Dylan Hartley Headbutt

First topic message reminder :

So it looks like Hartley is being hauled before another disciplinary committee for an alleged headbutt in last week's game against Saracens.

Here's a video of the incident:

http://vine.co/v/ebZ2Fen2gHg

If proven guilty he'll miss some of the August warmup games and, considering his lengthy record, potentially the World Cup itself.

Far from being the worst I've ever seen, he does plant his feet and lean in so I think they could claim intent.

Have just seen that Hartley is "OUT" of the RWC. Well he only has him self to blame in my opinion.

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

ebop wrote:Imagine if Tuilagi had done this to the policewoman, no worries mate, it's not a headbutt.

I'm waiting with baited breath for someone to come on here and state that Hartley's 'psyche is flawed'.....

Gwlad?...... Gwlad?..... anyone?..... Gwlad?.... Bueller?

No?.... okay..... Beshocked?..... Beshocked?...... anyone?...... Beshocked?...... Bueller?

I'd say yours is on its way Jimpy if you can't connect the dots.

is that your flawed psyche leaving the building?

One thing's for sure, you wouldn't have a clue if it was or not.

Another thing's for sure, it already has.

Jimpy wrote:

spaynter wrote:4 weeks is ridiculous. There's no way George can have been hurt. This is a 4 week ban for being a d*ck and last time I looked, there was nothing in the law book about that......

If there was, Gavin Henson would be swinging from a gallows by now.

He could keep you company

Its clear that England have a discipline issue and after RWC 201, Stewie is doing his utmost to stamp on emerging problems and i think his decision on both Manu and Hartley is spot on. If you tolerate this sort of person it indicates a lack of judgment and he can't afford to have a home RWC be marred by indiscipline. Just hope though that losing 2 such key players in key positions doesn't come back to haunt him. I expect Dylan is done with England now and Manu will have to start from scratch.

I'd have thought the Welsh would be delighted about a little bit of English haunting if the two key positions now look less potentially solid....

SecretFly wrote:I'd have thought the Welsh would be delighted about a little bit of English haunting if the two key positions now look less potentially solid....

At hooker for sure its a huge blow, and no one wants to face Manu although we have always handled him. England are more danger with Joseph in the centre than they have been for years and if they can just find him the right partner then i think the loss of manu is significantly less impactive. Hartley is a chump…stupid is as stupid does….a certain FEC a few yars ago but now well and truly done by reputation if not quite yet on the park

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'd have thought the Welsh would be delighted about a little bit of English haunting if the two key positions now look less potentially solid....

At hooker for sure its a huge blow, and no one wants to face Manu although we have always handled him. England are more danger with Joseph in the centre than they have been for years and if they can just find him the right partner then i think the loss of manu is significantly less impactive. Hartley is a chump…stupid is as stupid does….a certain FEC a few yars ago but now well and truly done by reputation if not quite yet on the park

Manu has only played Wales 3 times. Scored a handy try on debut in one of them and was coming back from injuries in the other two. Bit soon to say Wales have him covered generally.

I'd say he's a bigger loss than Hartley provided that Youngs' throwing doesn't go into meltdown at a crucial moment. Youngs' lineout stats are good generally but his missed ones seem to come in sudden patches and often at crucial times, whereas Hartley is more consistent.

EDIT: actually I've just remembered that, while he had been recently injured in 2013, he'd already put in a massive performance vs France since coming back, so I doubt lack of fitness was a factor v you. I think he just had a poor day though, starting with that drop on first phase when he could have been in for a try.

Big call from Lancaster there. Probably the right one given he basically axed Tuilagi as well. I say probably because if the replacements don't do a job for England this decision could come back to bite England.

I'm certainly breathing a little easier with the thought of England scrumming us into the ground in our match. Youngs is nowhere near as effective in that area (assuming he is first choice). That Webber looks pretty solid at set piece as well though. That said Englands props are still outstanding so how much of an advantage we will see is unclear.

I agree that Tuilagi probably wont be missed because England's backs have been excellent without him around this year anyway and Joseph really does have the potential to light up this years world cup. Hopefully though a great season from Scotty can see him gain a advantage for 1 match in that head to head.

All that said, England still strong favourites at home regardless.

I'm not a massive fan of Hartley, i think he flatters to deceive. But this is a stupid, stupid decision. T Youngs can be great but outside of that we have pitifully little experience.

It's a case of process first, results second. I really cannot stand Bomber's approach on such matters.

Think Lancaster's hand was forced by Hartley missing the first game. 4 hookers can not fit in the 31 squad, if one of the others injured for Fuji game would have to be dumped to bring in another to meet regs & so would lose the cohesion built up in training camp & warm up games & hooker is one position that needs cohesion with other players. If an injury replacement needed for Hooker after Fuji game can see Hartley called up as should be able to fit back in easier.

broadlandboy wrote:Think Lancaster's hand was forced by Hartley missing the first game. 4 hookers can not fit in the 31 squad, if one of the others injured for Fuji game would have to be dumped to bring in another to meet regs & so would lose the cohesion built up in training camp & warm up games & hooker is one position that needs cohesion with other players. If an injury replacement needed for Hooker after Fuji game can see Hartley called up as should be able to fit back in easier.

I think that's it. Lancaster's decision is not so much a punishment as a practical necessity. If Hartley was one of three hookers selected in the squad, then if Tom Youngs picked up a niggle and couldn't play in the Fiji game, he'd have to be replaced, and would miss the rest of the World Cup. That's just a consequence of needing to have two fit hookers in the matchday squad.

Rugby Fan wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Think Lancaster's hand was forced by Hartley missing the first game. 4 hookers can not fit in the 31 squad, if one of the others injured for Fuji game would have to be dumped to bring in another to meet regs & so would lose the cohesion built up in training camp & warm up games & hooker is one position that needs cohesion with other players. If an injury replacement needed for Hooker after Fuji game can see Hartley called up as should be able to fit back in easier.

I think that's it. Lancaster's decision is not so much a punishment as a practical necessity. If Hartley was one of three hookers selected in the squad, then if Tom Youngs picked up a niggle and couldn't play in the Fiji game, he'd have to be replaced, and would miss the rest of the World Cup. That's just a consequence of needing to have two fit hookers in the matchday squad.

naive

Stewie is ridding himself of liabilities in the biggest rugby competition in english history

he knows there is a potential discipline issue with English players and is distancing himself from the outliers, Steffon, Manu and now Harltey.

In doing so he is playing Stewie-safe, and perhaps these stupid but talismanic players may cost him and England dear

Next it will be Haskell who he may realize is a large chump.

That he wont be available for the warm ups or the first game is a massive issue in itself, and would rule out pretty much any player if it were an injury.
When you combine that with his disciplinary record (especially the yellow vs SA which nearly caused Lancaster to ditch him previously) ad the number of "last chances" hes ben given its clear England believe he is a liability n this regard, and that the risks he brings aren't outweighed by the benefits he brings.

Taking Hartley is full of risk and an issue for discipline across the squad. Part of Lancasters remit was to restore discipline (despite all the stick Johnson got for being too hard on the players up until the point he decided to let them relax, and then got abuse for that) to the side, and a big part of that is getting players who are capable of looking after themselves and behaving like adults without having to be told.

Dropping Tuillagi was a given. Picking Armitage was impossible whilst his court case was still not settled, France issue and general questions about his character and"diet" aside. Leaving them out is not so much punishment as common sense.
Id say the same for Hartley, it also sends out the right message. Players have to have some form of self control.

As it was the particular incident was fairly innocuous but it sums up a side of Hartley he just hasnt been able to curb. Its the second year in a row hes ended the season with a ban from a crunch game. Added to his history of cards and more serious incidents, plus a host of things hes got away with you have a clear pattern of a guy who yes maybe has stopped gouging an biting people but still cant help but get needlessly involved in initiating off the ball contact.

Hartley, Tuillagi and Armitage have all only got themselves to blame for not going to the world cup.

Most people/media say "Dillon" for Dylan, but the Welsh often say it more like "Dullan". Appropriate.

Read somewhere that Lancaster has said he won't be considered for selection until after his ban. Do you think he will leave a place in the squad for him or just call him up in the event of injury?

bedfordwelsh wrote:Read somewhere that Lancaster has said he won't be considered for selection until after his ban.  Do you think he will leave a place in the squad for him or just call him up in the event of injury?

Lancaster has been clear - Hartley can't be considered for the squad. If all three squad hookers stay fit, then we'll never know whether Lancaster has Hartley ahead of the fourth man - who will be in the training squad - or of he's in fifth.

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Read somewhere that Lancaster has said he won't be considered for selection until after his ban.  Do you think he will leave a place in the squad for him or just call him up in the event of injury?

Lancaster has been clear - Hartley can't be considered for the squad. If all three squad hookers stay fit, then we'll never know whether Lancaster has Hartley ahead of the fourth man - who will be in the training squad - or of he's in fifth.

Rugby,

I def read somewhere that Lancaster said he won't be considered until after his ban, I am guessing he hopes to never have to make that decision.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Read somewhere that Lancaster has said he won't be considered for selection until after his ban.  Do you think he will leave a place in the squad for him or just call him up in the event of injury?

Lancaster has been clear - Hartley can't be considered for the squad. If all three squad hookers stay fit, then we'll never know whether Lancaster has Hartley ahead of the fourth man - who will be in the training squad - or of he's in fifth.

Rugby,

I def read somewhere that Lancaster said he won't be considered until after his ban, I am guessing he hopes to never have to make that decision.

Lancaster definitely holds Hartley's indiscipline against him, but I don't think he feels he can't call him up if the situation arises. I think if Tom Youngs was ever ruled out, Hartley would almost certainly be called up.

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Read somewhere that Lancaster has said he won't be considered for selection until after his ban.  Do you think he will leave a place in the squad for him or just call him up in the event of injury?

Lancaster has been clear - Hartley can't be considered for the squad. If all three squad hookers stay fit, then we'll never know whether Lancaster has Hartley ahead of the fourth man - who will be in the training squad - or of he's in fifth.

Rugby,

I def read somewhere that Lancaster said he won't be considered until after his ban, I am guessing he hopes to never have to make that decision.

Lancaster definitely holds Hartley's indiscipline against him, but I don't think he feels he can't call him up if the situation arises. I think if Tom Youngs was ever ruled out, Hartley would almost certainly be called up.

Lancaster seems like a fair man when it comes to his squad, disciplin has been a high priority since the form of the squad he inherited. He has mollycoddled Hartley constantly offering opportunities to improve his awful indisciplin, which have always unfortunately gone wrong. I can't see Hartley getting another cap and rightly so. You would have to be desperate to pick a player who has spent 10% of his career on the sidelines being banned for thuggish behaviour on the pitch.

I am more surprised to see Jim Mallinder and Tony Hewitt sticking by him. As many posters have pointed out Hartleys actions have effected Saints far more than England.

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

spaynter wrote:4 weeks is ridiculous. There's no way George can have been hurt. This is a 4 week ban for being a d*ck and last time I looked, there was nothing in the law book about that......

If there was, Gavin Henson would be swinging from a gallows by now.

He could keep you company

Back again?

As has been directed at you in another article, as someone with a degree in psychology (PMSL   ), you could perhaps enlighten us as to what personality traits might be indicated by someone who consistently makes disparaging and usually unsubstantiated remarks against a particular group (or individuals in this case), most often in discussions populated mostly by members of that group, and while hiding behind the anonymity of a keyboard?

maestegmafia wrote:
Lancaster seems like a fair man when it comes to his squad, disciplin has been a high priority since the form of the squad he inherited. He has mollycoddled Hartley constantly offering opportunities to improve his awful indisciplin, which have always unfortunately gone wrong. I can't see Hartley getting another cap and rightly so. You would have to be desperate to pick a player who has spent 10% of his career on the sidelines being banned for thuggish behaviour on the pitch.

I am more surprised to see Jim Mallinder and Tony Hewitt sticking by him.  As many posters have pointed out Hartleys actions have effected Saints far more than England.

The irony is that after his appauling gouging and subsequent ban back in 2007 Hartley did appear to clean up his act and I think it was a good 4/5 years after that he had no red cards and no bans. His discipline has only been an issue since he started working with Lancaster. Which makes me wonder just how much of his 'culture' is hot air and posturing.

Only one incident with England and I personally think he's been hard done to a number of times now.

Big wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
Lancaster seems like a fair man when it comes to his squad, disciplin has been a high priority since the form of the squad he inherited. He has mollycoddled Hartley constantly offering opportunities to improve his awful indisciplin, which have always unfortunately gone wrong. I can't see Hartley getting another cap and rightly so. You would have to be desperate to pick a player who has spent 10% of his career on the sidelines being banned for thuggish behaviour on the pitch.

I am more surprised to see Jim Mallinder and Tony Hewitt sticking by him.  As many posters have pointed out Hartleys actions have effected Saints far more than England.

The irony is that after his appauling gouging and subsequent ban back in 2007 Hartley did appear to clean up his act and I think it was a good 4/5 years after that he had no red cards and no bans.  His discipline has only been an issue since he started working with Lancaster.  Which makes me wonder just how much of his 'culture' is hot air and posturing.

Im pretty sue breaking Mat Smiths jaw was a bit more than hot air.

to be fair though he got a bit screwed on the biting thing, on balance I beeive he was aiming the cheat comments at Youngs not Barnes, and this headbutt was unfortunate to be picked up ...its a bit of a lottery as to what the comissioners get hol of and wht they dont. When it did get reffered though the had no choice given his record but to give a significant ban.

The real issue ere is a consistent pattern from Hartley that hes in the thick of this kind of thing despite being told to reign it in and spending time with psychologists to control it. Its pretty clear he cant.

I dot know how much Saints lose from this, he wouldve missed the start of next season for them anyway. If we are looking to blame a coach from this should it be the one who drops him for being a dick or the one who even tried to excuse Clarke? Mallinder would probably stand by Hitler after invading Poland saying he didnt want to curb his natural aggression.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Only one incident with England and I personally think he's been hard done to a number of times now.

You must be referring to Hartley's forearm to McCaw's head in 2010, yes?

No against SA. D on t remember the ban for McCaw though.

Just looked it up. Bit naughty not even a citing but in 2010, I was responding to a post talking about Lancasters time in charge which was after this anyway.

This "headbutt" is one of Hartley's lesser misdeeds but it was easily avoidable. Hartley only has himself to blame - his list of misdeeds is so long that of course a disciplinary panel will be stricter.

Good thing for England is that Hartley had a poor 6 nations and was outplayed by George, with Hartley's ban it means the in form George will get his opportunity.

He's as big as Hartley, he's faster and has shown this season he can do the set piece stuff well too. Of course his discipline record is superior too. The only downside is experience but game time is all George needs.

The ban has allowed fresh opportunities for the like of George and Cowan Dickie to fight for the 2 shirt.

beshocked wrote:This "headbutt" is one of Hartley's lesser misdeeds but it was easily avoidable. Hartley only has himself to blame - his list of misdeeds is so long that of course a disciplinary panel will be stricter.

Good thing for England is that Hartley had a poor 6 nations and was outplayed by George, with Hartley's ban it means the in form George will get his opportunity.

He's as big as Hartley, he's faster and has shown this season he can do the set piece stuff well too. Of course his discipline record is superior too. The only downside is experience but game time is all George needs.

The ban has allowed fresh opportunities for the like of George and Cowan Dickie to fight for the 2 shirt.

I agree, and if you think about it, Youngs is relatively inexperienced too as he played second fiddle to Hartley. Youngs will be starting for sure, with George as back-up. I suppose at least George will get some time in the warm up matches.

Is Youngs really that inexperienced? Over 20 caps and a Lions tour under his belt.

We know what Youngs can do. Personally I think we need to see what the likes of George and Cowan Dickie can do.

Would start George in at least warm up to see what he can do. These guys will need experience going into the RWC.

Can't see George starting any of the warm-ups to be honest. Although he does need to. Maybe against France if England win the first one.

Would be a shame if he doesn't simply because England need to give experience with Hartley missing.

As for warm ups - doesn't really matter if England win. It's about getting the best preparation for the World Cup.

That means blooding some players.

Perhaps the likes of Itoje, Burgess, George and Slade - starting or on the bench.

We know what quite a few players can do - it's the wild cards who could make the difference. Adding some power and athleticism to a currently workman like England side.

Need aspirations to turn England from a top 5 side to the best in the world.

Can't go into a RWC without experience for a backup hooker ( assuming Youngs is no 1 hooker)

Picking on form is important IMO which is why the likes of Haskell, Attwood and Corbisiero wouldn't make the 31 IMO.

At least one of the warm up games will be played with what Lancaster views as his first choice team.

Londontiger that's fair enough but there has to be opportunity to try out players too.

2, 6 and 12 in particular need a clear 2nd choice that we would be happy with - let's assume Youngs,Wood and Barritt are 1st. We need to have back up we are happy with.

Perhaps George, Itoje/Burgess and Slade could fill these roles.

People say they are inexperienced - they are in form - I say they need to be tried ASAP to see if they are good enough yet.

Lancaster is his own man, but past history suggests a first string at home to france, second string away.

That's stupid if true. Best for inexperienced players to play on home turf IMO.

Familiar surroundings, home crowd, no travel - better.

Also England will be at home in the RWC anyway.

Pretty sure Johnson, Ashton and Woodward played it that way in the double header warm-ups.

Of course at my age my memory is not what it once was.

I would agree some of the lads who could very realistically play need game time.

For me George would fall in to that category...especially with Webbers form (appalling).

Slade possibly also. I just don't see Itoje or Burgess going though Beshocked.

I think his locks will be out of:
Launchbury, Lawes, Attwood, Parling, Kruis, and I think all the back row spots are taken up.

We'll geordiefalcon I am sure you said Itoje wouldn't make the 50 man squad so...........

Backrow spots are taken up with whom?

GF said he would not be in a 40 man squad, and he probably would not have been.

There will probably be 9 players selected to cover second row and back row. This would probably be 3 second row (most likely Launchbury, Lawes and then Parling jsut ahead of Attwood) 5 back row (with Billy, Robwwod and Morgan taking 4 spots) and one yo cover both areas.

Haskell will probably take the last back row spot with Kruis favoured to take the utility slot ahead of Slater and Itoje.

Will any England players not be banned/arrested/convicted of assault come RWC?

Personally I'd have Slater as the utility lock/6, but other than that I reckon you're right LT

Slater has been utterly brilliant this season with all the game time he has had...... Should walk into the England 31 because he's just that good!

So I've been told anyhow........personally I think a player actually needs to prove they are worthy of an England spot but still......I guess I am wrong....

Doesn't play often enough for Saracens for your liking beshocked, that's probably the issue

No it's not that. The issue is he has barely played in over 9 months!

If I think a player is good I will say so irrespective of whether they play for Saracens.

E.g. I have praised the likes of Nowell and Ford as much improved players this season.

I would have the likes of Ford ahead of Farrell, Nowell ahead of Strettle and Brown ahead of Goode. It's obvious.

I have seen no logical reason why Slater should walk into the England 31 - he's not even proven at international level.

By all means explain why you rate Slater so highly.

Slater was rated very highly after the last couple of seasons and would have got time with England if he had not had his own serious injury. He has had very little game time this season but has been good in the few chances he has had.

beshocked wrote:No it's not that. The issue is he has barely played in over 9 months!

If I think a player is good I will say so irrespective of whether they play for Saracens.

E.g. I have praised the likes of Nowell and Ford as much improved players this season.

I would have the likes of Ford ahead of Farrell, Nowell ahead of Strettle and Brown ahead of Goode. It's obvious.

I have seen no logical reason why Slater should walk into the England 31 - he's not even proven at international level.

By all means explain why you rate Slater so highly.

Remind me again how many games Farrell has played recently? Brown as well


Slater will have a chance n the warm ups to prove whether or not he deserves a spot on the plane

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:No it's not that. The issue is he has barely played in over 9 months!

If I think a player is good I will say so irrespective of whether they play for Saracens.

E.g. I have praised the likes of Nowell and Ford as much improved players this season.

I would have the likes of Ford ahead of Farrell, Nowell ahead of Strettle and Brown ahead of Goode. It's obvious.

I have seen no logical reason why Slater should walk into the England 31 - he's not even proven at international level.

By all means explain why you rate Slater so highly.

Remind me again how many games Farrell has played recently? Brown as well


Slater will have a chance n the warm ups to prove whether or not he deserves a spot on the plane

FYI RWC 2015 is at home.

Gwlad wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

beshocked wrote:No it's not that. The issue is he has barely played in over 9 months!

If I think a player is good I will say so irrespective of whether they play for Saracens.

E.g. I have praised the likes of Nowell and Ford as much improved players this season.

I would have the likes of Ford ahead of Farrell, Nowell ahead of Strettle and Brown ahead of Goode. It's obvious.

I have seen no logical reason why Slater should walk into the England 31 - he's not even proven at international level.

By all means explain why you rate Slater so highly.

Remind me again how many games Farrell has played recently? Brown as well


Slater will have a chance n the warm ups to prove whether or not he deserves a spot on the plane

FYI RWC 2015 is at home.

Training camp in Portugal obvs

Gooseberry you haven't answered the question.

You seriously believe the situation of Farrell and Brown is the same to Slater?

Slater has no caps for England. Well down the pecking order at lock and blindside.

Farrell just played a starring role in the ap semi and final wins - he's also had numerous caps under Lancaster and a lions tour.

Brown is Lancaster's no 1 full back and has played a lot more than Slater this season.

Oh and should add despite Farrell getting the upper hand over Ford I would still start Ford as first choice 10.

Lostinwales by that logic shouldn't Fraser be in the 50 man squad? Perhaps Pennell? Pennell hasn't played an ap game in a year but so what? He was good a year ago......

Neither have England caps just like Slater.....

beshocked wrote:Gooseberry you haven't answered the question.

You seriously believe the situation of Farrell and Brown is the same to Slater?

Slater has no caps for England. Well down the pecking order at lock and blindside.

Farrell just played a starring role in the ap semi and final wins - he's also had numerous caps under Lancaster and a lions tour.

Brown is Lancaster's no 1 full back and has played a lot more than Slater this season.

Oh and should add despite Farrell getting the upper hand over Ford I would still start Ford as first choice 10.

Lostinwales by that logic shouldn't Fraser be in the 50 man squad? Perhaps Pennell? Pennell hasn't played an ap game in a year but so what? He was good a year ago......

Neither have England caps just like Slater.....

When was the last time Fraser played? If he was remotely healthy he probably would have been part of the 50. As he hasn't (and is made of glass) and Kvesic has sorted himself out there is competition. Pennell was at least on the list of possible players. Slater has been pushing for recognition for a long time and has been a very important player for Leicester for a few years. And he has played at least a couple of games and done well.