has he really had 50 weeks of bans? wow.

he's clearly niggly. but he's not downright dirty. good to get some help, as long as it doesnt take away from his competitiveness!

quinsforever wrote:has he really had 50 weeks of bans? wow.

he's clearly niggly. but he's not downright dirty. good to get some help, as long as it doesnt take away from his competitiveness!

He certainly was. Probably not so much anymore, which is an improvement.

Sorry he is a dirty player - or rather one with a bad temper and prone to lash out - at least one of his bans was for punching and he has also kicked players and various other acts of thuggery - not perhaps as deliberate action but as a result of a total loss of self control. Compare him to McCaw - never seen McCaw loose his temper or punch or kick - despite regularly getting a shoing and being targeted. McCaw never complains either and McCaw is hardly uncompetitive
Martin Johnson went from a good player to a great one when he learned to curb his temper

Still think he s been harshly treated with a few incidents but he has allowed officials to make those decisions. Hard tag to shake once you ve got it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still think he s been harshly treated with a few incidents but he has allowed officials to make those decisions. Hard tag to shake once you ve got it.

Harshly treated? I find your attitude unfathomable!!!!

He is a dirty player. That's not a tag it's his attitude. He gouges, bites, elbows players in the face, trips them up off the ball...

As an England fan you should be worried, he is a liability.

I can't understand why he has been selected for england over Webber? A better player who is not a thug, doesn't get yellow carded almost every meaningful match, hasn't served a year of his career suspended either...

Gets Cardiff scrum halves cited too.
"Banned Richie Rees' warning to Hartley"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/9386824.stm

Because hes the best hooker in the NH. Im not worried about playing him. And hes been very harshly treated. Hes no Liam Williams.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because hes the best hooker in the NH. Im not worried about playing him. And hes been very harshly treated. Hes no Liam Williams.

Wow for a second I actually thought that was your honest opinion. Now I see, you are just trolling...

No the Williams bit was returning the favour to you the rest is actual opinion.

What was his yellow for?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because hes the best hooker in the NH. Im not worried about playing him. And hes been very harshly treated. Hes no Liam Williams.

Both good players, but unfortunatley they both tend to lose their rag more often than most.

I was wondering how long it would be before poor Liam Williams got dragged into this.... Liam's a very good player and has quite some way to go before he matches Hartley's record...

nathan wrote:What was his yellow for?

I mentioned it in the OP. Hartley was on the floor at the breakdown, having been a tackler. The Racing 9 saw a gap and went for the break, Hartley grabbed hold of his foot and tripped him. It was stupid play and no doubt helped Racing with the win today. If somebody could post Hartley's actual YC record (just in Europe for now), I'm sure it's one of the worst.

I was jesting Saint. Hartley is no where near as bad as made out with most later incidents being 50 50 but going against for his previous. Yellow today was for a tackle while on the ground nathan.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I was jesting Saint. Hartley is no where near as bad as made out with most later incidents being 50 50 but going against for his previous. Yellow today was for a tackle while on the ground nathan.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at about Hartley. And if you take his word for it, he never used foul language against Barnes (who is currently having a poor showing in the Scarlets vs Toulon game).

The Saint wrote:

nathan wrote:What was his yellow for?

I mentioned it in the OP. Hartley was on the floor at the breakdown, having been a tackler. The Racing 9 saw a gap and went for the break, Hartley grabbed hold of his foot and tripped him. It was stupid play and no doubt helped Racing with the win today. If somebody could post Hartley's actual YC record (just in Europe for now), I'm sure it's one of the worst.

Oh I thought he had done something serious the way you were banging on

nathan wrote:

The Saint wrote:

nathan wrote:What was his yellow for?

I mentioned it in the OP. Hartley was on the floor at the breakdown, having been a tackler. The Racing 9 saw a gap and went for the break, Hartley grabbed hold of his foot and tripped him. It was stupid play and no doubt helped Racing with the win today. If somebody could post Hartley's actual YC record (just in Europe for now), I'm sure it's one of the worst.

Oh I thought he had done something serious the way you were banging on

The way I was banging on???? I don't understand that. Ah well, maybe you're just angry at Tigers losing. The point I made with the YC is his discipline is poor and can be costly to his team. Some offences in the past are much worse but he's going to new measures to try and improve, which is good. If you ever pay attention to this forum the you'd see I'm not one of the ones to be constantly running Hartley into the ground whenever he does something wrong. Shame Liam Williams doesn't get afforded that courteousy.

Hartley generally doesn't start trouble but he can't stop himself from reacting to real or perceived slights.

When he bit Ferris, most of us would wonder what the Irishman's fingers were doing in Hartley's mouth but he couldn't just let it stand, or try to highlight the offence. He had to make a point to Ferris and did so illegally.

I've always believed he didn't direct his swearing at Wayne Barnes but the red card was appropriate, because he had just been warned about his conduct and language. Since he ignored it, Barnes had every reason to think Hartley had lost his head. In that instance, Saints had just been penalized, Hartley was furious that Tigers had scrummaged illegally and just couldn't restrain himself from abusing them to make the point.

In the autumn, Hartley saw a player on the wrong side, trying to slow up the ball. he tapped him to show he knew what was going on, but then trampled over him. He just couldn't let the referee do his job. Again he had to assert himself on the situation, and did so illegally.

His red card against Leicester followed the same familiar pattern. Matt Smith grappled him, and a team mate joined to break it up. Most professional players these days find a way to disengage without flailing around wildly but Hartley was incensed that someone was taking liberties, and wanted to have the final word.

It's stupid behaviour. For all I know, he might have been a dirty player early in his career, but I don't believe Hartley walks onto a pitch nowadays thinking about getting some niggle in. His problem is reacting so poorly when trouble does start. Even when he hasn't lost his head, he still makes poor judgements, as we saw against South Africa. He has to learn to walk away and be the winner over 80 minutes, not try and be top dog at every flashpoint.

Rugby fan that is the most sycophantic drivel I have read.

Why do you condone and excuse this guy?

Here is a list of the acts he has been caught committing that have contributed to a year of his career being served in suspension.

- Ruled out of 2007 world cup for Eye Gouging James Haskell and Jonny O'Conner 26 week ban

- March 2012 received an eight-week suspension after being cited for biting Ireland forward Stephen Ferris' finger while playing for England in a Six Nations game.

- 2012 banned for two weeks after being cited for punching Ulster hooker Rory Best during a Heineken Cup match.

- End of season 2013 sent off for verbally abusing referee Wayne Barnes during the Aviva Premiership final against Leicester at Twickenham. Received an 11-week suspension that sidelined him for the British and Irish Lions tour to Australia that he had been selected for.

- Last December sent off for elbowing Leicester centre Matt Smith in the face. Banned for three weeks.



Can anyone find any other player that has spent as much time banned from the game as this? He always apologieses and says he is dealing with his issues and nothing ever changes. I think the guy is a thug who enjoys dirty play, I am amazed at how many people disagree.

To lose 50 weeks through bans is utterly crazy.

maestegmafia wrote:Rugby fan that is the most sycophantic drivel I have read.

Why do you condone and excuse this guy?

Here is a list of the acts he has been caught committing that have contributed to a year of his career being served in suspension.

- Ruled out of 2007 world cup for Eye Gouging James Haskell and Jonny O'Conner 26 week ban

- March 2012 received an eight-week suspension after being cited for biting Ireland forward Stephen Ferris' finger while playing for England in a Six Nations game.

- 2012 banned for two weeks after being cited for punching Ulster hooker Rory Best during a Heineken Cup match.

- End of season 2013 sent off for verbally abusing referee Wayne Barnes during the Aviva Premiership final against Leicester at Twickenham. Received an 11-week suspension that sidelined him for the British and Irish Lions tour to Australia that he had been selected for.

- Last December sent off for elbowing Leicester centre Matt Smith in the face. Banned for three weeks.



Can anyone find any other player that has spent as much time banned from the game as this? He always apologieses and says he is dealing with his issues and nothing ever changes. I think the guy is a thug who enjoys dirty play, I am amazed at how many people disagree.

Generally agree with you but Ferris got what he deserved for fish-hooking.

maestegmafia wrote:Rugby fan that is the most sycophantic drivel I have read.

Why do you condone and excuse this guy?

I don't think you have understood what I said. I'll try and express myself more clearly next time.

Exiledinborders wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Rugby fan that is the most sycophantic drivel I have read.

Why do you condone and excuse this guy?

Here is a list of the acts he has been caught committing that have contributed to a year of his career being served in suspension.

- Ruled out of 2007 world cup for Eye Gouging James Haskell and Jonny O'Conner 26 week ban

- March 2012 received an eight-week suspension after being cited for biting Ireland forward Stephen Ferris' finger while playing for England in a Six Nations game.

- 2012 banned for two weeks after being cited for punching Ulster hooker Rory Best during a Heineken Cup match.

- End of season 2013 sent off for verbally abusing referee Wayne Barnes during the Aviva Premiership final against Leicester at Twickenham. Received an 11-week suspension that sidelined him for the British and Irish Lions tour to Australia that he had been selected for.

- Last December sent off for elbowing Leicester centre Matt Smith in the face. Banned for three weeks.



Can anyone find any other player that has spent as much time banned from the game as this? He always apologieses and says he is dealing with his issues and nothing ever changes. I think the guy is a thug who enjoys dirty play, I am amazed at how many people disagree.

Generally agree with you but Ferris got what he deserved for fish-hooking.  

I don't remember either the coaches, the citing commissioner or Dylan Hartley saying that Ferris was fish hooking him. That was just an attempt at justification for Hartley biting a player. I don't think there is any justifiable reason you would bite a player.

I also don't think it is all that easy to bite someone who is fish hooking you. Think about it.

Fish hooking ? really

Sounds like an attempt to justify a bite

Hartley has been banned for 50 weeks Ferris was banned for how many weeks?
Was he ever?
How many yellow cards - I can think of 1.

So who do you believe

maestegmafia wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Rugby fan that is the most sycophantic drivel I have read.

Why do you condone and excuse this guy?

Here is a list of the acts he has been caught committing that have contributed to a year of his career being served in suspension.

- Ruled out of 2007 world cup for Eye Gouging James Haskell and Jonny O'Conner 26 week ban

- March 2012 received an eight-week suspension after being cited for biting Ireland forward Stephen Ferris' finger while playing for England in a Six Nations game.

- 2012 banned for two weeks after being cited for punching Ulster hooker Rory Best during a Heineken Cup match.

- End of season 2013 sent off for verbally abusing referee Wayne Barnes during the Aviva Premiership final against Leicester at Twickenham. Received an 11-week suspension that sidelined him for the British and Irish Lions tour to Australia that he had been selected for.

- Last December sent off for elbowing Leicester centre Matt Smith in the face. Banned for three weeks.



Can anyone find any other player that has spent as much time banned from the game as this? He always apologieses and says he is dealing with his issues and nothing ever changes. I think the guy is a thug who enjoys dirty play, I am amazed at how many people disagree.

Generally agree with you but Ferris got what he deserved for fish-hooking.  

I don't remember either the coaches, the citing commissioner or Dylan Hartley saying that Ferris was fish hooking him. That was just an attempt at justification for Hartley buying a player. I don't think there is any justifiable reason you would but a player.

I also don't think it is all that easy to bite someone who is fish hooking you. Think about it.

MM you obviously don't remember the footage shown at the time, Hartley could not move his head, he was trapped. Ferris had his fingers in Hartley's mouth; Hartley did not put them there. Ferris got a bite as a warning, if Hartley had wanted to he could have bit a lot harder, as it was he did not draw blood.

Do you have a prescribed list of English players you hate or something, you seem to bang on about the same players all the time.

As to yesterday, I was at the game about 30m from the incident. Hartley was on the floor, trapped in the ruck, the SF 9 decided to break around the outside, right over the top of Hartley, to me it seemed like Hartley put his hands up to protect his face and when one the SH legs hit his hand, he grabbed it. Daft, but not dirty or malicious or pre-planned. He did not reach out and grab him and deliberately trip him. Now I have to say, I saw it from behind the posts in the Burrda stand and only saw it once and not in slomo, but that was the impression I and all around me had.

Owens seems to be a bit like you, he has it in for Hartley, I am beginning to think that what Hartley said to Youngs was in fact a correct interpretation of the way Owens refs Saints. He gives them no lee way at all, yet allows other sides to regularly get away with things, either that or he is absolute crap at understanding what happens in the scrum.

Didn't the panel give Hartley a below minimum tariff sentence for the biting because they accepted that Ferris had shoved his hand into Hartley's face, rather than Hartley moving to bite the hand.

Not trying to excuse biting, though some will no doubt accuse me of that, just trying to point out that some incidents are not black and white.

Mind such is his reputation, should Hartley be gouged I fully expect calls for him to be cited for headbutting the opponents fingers.

Players who get a repution can attract additional attention which might result in a few minor 50:50 decision going against them.

Hartley falls into this group but he is also 100% responsible for getting the reputation in the first place. He's a good player, but he'll never be great because he lacks the self discipline required at the top level in the modern game. He has proven time and again that he can't control his reactions. This means that to some extent he will be targeted so he becomes a greater liability than players with more discipline.

LondonTiger wrote:Didn't the panel give Hartley a below minimum tariff sentence for the biting because they accepted that Ferris had shoved his hand into Hartley's face, rather than Hartley moving to bite the hand.

Not trying to excuse biting, though some will no doubt accuse me of that, just trying to point out that some incidents are not black and white.

Mind such is his reputation, should Hartley be gouged I fully expect calls for him to be cited for headbutting the opponents fingers.

No they let him off four weeks because he hadn't had a ban since the 26 weeks he got for eye gouging... Until the bite he hadn't been caught misbehaving for four years.

There is nothing from Hartley, Ferris, or anyone involved in citing or adjudicating the decision that mention any fault on Ferris. It is only people on here other forums and a few in the media, trying to justify Hartley's misconduct that mention Ferris trying to Fish hook Hartley. There is no proof that he did.

I really can't undrstand the apologists, he is not unfortunately the victim of an unreasonable reputation. He has committed foul acta all though his career and far too many of them he has not been punished for...

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Didn't the panel give Hartley a below minimum tariff sentence for the biting because they accepted that Ferris had shoved his hand into Hartley's face, rather than Hartley moving to bite the hand.

Not trying to excuse biting, though some will no doubt accuse me of that, just trying to point out that some incidents are not black and white.

Mind such is his reputation, should Hartley be gouged I fully expect calls for him to be cited for headbutting the opponents fingers.

No they let him off four weeks because he hadn't had a ban since the 26 weeks he got for eye gouging... Until the bite he hadn't been caught misbehaving for four years.

There is nothing from Hartley, Ferris, or anyone involved in citing or adjudicating the decision that mention any fault on Ferris. It is only people on here other forums and a few in the media, trying to justify Hartley's misconduct that mention Ferris trying to Fish hook Hartley. There is no proof that he did.

Unless you actually read the decision, which clearly stated that Ferris had been applying strong pressure in or around Hartley's mouth at the time of the bite, but simply stated that they didn't think the bite could be ruled as a reasonable reaction.

By this time the citing period was over, but Ferris was clearly found by the panel to be in the wrong as well.

EDIT: I don't want to give the impression that I don't think Hartley has his issues. Gouging is obviously abhorrent, calling a referee a f**king cheat isn't acceptable, and he's still prone to odd descent of the red mist, but that biting incident shouldn't be held against him in the way that other incidents are.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Didn't the panel give Hartley a below minimum tariff sentence for the biting because they accepted that Ferris had shoved his hand into Hartley's face, rather than Hartley moving to bite the hand.

Not trying to excuse biting, though some will no doubt accuse me of that, just trying to point out that some incidents are not black and white.

Mind such is his reputation, should Hartley be gouged I fully expect calls for him to be cited for headbutting the opponents fingers.

No they let him off four weeks because he hadn't had a ban since the 26 weeks he got for eye gouging... Until the bite he hadn't been caught misbehaving for four years.

There is nothing from Hartley, Ferris, or anyone involved in citing or adjudicating the decision that mention any fault on Ferris. It is only people on here other forums and a few in the media, trying to justify Hartley's misconduct that mention Ferris trying to Fish hook Hartley. There is no proof that he did.

Unless you actually read the decision, which clearly stated that Ferris had been applying strong pressure in or around Hartley's mouth at the time of the bite, but simply stated that they didn't think the bite could be ruled as a reasonable reaction.

By this time the citing period was over, but Ferris was clearly found by the panel to be in the wrong as well.

Link????

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

page 10.

offload wrote:Players who get a repution can attract additional attention which might result in a few minor 50:50 decision going against them.

Hartley falls into this group but he is also 100% responsible for getting the reputation in the first place. He's a good player, but he'll never be great because he lacks the self discipline required at the top level in the modern game. He has proven time and again that he can't control his reactions. This means that to some extent he will be targeted so he becomes a greater liability than players with more discipline.

I agree - but this can be changed and hopefully ( cos tho I can't stand Hartley I enjoy good rugby) he will change with the professional help he is seeking.

To me Martin Johnson is the best example of this. For the early part of his career he had the reputation ( and indeed he was) a bad tempered so and so who lost the plot. Opposition teams knew this and would niggle him until he snapped. to Johnsons credit he realised this ( I think after the infamous SA tour) and cleaned up his act. By curbing his temper he want from a good to a great player. Still a hard man, still uncompromising but he no longer lost the plot and eliminated the main weakness from his game..

When you lose your temper its not just the one incident that costs your team. While the red mist is there you make bad decisions and waste energy

thomh wrote:http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

page 10.

I read that... I accept the conclusion says that it is likely that pressure was applied to the Mouth area of his face.
But I still can't find the part where it says that Ferris fish hooked Hartley. The conclusion seems to be there is no justification for Hartley to bite anything other than his food.

There is again no justification for Hartley's brutish over reaction.

maestegmafia wrote:

thomh wrote:http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

page 10.

I read that... I accept the conclusion says that it is likely that pressure was applied to the Mouth area of his face.
But I still can't find the part where it says that Ferris fish hooked Hartley. The conclusion seems to be there is no justification for Hartley to bite anything other than his food.

There is again no justification for Hartley's brutish over reaction.

Ferris' fingers were in Hartley's mouth and in there for more than the time it would take to realise they were in an inappropriate place. If Hartley had wanted to seriously hurt Ferris he could have, he didn't. He gave him a get them out of my mouth nip that did not even break the skin, Ferris then went wendyballer and went crying to the ref. Worse than the recent diving episodes we have seen IMO.

maestegmafia wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Didn't the panel give Hartley a below minimum tariff sentence for the biting because they accepted that Ferris had shoved his hand into Hartley's face, rather than Hartley moving to bite the hand.

Not trying to excuse biting, though some will no doubt accuse me of that, just trying to point out that some incidents are not black and white.

Mind such is his reputation, should Hartley be gouged I fully expect calls for him to be cited for headbutting the opponents fingers.

No they let him off four weeks because he hadn't had a ban since the 26 weeks he got for eye gouging... Until the bite he hadn't been caught misbehaving for four years.

There is nothing from Hartley, Ferris, or anyone involved in citing or adjudicating the decision that mention any fault on Ferris. It is only people on here other forums and a few in the media, trying to justify Hartley's misconduct that mention Ferris trying to Fish hook Hartley. There is no proof that he did.

I really can't undrstand the apologists, he is not unfortunately the victim of an unreasonable reputation. He has committed foul acta all though his career and far too many of them he has not been punished for...

But was there any proof he didn't gauge or fish hook him? I can remember that was no footage of what happened and it all hinged on the fact that ferris had a mark on his finger.

I don't think anyone is apologising for him, his record speaks for itself. But most people find it funny on here because of your posting habits regarding all things english.

I don't know why you chaps are giving Welsh trolling the time of day, we know Hartley will most like start for England in 2 weekends time, and we know that in an England shirt his disciplinary record is about average for a hooker, so I expect him to be absolutely fine

I don't want him anywhere near the england team to be honest, he has had enough chances and he is a walking yellow or red waiting to happen, pick Webber and Youngs it's as simple as that

maestegmafia wrote:

thomh wrote:http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

page 10.

I read that... I accept the conclusion says that it is likely that pressure was applied to the Mouth area of his face.
But I still can't find the part where it says that Ferris fish hooked Hartley. The conclusion seems to be there is no justification for Hartley to bite anything other than his food.

There is again no justification for Hartley's brutish over reaction.

We weren't talking about fish-hooking. You said the panel didn't mention any fault on Ferris' part. Clearly they did. Not only did they say that he was applying strong pressure in or around Hartley's mouth, they also found his testimony to be untrue on the issues of how long the bite lasted and Ferris' actions in the leadup to it.

Hartley overreacted, as the panel said, but in the circumstances it was at least understandable even if not justifiable and, as the panel also said "the effect on the victim was minimal".

What is applying strong pressure around the mouth. Fish hooking.

Hartley should not have bitten him but Ferris should not have had his finger in his mouth and certainly should not have gone crying to the ref like a baby.

thomh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

thomh wrote:http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

page 10.

I read that... I accept the conclusion says that it is likely that pressure was applied to the Mouth area of his face.
But I still can't find the part where it says that Ferris fish hooked Hartley. The conclusion seems to be there is no justification for Hartley to bite anything other than his food.

There is again no justification for Hartley's brutish over reaction.

We weren't talking about fish-hooking. You said the panel didn't mention any fault on Ferris' part. Clearly they did. Not only did they say that he was applying strong pressure in or around Hartley's mouth, they also found his testimony to be untrue on the issues of how long the bite lasted and Ferris' actions in the leadup to it.

Hartley overreacted, as the panel said, but in the circumstances it was at least understandable even if not justifiable and, as the panel also said "the effect on the victim was minimal".

I'm sorry but the point you highlight does not in the slightest bit incriminate Ferris. The report does not say he had his fingers up to no good, certainly does not say they were in Hartley's mouth.

Hartley bit him is the only proof atvtge hearing and several witnesses all concluded that Ferris had in deed been bitten.

It was probable to the requisite standard of proof that Ferris's hand - and particularly the little finger of his right hand - was exerting strong pressure in the region of the Player's mouth.

The Player, pinned to the ground, would not have been able to move his head such that his mouth might have sought out Ferris's hand

Direct quotes from the judgment. The judgment also states that such an act would cause discomfort and maybe pain and might provoke a reaction.

However it then says that such reaction, no matter how much pain is being caused would not be justification, stating that "self defence" is not allowed.

It does also state earlier that Ferris was less than truthful in describing the injuries.

Thanks LT the link is posted above. As you can see that does not incriminate Ferris, it does not say he stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth, there were plenty of players from both teams that were directly at the scene, non stood as whiteness for Hartley.

Because nobody could see; he was at the bottom of a ruck. The incident highlights what has been said though. Hartley put himself in a situation where a judgement could be made but could have quite easily gone another way due to lack of evidence.

The only direct evidence was some minor marks on Ferris's finger, and Hartley admits biting claiming self defence.

Ferris is not on trial so it does not look at what he did in any great detail - other than to say he did not tell the truth on two occasions - re the extent of the injury and what part of his arm was across Hartleys face. In legal terms it pretty well says he put his hand - especially the little finger - in Hartley's mouth (ie "the hand is exerting force in the mouth region" and "the POlayer could not move his head to the hand"). It does not state this was deliberate, but does suggest it would have caused pain.

I was wrong earlier to suggest that these actions had caused a reduction in the ban.

I was not wrong to suggest that the findings declared that it was hand to mouth rather than mouth to hand.

Wow, cant believe someone is defending Hartley with "he could of bit harder if he wanted too"!

Animals and little children bite! Not grown men who play professional sport of a living!!

When a player gets this amount of incidents I don't think it's just bad luck.

He's only put up with because he is a good player. Still his antics have proven costly to Saints - I wonder when their patience will run out.

For England - his discipline has been better but how long will that last?

Hartley gets another card for a silly error on the weekend - when will he learn!
If Rowntree and SL were watching then they should take note - he is too much of a risk for International at the moment.

maestegmafia wrote:I'm sorry but the point you highlight does not in the slightest bit incriminate Ferris. The report does not say he had his fingers up to no good, certainly does not say they were in Hartley's mouth.

I highlighted two points, the second of which was that Ferris' testimony at the hearing was found to be untrue.

It as good as does say that Ferris' fingers were in Hartley's mouth. As LT pointed out, the panel found (and it's clear from the footage) that Hartley couldn't move his head because Ferris had him in a headlock. The only way he could have bitten him therefore is if Ferris' fingers were in his mouth anyway.

maestegmafia wrote:Hartley bit him is the only proof atvtge hearing and several witnesses all concluded that Ferris had in deed been bitten.

The bold bit is incorrect, as the panel expressly say that it was proven that Ferris' fingers were applying strong pressure in the region of Hartley's mouth.

One the second part, no-one on any side has ever denied this, and Hartley pled guilty, so it's a non-point.