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.

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

Don't be so sensitive, petal

No9 wrote: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.

In regard to his ban for abusing the ref...
He didnt apologise because he claims he didnt do it, the comment was directed at the player (Youngs?) but the ref beleived it was at him and in response to the penalty he'd just given. His ban was harsh because he was deemed to have not only made a naughty swear at the ref but more importnatly accused him of cheating. That said the use of the word cheat does back up the claim that the comment was aimed at the player who had milked a situation to win a penalty, I honestly felt his was hung out to dry on that one. But if we accept the verdict as correct the ban wasnt excessive in context and in light of his previous record.

Id argue his punching ban was pretty leniwent given it was his 3rd serious foul play offence and second that season. Similar with the elbow tbh. The bite ...I have some sympathy with, not only was it a reaction to a unpunished act of foul play but also whipped up into a frenzy deliberately by the Irish players and staff to get him banned....there were several incidents in that game that couldve been cited yet hes the one that again got hung out to dry for something that although dirty in teh grand scheme of thinsg wasnt actually that big a deal.

We can argue all day long about whats right fair and proper in each case but alll in he cant complain too much, theres plenty he has gotten away with over the years.

Likely it will end up being something around 4 weeks for this which will give him christmas and new year off to read all the twitter abuse.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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.

I beleive they can reduce the ban for previous record rather than increase it for previous one. The initial judgement is always on the incidnet, not the player.
That said theres inevitably some concious or unconcious bias bias coming into play when it comes to what gets noticed (high profile games/players and media attention always increase the chance of citings especially when people start ranting post match about specific incidents) and the way people view intent etc when reviewing evidence. Theres more than enough of that on here with people happy to assume he intended it as a high swinging arm because its Hartley.

Gooseberry wrote:In regard to his ban for abusing the ref...
He didnt apologise because he claims he didnt do it, the comment was directed at the player (Youngs?) but the ref beleived it was at him and in response to the penalty he'd just given. His ban was harsh because he was deemed to have not only made a naughty swear at the ref but more importnatly accused him of cheating. That said the use of the word cheat does back up the claim that the comment was aimed at the player who had milked a situation to win a penalty, I honestly felt his was hung out to dry on that one. But if we accept the verdict as correct the ban wasnt excessive in context and in light of his previous record.  

Id argue his punching ban was pretty leniwent given it was his 3rd serious foul play offence and second that season. Similar with the elbow tbh. The bite ...I have some sympathy with, not only was it a reaction to a unpunished act of foul play but also whipped up into a frenzy deliberately by the Irish players and staff to get him banned....there were several incidents in that game that couldve been cited yet hes the one that again got hung out to dry for something that although dirty in teh grand scheme of thinsg wasnt actually that big a deal.

We can argue all day long about whats right fair and proper in each case but alll in he cant complain too much, theres plenty he has gotten away with over the years.

Likely it will end up being something around 4 weeks for this which will give him christmas and new year off to read all the twitter abuse.

Prior to him calling someone a cheat he had taken issue with Barnes decisions so it wasn't a huge leap to think he took exception again

He got off lightly with the punching because Rory Best spoke up for him and pretty much said it didn't really hurt

His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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.

I beleive they can reduce the ban for previous record rather than increase it for previous one. The initial judgement is always on the incidnet, not the player.
That said theres inevitably some concious or unconcious bias bias coming into play when it comes to what gets noticed (high profile games/players and media attention always increase the chance of citings especially when people start ranting post match about specific incidents) and the way people view intent etc when reviewing evidence. Theres more than enough of that on here with people happy to assume he intended it as a high swinging arm because its Hartley.

No, it's judged on the incident and previous conduct. I don't think the citing panel increase a ban for previous offences, but it can stop them reducing it. James Davies was judged to have committed a low end offence - 4 weeks, and because he pleaded guilt and remorse (bless), he had the ban reduced by 1 week. He would have had the ban further reduced by 50% - 2 weeks, had he not had a previous offence.

I do remember the citing panel adding on weeks to set an example. Stupid, unfair, inconsistent, but that's citing commissions.

No9 wrote: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.

Gouging - Agree should have been longer
Biting - Harsh especially as it was caused by Ferris' fish-hooking who was not punished at all.
Punching - I do not remember the incident to be honest.
Abusing ref - Ban would have been okay if he was guilty but there was no evidence at all that he was talking to Barnes.
Indeed the words used only really make sense if aimed at Youngs rather than Barnes.
The whole incident smacked of Barnes' desire to be the centre of attention - a fault he seems to be
growing out of at last.
Elbowing - Probably okay - just one of those things
Head butt - calling that a head butt is a bit strong - it was stupid however.

Gooseberry wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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.

I beleive they can reduce the ban for previous record rather than increase it for previous one. The initial judgement is always on the incidnet, not the player.
That said theres inevitably some concious or unconcious bias bias coming into play when it comes to what gets noticed (high profile games/players and media attention always increase the chance of citings especially when people start ranting post match about specific incidents) and the way people view intent etc when reviewing evidence. Theres more than enough of that on here with people happy to assume he intended it as a high swinging arm because its Hartley.

Well the citing commissioner has to make a judgement on whether its intentional or not as far as I know. That's why the ABs always come out in the press to say it was unintentional I assume.

Doesn't the citing officer only look at if they thought it should have been a red card?

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

You do realise that fish hooking is mentioned nowhere but on here? Almost as if people are trying to find excuses for his behaviour

Your reasoning is Hartley bit him so therefore his finger must have been put there for it to happen?

"Gouging - Agree should have been longer
Biting - Harsh especially as it was caused by Ferris' fish-hooking who was not punished at all.
Punching - I do not remember the incident to be honest.
Abusing ref - Ban would have been okay if he was guilty but there was no evidence at all that he was talking to Barnes.
Indeed the words used only really make sense if aimed at Youngs rather than Barnes.
The whole incident smacked of Barnes' desire to be the centre of attention - a fault he seems to be
growing out of at last.
Elbowing - Probably okay - just one of those things
Head butt - calling that a head butt is a bit strong - it was stupid however."

So...

The Biting one was the victim's fault.
The Abusing the Ref one was the ref's fault
And this one is O'Brien or Wood's fault?

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

You do realise that fish hooking is mentioned nowhere but on here? Almost as if people are trying to find excuses for his behaviour

Your reasoning is Hartley bit him so therefore his finger must have been put there for it to happen?

That's precisely the issue. Fish hooking wasn't mentioned in the citing commissioners report either. But what was reported was that Hartley was bound into a ruck (without his hands free) when a finger found its way into his mouth and started pulling. Unable to use his arms to pull it out and experiencing what he described as "discomfort" and pressure on his neck, he bit on the finger until its owner took it away.

Hartley shouldn't have bitten. But it still feels very unjust that there was no exploration of how the finger got into Hartley's mouth. Given Hartley's evidence - which the commissioner accepted in mitigation - Ferris's role deserved to be examined more closely.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No9 wrote: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.

Gouging - Agree should have been longer
Biting - Harsh especially as it was caused by Ferris' fish-hooking who was not punished at all.
Punching - I do not remember the incident to be honest.
Abusing ref - Ban would have been okay if he was guilty but there was no evidence at all that he was talking to Barnes.
                 Indeed the words used only really make sense if aimed at Youngs rather than Barnes.
                 The whole incident smacked of Barnes' desire to be the centre of attention - a fault he seems to be
                 growing out of at last.
Elbowing - Probably okay - just one of those things
Head butt - calling that a head butt is a bit strong - it was stupid however.

Probably ok? He was lucky to get away with 3 weeks. It wasn't just one of those things. It was a blatant act of thuggery, and he should have been red carded. I don't even think he received a yellow.

I agree on the head butt. Hartley was really just squaring up and it's fairly normal for heads to touch when that happens. Not smart, but not exactly a head butt.

Munchkin wrote:Probably ok? He was lucky to get away with 3 weeks. It wasn't just one of those things. It was a blatant act of thuggery, and he should have been red carded. I don't even think he received a yellow.

He was sent off.

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

You do realise that fish hooking is mentioned nowhere but on here? Almost as if people are trying to find excuses for his behaviour

Your reasoning is Hartley bit him so therefore his finger must have been put there for it to happen?

That's precisely the issue. Fish hooking wasn't mentioned in the citing commissioners report either. But what was reported was that Hartley was bound into a ruck (without his hands free) when a finger found its way into his mouth and started pulling. Unable to use his arms to pull it out and experiencing what he described as "discomfort" and pressure on his neck, he bit on the finger until its owner took it away.

Hartley shouldn't have bitten. But it still feels very unjust that there was no exploration of how the finger got into Hartley's mouth. Given Hartley's evidence - which the commissioner accepted in mitigation - Ferris's role deserved to be examined more closely.

Could you show me where its reported because Ive never seen it anywhere?

As a comparison Hartley himself was bitten by Pedrie Wannenburg on camera after Hartley tried to rip his head off and no sanction for either of them

Scottrf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Probably ok? He was lucky to get away with 3 weeks. It wasn't just one of those things. It was a blatant act of thuggery, and he should have been red carded. I don't even think he received a yellow.

He was sent off.

Was he? A yellow?

No a red. Was the semi we managed to win with 14 men.

Edit: Actually not the semi, getting the Ma'afu/Youngs incident mixed up.

marty2086 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

You do realise that fish hooking is mentioned nowhere but on here? Almost as if people are trying to find excuses for his behaviour

Your reasoning is Hartley bit him so therefore his finger must have been put there for it to happen?

That's precisely the issue. Fish hooking wasn't mentioned in the citing commissioners report either. But what was reported was that Hartley was bound into a ruck (without his hands free) when a finger found its way into his mouth and started pulling. Unable to use his arms to pull it out and experiencing what he described as "discomfort" and pressure on his neck, he bit on the finger until its owner took it away.

Hartley shouldn't have bitten. But it still feels very unjust that there was no exploration of how the finger got into Hartley's mouth. Given Hartley's evidence - which the commissioner accepted in mitigation - Ferris's role deserved to be examined more closely.

Could you show me where its reported because Ive never seen it anywhere?

As a comparison Hartley himself was bitten by Pedrie Wannenburg on camera after Hartley tried to rip his head off and no sanction for either of them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNtcnwe0qA

Hartley was red carded. Somehow Saints still won the match. One of the most impressive matches I've seen with 14 v 15 men.

Hartley was a fool for trying to rile up George. He's one of those players you don't do it to. It's backfired twice now when Saints have got into altercations with George. There are easier targets.

Gooseberry wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:His biting offence was a bite and there was no evidence of any fish hooking, if it happened today Ferris would probably get done for a neckroll but who else do you see biting people who do it?

Of course you are right Ferris' finger was nowhere near Hartley's mouth.

You do realise that fish hooking is mentioned nowhere but on here? Almost as if people are trying to find excuses for his behaviour

Your reasoning is Hartley bit him so therefore his finger must have been put there for it to happen?

That's precisely the issue. Fish hooking wasn't mentioned in the citing commissioners report either. But what was reported was that Hartley was bound into a ruck (without his hands free) when a finger found its way into his mouth and started pulling. Unable to use his arms to pull it out and experiencing what he described as "discomfort" and pressure on his neck, he bit on the finger until its owner took it away.

Hartley shouldn't have bitten. But it still feels very unjust that there was no exploration of how the finger got into Hartley's mouth. Given Hartley's evidence - which the commissioner accepted in mitigation - Ferris's role deserved to be examined more closely.

Could you show me where its reported because Ive never seen it anywhere?

As a comparison Hartley himself was bitten by Pedrie Wannenburg on camera after Hartley tried to rip his head off and no sanction for either of them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sNtcnwe0qA

Im familiar with the incident and proves what I was saying, no evidence of fish hooking

Scottrf wrote:No a red. Was the semi we managed to win with 14 men.

Why do I remember Hartley going back into the scrum just after it? I don't think you're right. Will have to check.

Munchkin wrote:

Scottrf wrote:No a red. Was the semi we managed to win with 14 men.

Why do I remember Hartley going back into the scrum just after it? I don't think you're right. Will have to check.

Different incident, this elbow was against Tigers you're thinking Rory Best which happened in front of the TJ and no punishment given

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZznTpNJ9YlQ - this the elbow you mean Marty.

Hartley certainly doesn't seem to like you Irish.....

Would be nice if England don't give Ireland extra motivation for next year. An emotionally charged Irish team is even harder to beat.

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Scottrf wrote:No a red. Was the semi we managed to win with 14 men.

Why do I remember Hartley going back into the scrum just after it? I don't think you're right. Will have to check.

Different incident, this elbow was against Tigers you're thinking Rory Best which happened in front of the TJ and no punishment given

Ah, at cross purposes. Yes, it was when Hartley elbowed best. Not even a card given.

Whose your 2nd choice hooked then beshocked?

beshocked wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZznTpNJ9YlQ - this the elbow you mean Marty.

Hartley certainly doesn't seem to like you Irish.....

Would be nice if England don't give Ireland extra motivation for next year. An emotionally charged Irish team is even harder to beat.

Hasn't Hartley played in most (if not all) of the recent England/Ireland games? I think England are 5 out of 6 in those too.

Cyril wrote:

beshocked wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZznTpNJ9YlQ - this the elbow you mean Marty.

Hartley certainly doesn't seem to like you Irish.....

Would be nice if England don't give Ireland extra motivation for next year. An emotionally charged Irish team is even harder to beat.

Hasn't Hartley played in most (if not all) of the recent England/Ireland games? I think England are 5 out of 6 in those too.

Nope he missed a few through suspension

marty2086 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

beshocked wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZznTpNJ9YlQ - this the elbow you mean Marty.

Hartley certainly doesn't seem to like you Irish.....

Would be nice if England don't give Ireland extra motivation for next year. An emotionally charged Irish team is even harder to beat.

Hasn't Hartley played in most (if not all) of the recent England/Ireland games? I think England are 5 out of 6 in those too.

Nope he missed a few through suspension

I did say 'most'.

That's probably why the fixture-setters put the Ireland game at the end this year, to give him the most chance of playing. They will have known he would have been fired up for the Leinster double-header!

I hope he does play in Lansdowne road on Paddy's day. Make the game tastier. I have my tickets secured for this one and I cant wait.

when will the ban be announced?

marty2086 wrote:Im familiar with the incident and proves what I was saying, no evidence of fish hooking

The full written judgement is here. http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

The key pages are p10 and 11, where the panel sets out its version of what happened. Prior to this, Ferris has basically denied even putting his finger in Hartley's mouth until Hartley bit him; Hartley has admitted the offence but offered a self-defence argument.

The material points are:
- Top of p10; Ferris offers one version of what the injury to his hand was; Dr Falvey offered another. The panel "felt compelled to accept the Dr Favley's evidence" - i.e. on one point of fact, Ferris's recollection is shown to be, at the very least, exaggerated and inaccurate.
- Bulk of P10: the panel concludes that Ferris's finger - despite his denial - was in Hartley's mouth while he was trying to roll him out and was exerting pressure. This is substantially Hartley's view.
- P11 - Hartley didn't have to resort to biting; the self-defence claim doesn't hold. Ban, reduced for 5 years of good behaviour.

The phrase fish hooking isn't used; it's a formal document. But if putting your finger in someone's mouth and exerting pressure is not fish hooking, then what is?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I hope he does play in Lansdowne road on Paddy's day. Make the game tastier. I have my tickets secured for this one and I cant wait.

Probably best he does play on Paddys Day, less chance of him getting in trouble then and everyone can just play in the game the next day

marty2086 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I hope he does play in Lansdowne road on Paddy's day. Make the game tastier. I have my tickets secured for this one and I cant wait.

Probably best he does play on Paddys Day, less chance of him getting in trouble then and everyone can just play in the game the next day

Ha you know what I meant.

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Im familiar with the incident and proves what I was saying, no evidence of fish hooking

The full written judgement is here. .pdf]http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

The key pages are p10 and 11, where the panel sets out its version of what happened. Prior to this, Ferris has basically denied even putting his finger in Hartley's mouth until Hartley bit him; Hartley has admitted the offence but offered a self-defence argument.

The material points are:
- Top of p10; Ferris offers one version of what the injury to his hand was; Dr Falvey offered another. The panel "felt compelled to accept the Dr Favley's evidence" - i.e. on one point of fact, Ferris's recollection is shown to be, at the very least, exaggerated and inaccurate.
- Bulk of P10: the panel concludes that Ferris's finger - despite his denial - was in Hartley's mouth while he was trying to roll him out and was exerting pressure. This is substantially Hartley's view.
- P11 - Hartley didn't have to resort to biting; the self-defence claim doesn't hold. Ban, reduced for 5 years of good behaviour.

The phrase fish hooking isn't used; it's a formal document. But if putting your finger in someone's mouth and exerting pressure is not fish hooking, then what is?

It wasn't shown to be exaggerated as he had photographic evidence backing up his claim

It doesn't conclude it was in his mouth it says it was in the region of mouth, chin and neck

6 weeks!

Poorfour wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Im familiar with the incident and proves what I was saying, no evidence of fish hooking

The full written judgement is here. .pdf]http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-%5B12372%5D.pdf

The key pages are p10 and 11, where the panel sets out its version of what happened. Prior to this, Ferris has basically denied even putting his finger in Hartley's mouth until Hartley bit him; Hartley has admitted the offence but offered a self-defence argument.

The material points are:
- Top of p10; Ferris offers one version of what the injury to his hand was; Dr Falvey offered another. The panel "felt compelled to accept the Dr Favley's evidence" - i.e. on one point of fact, Ferris's recollection is shown to be, at the very least, exaggerated and inaccurate.
- Bulk of P10: the panel concludes that Ferris's finger - despite his denial - was in Hartley's mouth while he was trying to roll him out and was exerting pressure. This is substantially Hartley's view.
- P11 - Hartley didn't have to resort to biting; the self-defence claim doesn't hold. Ban, reduced for 5 years of good behaviour.

The phrase fish hooking isn't used; it's a formal document. But if putting your finger in someone's mouth and exerting pressure is not fish hooking, then what is?

Its pretty obvious from the document you provided that the committee doesnt think there was any fish hooking involved and at most Ferris' finger made accidental contact with Hartley's mouth. Ferris however denies that that even happened.

Ferris is a guy who only got one yellow card at international level handed to him by Wayne Barnes who grew up in Wales in the dying minutes of an Ireland Wales game to gift them the win. The citing commissioner afterwards concluded that the offence (a tackle) didn't even deserve a penalty. So in effect he has a clean record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/ireland/9070271/Six-Nations-2012-panel-said-Ireland-flanker-Stephen-Ferris-tackle-did-not-even-warrant-a-penalty.html

That is the complete summary of Ferris' rap sheet at international level and then there is Hartley.

You lads are hilarious to take Hartley's word over Ferris who literally had a clean as possible a record you can have.

I also love the way you highlight the material points that arent actually material at all. The commission concluded that Ferris had done nothing wrong but Hartley did. That is the only material point. Not your wishey washey interpretation of the document.

MrsP wrote:6 weeks!

Think that's fair enough. I was expecting maybe 4 weeks.

Silly boy

6 week ban

What do you make of that Grey?

Over a year out of the game because of thuggish behaviour. What a wonderful role model.

half what he should have got for a pre-meditated swinging arm to the back of the head of a tackled player. Poor decision.

As expected.

60 weeks suspension in total. What a numpty

Imagine a player for your club receiving a 6 week ban every year for 10 years ...

As expected however I've been lied to in the recent past re suspensions as a week was added for poor previous!

MrsP wrote:What do you make of that Grey?

I think the ban is too short. We want head shots out of the game. I didn't see the rationale for the decision, so likely not published yet. Perhaps they ruled reckless since the ball carrier was already falling to the ground and, therefore, Hartley may have mistimed his approach. But that is just speculation on my part. And, as I said, I wouldn't agree. Contact with the head requires much longer bans, which are the only way to get them out of the game.

Trouble with that is that I am not at all convinced that DH would learn no matter how long the ban.

Maybe others might have taken note though.

What do you think will come of the North incident?

doctor_grey wrote:

MrsP wrote:What do you make of that Grey?

I think the ban is too short.  We want head shots out of the game.  I didn't see the rationale for the decision, so likely not published yet.  Perhaps they ruled reckless since the ball carrier was already falling to the ground and, therefore, Hartley may have mistimed his approach.  But that is just speculation on my part.  And, as I said, I wouldn't agree.  Contact with the head requires much longer bans, which are the only way to get them out of the game.  

Think longer bans will come out after January: Change-In-Rugby-Law

6 weeks is what I predicted and right in my view. consistent with the laws and guidance as well.

Munchkin,

I haven't read all of that yet but, my first glance didn't notice any mention of the off the pitch sanction for those offences.

In some ways it could actually reduce bans if the contact is considered accidental.

I'm not sure if they haven't just made the ref's job even harder?

Tuilagi made contact with a head in the Munster game. And in a tackle where the receiving player didn't move. Yellow card.