Dylan Hartley rehabilitation setback

First topic message reminder :

Red-carded tonight for a swinging arm tackle against Leinster.

Saints were behind on the scoreboard but on the attack when Hartley came off the bench. Two scrum penalties later, Leinster were on the Saints goal line and duly scored. a try. Not long afterwards, Hartley was sent off, and Saints promptly crumbled. Not really an effective contribution.

It's the sort of thing Hartley has done before but seemed to have left behind under Jones. Poetically, both Lancaster and Jones were at the ground to bear witness.

This red happened in a club match but it has international implications. Jones might stand by his man, or he might take it as a cue to start looking elsewhere for captaincy options. The 6N match against Ireland could be a crucial encounter, and the referee will be Jerome Garces, who just sent Hartley off the field.

If Hartley doesn't lead England during the 6N, then his Lions chances will take a hit.

Engine#4 wrote:

beshocked wrote:To be fair to the Irish I still think they are smarting from when Umaga and Mealamu got away with spear tackling BOD.

Hartley being of NZ origin brings up painful memories of that injustice. To be fair I agree. It was disgraceful.

Though Hartley is English so he doesn't escape a ban.

Leaving intent out if it, the refreshing part of this Hartley business is the way that his coach and the English pundits called it as it was (a stupid red card) instead of making things up to try and cover for him.  Rugby fans tend to get less riled up by a bit of rough and tumble when the perpetrators and their mates have the bottle to own it.  

Agreed.

Even on this board, I don't think any England fans are saying that he shouldn't have seen a red card. Just that he shouldn't have his hands chopped off as punishment, which some would appear to think is perfectly justifiable

Stop that Bam. Nobody is remotely suggesting having his hands chopped off.

Munch has simply suggested a firing squad, which I'm sure every fair minded rugby fan agrees is a reasonable suggestion.

For what it's worth, Hartley is a very very good player, a fooooookin idiot mind, he threw a big swinging arm to show he's the man ( when he should have waited till sob hit the floor then gone for the jackle) deserved red.
My question is why he can be very sensible and do the right thing during internationals but a massive fool in domestic?

marty2086 wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Any player that leads his country to 13 successive victories is a very special player, in fact there would be very few international players that could claim such a  statistic.Yes he plays on the edge, and every now and then it doesnt come off.  Some of the vilifying/insulting comments about the man on this thread are way over the top.

Perhaps he will get a ban for a few weeks, but he will be back.

Totally agree. As was said by BT commentators prior to the game something wasn't/isn't right at the Saints to have put him on the bench as England captain & he needed game time - it just doesn't add up somehow. I am not condoning his reckless behaviour but I don't believe it would have happened if he was wearing white.

How did he need game time? He had just played 4 tests and Saints have a very good hooker in Haywood who was playing well and hadn't been away from the club for a month

Correct me if I'm wrong but he had been injured for quite some time & he may have had only one, if that, full game for Saints prior to the AIs. That is not a great number of games under your belt. I agree Haywood is a good hooker, I'm not sure if he'd been playing well though as Saints had been very up & down.
I still believe he should have started. He isn't as sharp as I'd like around the field for my liking yet though.

Poorfour yes Burger was fortunate to not get a longer ban but he's not offending as regularly as Hartley.

I don't think it's harsh because repeat offenders should be punished. Hartley tried to intimidate and rile George but it failed. It was unnecessary.

no 7 & 1/2 they've kept themselves away from bans and away from the headlines. If they were as banned as regularly as Hartley then yes they would be as criticised. I am not claiming they are whiter than white, what S.Burger did was bad but he's not the same as Hartley.

I find it amusing how Hartley has so many defenders of his actions.

I understand you base role model on length of bans not actions. How many weeks ban does it take to tip over?

beshocked wrote:I find it amusing how Hartley has so many defenders of his actions.

I haven't seen anyone defend Hartley's actions. I have seen and heard people defend Hartley against claims such as the one in an Irish newspaper saying "Dylan Hartley's first instinct is to bite, gouge or hit high and he deserves career-ending ban".

I don't think anyone grows up and thinks I want to gouge just like S.Burger.

I am not saying S.Burger is the best role model, I am saying he's better than Hartley which one cannot deny.

If I was a young frontrower I'd rather look up to Jamie George than Hartley.

The best Saracens forward that anyone should look to emulate is Richard Hill if we are looking at of all time Saracens players.

No it's not about length of ban. I've always prefer Hodgson as a role model compared to Farrell. Itoje instead of Hamilton etc.

I would ban him from the sport. He is a highly paid role model and there is no place in any sport for thugs.

We should play guess the nationality for some of these comments.

Thanks be shocked. Bit over the top allty

Rugby Fan wrote:

beshocked wrote:I find it amusing how Hartley has so many defenders of his actions.

I haven't seen anyone defend Hartley's actions. I have seen and heard people defend Hartley against claims such as the one in an Irish newspaper saying "Dylan Hartley's first instinct is to bite, gouge or hit high and he deserves career-ending ban".

Christ which paper was that in?

http://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/neil-francis-dylan-hartleys-first-instinct-is-to-bite-gouge-or-hit-high-and-he-deserves-careerending-ban-35283972.html

"The problem here is that the rulebook doesn't contain anything that comes close to an appropriate punishment within its statutes. Nothing that would adequately punish Hartley for his crimes on the field. And an if eight-week ban is what is prescribed, Harley deserves 80."

What a drama queen. I'm very annoyed with Hartley but ffs.

Even calls the citing commissioners invertebrates. Useful.

Well I supose if he didn't spout a load off balls no one would bother to read him and he would be out of a job.
Do you think journalists these days just give up on any sort of proper reporting as soon as they are employed, or are they given a handbook on how to create 'clickbate' to keep the share holders happy?

Scottrf wrote:http://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/neil-francis-dylan-hartleys-first-instinct-is-to-bite-gouge-or-hit-high-and-he-deserves-careerending-ban-35283972.html

"The problem here is that the rulebook doesn't contain anything that comes close to an appropriate punishment within its statutes. Nothing that would adequately punish Hartley for his crimes on the field. And an if eight-week ban is what is prescribed, Harley deserves 80."

What a drama queen. I'm very annoyed with Hartley but ffs.

Even calls the citing commissioners invertebrates. Useful.

The joke is on you for taking Francis seriously. He writes this sort of stuff week in week out to wind people up. That said for a man that keeps getting banned for fairly unsporting acts there does need to be some sort of deterrent. Hartley also deserves the criticism.

An accident of unfortunate timing nothing else. Hartley will get a ban because he has been branded an ill deciplined player - rightly enough in most cases. But there's the rub, get the reputation and you'll be targeted. Someone tries to fishhook you cheek off and you get the punishment for biting the hand. Next he'll get banned for face butting a fist.

He deserves a ban for this no question.

Had sob not fallen and Hartley had wrapped him up preventing the offload, we'd all be talking about how effective he is in loose play. That's the fine margins we're dealing with.

Presuming Ed wrote:An accident of unfortunate timing nothing else. Hartley  will get a ban because he has been branded an ill deciplined player - rightly enough in most cases.  But there's the rub, get the reputation and you'll be targeted. Someone tries to fishhook you cheek off and you get the punishment for biting the hand. Next he'll get banned for face butting a fist.

Why would anyone put their finger in someones mouth? How many times have you heard of this mythical fish hooking in rugby? You are living in a fantasy land dude.

Hartley is going to get a ban because he swung his arm at a player, you cant do that regardless of whether or not he hit SOBs head.

Presuming Ed wrote:Had sob not fallen and Hartley had wrapped him up preventing the offload, we'd all be talking about how effective he is in loose play. That's the fine margins we're dealing with.

Oh FFS

He wasn't trying to wrap him up he was deliberately swinging his arm to make an impact so stop trying to defend him with made up BS

If he wasn't such an idiot and thug we wouldn't be talking about it

We'd probably be talking of a successful tackle or more likely not talking about it at all. As it is it was a deserved red under the laws and the argument is really about accident vs deliberate or in some cases because it's Hartley should he get a harsher punishment than if this was done by someone else.

Would you accept marty you see plenty of tackles with similar technique in all games?

Watch the clip with both eyes- try imagining Hartley is your beloved Healy. Although he'd be more likely trying to break someone's ankle lying in a ruck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Would you accept marty you see plenty of tackles with similar technique in all games?

Where only one arm makes contact? Yes, I saw it numerous times at the weekend, problem is that's not what happened here

Hartleys other hand is on SOBs back, hes setting him up for a shot with the arm whether it was aimed for the head or not only he knows but it was a cheap shot and not a tackle

Presuming Ed wrote:Watch the clip with both eyes- try imagining Hartley is your beloved Healy. Although he'd be more likely trying to break someone's ankle lying in a ruck.

I have and Im an Ulsterman so Healys not exactly beloved in my house

If he had remained upright and running I would have expected to see a completed tackle. You wouldn't?

No 7&1/2 wrote:If he had remained upright and running I would have expected to see a completed tackle. You wouldn't?

No it was a clear shot at SOB, his whole body shaped for it like a boxer going for a big KO punch

Hartley was clumsy and probably deserved the red -just. It's always worth looking at things as if your team were being penalized. Brings a sense of perspective. The Healy thing was more for guns benefit

Marty, you're spouting garbage now.

He didn't punch him so I'd disagree with that, but what I would say is go on you tube and have a look at some big hits (legal tackles) and see how many techniques are the same as Hartley s here. A fair few. I'll leave it after this but the fall of sob which Hartley wasn't expecting led to the hit and the deserves red.

Presuming Ed wrote:Had sob not fallen and Hartley had wrapped him up preventing the offload, we'd all be talking about how effective he is in loose play. That's the fine margins we're dealing with.

You can say that with many incidents.

It's still the same player. You do not see other players involving themselves in as many incidents.

If it happens once or twice you can say it's unlucky but if it happens again and again.....

E.g. Daly I don't think is a dirty player despite his reckless RC.

If he goes on to pick up numerous other bans then that might change.

But you need to judge the incident not the player.

For a combative front row player, 3 sendings off in a long career including this latest unfortunate accidental one, doesn't seem too bad to me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He didn't punch him so I'd disagree with that, but what I would say is go on you tube and have a look at some big hits (legal tackles) and see how many techniques are the same as Hartley s here. A fair few. I'll leave it after this but the fall of sob which Hartley  wasn't expecting led to the hit and the deserves red.

I never said it was a punch but he tries to generate power of his right arm and makes no attempt to bring his left arm round like a big
punching boxer would

For a combative front row player, 3 sendings off in a long career including this latest unfortunate accidental one, doesn't seem too bad to me.

Presuming Ed wrote:Marty, you're spouting garbage now.

Garbage? You are defending a man that's been penalised for gouging, biting, stamping, headbutting, punching and stiff arm shotting someone to the head and saying you'd expect him to be combative

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you need to judge the incident not the player.

Not true. Citing commissioners always take past record into account and rightly so. If a player keeps getting himself in trouble then he isnt learning and therefore a greater sanction is warranted.

Yes agree with that marty to a point, misunderstood...but I do think he would have completed the tackle if he hadn't have been felled by wood.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes agree with that marty to a point, misunderstood...but I do think he would have completed the tackle if he hadn't have been felled by wood.

That's where I struggle though theres nothing in any of it to suggest that though, if anything SOB falling freed up his left hand as he seemed to have committed it to his back to aid whatever he was attempting being it a cheap shot or poor attempt to dislodge the ball

He was not lining him up like a boxer trying to get him in the head. That is sheer fantasy.

Presuming Ed wrote:He was not lining him up like a boxer trying to get him in the head. That is sheer fantasy.

The fantasy being yours as I never mentioned him going for the head so do please learn to read

I wasn't aware of that guns. Thought that citing commissioners would just judge on the respective tackle and if it deserved a red. Do refs also play to different rules? Do the players get told what level they as an individual are allowed? Or did you mean that there wouldn't be a reduction in ban for previous good behaviour?

Don't see it as a cheap shot marty, if a player has the ball he has to expect the tackle. Like I said the fall makes it a deserved red card.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I wasn't aware of that guns. Thought that citing commissioners would just judge on the respective tackle and if it deserved a red. Do refs also play to different rules? Do the players get told what level they as an individual are allowed? Or did you mean that there wouldn't be a reduction in ban for previous good behaviour?

Its effectively the same thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't see it as a cheap shot marty, if a player has the ball he has to expect the tackle. Like I said the fall makes it a deserved red card.

Nothing wrong with a tackle but stiff arm tackles are outlawed for a reason so a cheap shot in my book

You honestly see plenty though. Bod went through his career making them, so did Wilkinson. Yes laws change but it's still prevalent and ignored by refs.

Sections of the Irish media are making a meal of the incident. SportsJoe describes it as an 'absolutely sickening attack', Balls.ie describe it as 'disgraceful'. SportsJoe appear to be rather fond of the England captain

https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/dylan-hartley

Didn't know the Irish were such pansies.

I've been one of many calling for Hartley's head, as his record has been shameful.

But looking at the breakdown (from the BBC Rugby Web pages)...

Dylan Hartley's rap sheet
April 2007 - 26 weeks for eye gouging - Not long enough.. Eye gouging should be a life ban imo.
March 2012 - eight weeks for biting - Seems about right
December 2012 - two weeks for punching - Depending on the circumstances, in the right ballpark
May 2013 - 11 weeks for swearing at a referee - Way over the top, especially with James Davis only getting 3 weeks today
December 2014 - three weeks for elbowing - Again, depending on the circumstances, the right ballpark
May 2015 - four weeks for head butting - Got off lightly, as could be easily more.


I have to say, I don't agree with players mouthing off at the officials and they should face a sanction for it. 3 weeks, as given today for James Davies is about right, so a 11 week ban for Hartley in May 2013, seemed really over the top (unless of course, it was end of season and they wanted to make sure he missed so many games). Did Hartley not apologise beforehand, or even during the hearing.

Scottrf wrote:Didn't know the Irish were such pansies.

Oh a pansie is a hair puller, a scratcher, a biter and a from-behind-hero, Scott.