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.

MrsP wrote:.........................
What do you think will come of the North incident?

I think it will be swept under the carpet. I believe the book should be thrown at Saints for it tho.

MrsP wrote: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?

I don't think so. Apparently the new laws will be harder on accidental contacts with the head, while lowering the area for what is presently deemed a high tackle. So even reckless play will be red carded, and the new laws make it more difficult to accidentally strike the head:

"The new law could have a instant impact on the game. In the All Blacks' 21-9 win Ireland last month, under the new rules Malakai Fekitoa could have been red-carded for a reckless high tackle on Simon Zebo instead of the yellow card he received."

True that it doesn't mention how it may effect the length of ban, but I would hope any change would reflect their new 'zero tolerance' attitude to hitting high.

GunsGermsV2 wrote: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.

If Ferris's finger made no contact with Hartley's mouth, then for what was Hartley banned?

For biting

It is simple the mouth moved towards the hand rather than the other way round hence the judgement

But under the current laws Fekitoa should have been red carded, thus the ban.

I suppose Cane would have just been a pen?

Anything sensible which reduces head injuries would be welcomed but I may need convincing that that is what will be achieved? Feels a bit like doing something to be seen to be doing something.

Maybe I'm just cynical?

MrsP wrote:But under the current laws Fekitoa should have been red carded, thus the ban.

I suppose Cane would have just been a pen?

Anything sensible which reduces head injuries would be welcomed but I may need convincing that that is what will be achieved? Feels a bit like doing something to be seen to be doing something.

Maybe I'm just cynical?

I don't think so. Fekitoa got off because the ref thought it reckless, rather than intended. Under the new law the ref would have no option but to card him. Cane would have received at least a yellow. At least that's what the journo's are saying

We can only wait and see how it's played out on the field, and at the citing commissions, but it seems a positive step. There does seem to be a move toward dealing with strikes to the head more severely, and the new law should reinforce that. That's my optimistic view

6 weeks overall seems about right for the incident but the 2 weeks added on for his previous record could have been a lot more. I really don't get giving him a week less for admitting guilt either

All of these pseudo-judicial sanction meetings include video review of the incident under consideration. To standardize the sanction process and punishments, why not have World Rugby adjudicate every one of these, at least in the professional game around the world. The players, their representatives, officials involved, and so on can all participate by video conference. Therefore, only a small group of officials employed by World Rugby would be needed to make the judgments. It would go a long way to assure greater consistency. Having people get on a plane or drive somewhere for a sanction session seems very wasteful, costly, time consuming, and un-necessary.

doctor_grey wrote: Having people get on a plane or drive somewhere for a sanction session seems very wasteful, costly, time consuming, and un-necessary.  

It is. It's fussy. But do we really want a 'small group of officials' laying down the judgements on games from all over the world? Such a panel might get the feeling they were quite influential (and they would be) and they'd be also more open to being 'Influenced' over the course of time with winks, nods, meals or envelopes potentially colouring their interpretations of which players get a big ban and which gets a grumble to behave in future but play on.

The smaller and more elite the club, the more corruptible.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote: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.

If Ferris's finger made no contact with Hartley's mouth, then for what was Hartley banned?

Ha thats a really stupid question.

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

That's the problem. Hartley's ban is consistent with band for similar offences, but the guidance is not being applied consistently. There's a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 minutes.

geoff999rugby wrote:For biting

It is simple the mouth moved towards the hand rather than the other way round hence the judgement

Nevermind. Some of these lads here have a funny way of eating. They wait for the food to jump into their mouths. They must be very slim lads indeed.

Poorfour wrote:

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

That's the problem. Hartley's ban is consistent with band for similar offences, but the guidance is not being applied consistently. There's a huge difference between 6 weeks and 10 minutes.

60,470 minutes

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: Having people get on a plane or drive somewhere for a sanction session seems very wasteful, costly, time consuming, and un-necessary.  

It is.  It's fussy.  But do we really want a 'small group of officials' laying down the judgements on games from all over the world?  Such a panel might get the feeling they were quite influential (and they would be) and they'd be also more open to being 'Influenced' over the course of time with winks, nods, meals or envelopes potentially colouring their interpretations of which players get a big ban and which gets a grumble to behave in future but play on.

The smaller and more elite the club, the more corruptible.  

I thought that's what Trump supporters want - a small cabal in charge of everything (which I am sure they are doing for the betterment of mankind ).  

Seriously, how can we be standardized unless we have the same people doing this and regularly benchmarking against each other.  The NFL is starting to do this with good results.

Apologies about the Trump comment.  The devil made me do it.

doctor_grey wrote:
I thought that's what Trump supporters want - a small cabal in charge of everything (which I am sure they are doing for the betterment of mankind ).  

You got the wrong candidate there though, doc.  It's Hillary that's the Globalist (i.e. incremental enlargement of a 'Caring' and 'Tender' Global Governance Entity for the betterment of mankind - and therefore less and less people truly influencing the shape of their own future coz of them being either inbred idiots or uneducated commoners and things ).  
It's Trump that wants every Nation back to looking after its own interests - selfishly and proactively.

Hail Trump!

Ah ha!  Now I understand you, you sneaky radical.  
You want World Rugby to be led by a group of inbred idiots..........
That will be different (cough, cough).

6 weeks for another offense. Straightarming a player in the head. Apparently the only thing he hasn't been banned for is stamping and being a thug. England must be solo proud of their skipper.

Lions Capt my #$%^

Like Han Solo proud?

The only 'pundit' I have heard saying he shouldn't be Lions Captain is the great Andy Howell.

He's a lucky man in my opinion. His past track record should have seen this ban go over 8 weeks IMO.

Still, I doubt that't put him out of favour with Jones but I think it might have damaged his Lions chances.

There is no intention nor effort to wrap nor to at least disguise the hit as a tackle. I'm not even convinced that the slip mitigates the offence at all. That said no one died and the ban is probably fair enough in my opinion and his disciplinary record is ok at the moment for England so if Jones wants him to remain captain that's his choice. He really did not look happy though at the game.

What puzzles me a lot though is how people are using any angle possible to justify the Hartley incident to themselves even by trying to some how compare him to Healy, Sean O'Brien and Ferris. All three in particular Ferris who has never been banned are saints compared to Hartley. It is an odd one.

I dont know the guy so I wouldn't comment on whether he is a thug or not as lots claim however, based on his record I wouldn't trust him in a rugby context and I think that is more than reasonable.

Golden wrote:6 weeks overall seems about right for the incident but the 2 weeks added on for his previous record could have been a lot more. I really don't get giving him a week less for admitting guilt either

The reduction thing is a blanket part of the process, and it often gets a bigger reduction. I assume its in their to encourage people to fess up so they can skip to the bit where they decide on the level of punishment and get out to the expenses paid dinner more quickly.


All in though its about right. Heavier than most deliberate foul play bans, but not astronomical. Poor Beshocked will have to wait for his beloved Jamie George to get a turn as cheif hooker.

Mostly Im dissaponted that they didnt managed to weave more innuendo into the statement regarding Hartleys swinging arm tackle.

It gives George a bit more drive now for the 6ns for me. Has the chance ti impress with saracens and claim a starting England place on merit rather than default.

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: Having people get on a plane or drive somewhere for a sanction session seems very wasteful, costly, time consuming, and un-necessary.  

It is.  It's fussy.  But do we really want a 'small group of officials' laying down the judgements on games from all over the world?  Such a panel might get the feeling they were quite influential (and they would be) and they'd be also more open to being 'Influenced' over the course of time with winks, nods, meals or envelopes potentially colouring their interpretations of which players get a big ban and which gets a grumble to behave in future but play on.

The smaller and more elite the club, the more corruptible.  

I thought that's what Trump supporters want - a small cabal in charge of everything (which I am sure they are doing for the betterment of mankind ).  

Seriously, how can we be standardized unless we have the same people doing this and regularly benchmarking against each other.  The NFL is starting to do this with good results.

Apologies about the Trump comment.  The devil made me do it.

DG - if you're possessed by a devil - his name is common sense.

I agree, why not use the technology to get worldwide consistency? Reading some kiwi responses on here shows that they honestly believe it is OK to knock someone out with a flying shoulder. If there was a centralised approach applied worldwide, at least interpretations would be closer in application for both sides.

I also agree with SF that if there is a lot of power in a few hands then there is a real risk of misuse  - we have seen some idiotic decisions by those with a little power so that could potentially be multiplied.

So the solution is simple:
- Use the technology to have worldwide consistency
- Use the technology to make the process transparent to whomever wants to watch

BTW - the idea maybe should be applied to referee match teams as well. I was staying in a hotel the day before a European game and George Clancy was going through how he intended to referee said game with his two assistants, TMO and reserve. He covered stuff like how long he would allow a tackled player to adjust himself before releasing, playing advantage, scrum protocol and communication - probably what he goes through with coaches before the game with examples to show them on a laptop, all businesslike and professional.  It struck me that if more fans could see that level of detail they might be a lot more sympathetic to officiating issues.

Gooseberry the Hartley situation is becoming embarrassing. 60 weeks of bans now. You might be proud of him but I would strip him of the captaincy personally. Enough is enough.

You might be pleased it's only 6 weeks and might see Hartley reinstated.

RFU defending Hartley - proves what I've always said.

Hartley has been elevated to god like status. He's untouchable.

No 7 & 1/2

Has the chance to impress with Saracens? George has been outperforming Hartley in club rugby in the last two years. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Don't pretend it matters to you how George plays for Saracens, it doesn't. He could get 4 MOTM gongs in a row and you wouldn't pick him.

George should be getting picked for England but hasn't because Hartley has been captain. Now of course I understand why but eventually Jones has to come to the conclusion that George's pros outweigh Hartley's.

Look I get it - you don't rate George you've made it abundantly clear. Championing Webber and now Hartley no matter what he does or how he plays. I am accused of biased but ultimately I only want the best for England and that means picking the best players.

If Launchbury is the best performing lock then he needs to be starting.

If Road runner plays well, then great. I've only been critical of road runner because I think he's been poor/mediocre for England but in the AIs he seemed to turn a corner. Hopefully he can back this up in the 6 nations.

Back to Hartley - he's under pressure. The calls to see him dropped IMO will inevitably grow.

People will say he led England to 13 victories in a row. Hartley did not do this singlehandedly. The way sometimes people speak of Hartley you'd think he was the man of the match in every game, not putting in mostly 6/10 performances.

Hartley has been picked for his solid set piece and leadership. He's been adequate but not outstanding.

I do not think Hartley is irreplaceable and ultimately that's what it comes down to now.

Even the seemingly unreplaceable Billy was replaced by Hughes.

You haven't understood again beshocked. I doubt you ever will tbh and I think that's willful rather than the ability to.

Does beshocked ever read other people's posts?

Why does he keep saying that people don't rate George or that they put Hartley on a pedestal?

You can understand why Jones is currently picking Hartley without that being a slight on George.

Quiz :

Which 6 nations captain was first banned for gouging, then for abusing a referee and has been banned twice in the past year for dangerous tackles?

Gooseberry wrote:Quiz :

Which 6 nations captain was first banned for gouging, then for abusing a referee and has been banned twice in the past year for dangerous tackles?

Parisse?

Oh I understand perfectly no 7 & 1/2. You and others believe Hartley can literally do no wrong.

Casually brushing off 60 weeks of bans. Oh it's only 6 weeks. He'll waltz back into the England side....

Cyril I can understand why Jones has picked Hartley but now it's time to not. Enough is enough.

It's a slight on George when he's been outperforming Hartley for the last two years in club rugby. When he's come on for England made a positive impact. Kept a clean disciplinary record.

When is George going to get his chance? George must be thinking what do I have to do?

You don't have to make positions up for people beshocked simply read other people's posts...but like I said you must be being willful in your misunderstanding.

beshocked wrote:Oh I understand perfectly no 7 & 1/2. You and others believe Hartley can literally do no wrong.

Casually brushing off 60 weeks of bans. Oh it's only 6 weeks. He'll waltz back into the England side....

Cyril I can understand why Jones has picked Hartley but now it's time to not. Enough is enough.

It's a slight on George when he's been outperforming Hartley for the last two years in club rugby. When he's come on for England made a positive impact. Kept a clean disciplinary record.

When is George going to get his chance? George must be thinking what do I have to do?

The implication is that Eddie Jones/Borthwick haven't the first notion of what makes a good hooker?

beshocked wrote:Cyril I can understand why Jones has picked Hartley but now it's time to not. Enough is enough.

It's a slight on George when he's been outperforming Hartley for the last two years in club rugby. When he's come on for England made a positive impact. Kept a clean disciplinary record.

When is George going to get his chance? George must be thinking what do I have to do?

You could understand dropping Hartley if:

he was playing poorly for England (he's not)
his captaincy was poor (it isn't)
he was getting banned or had poor discipline for England (he's isn't and hasn't)

If any of the 3 above were true I would agree with looking at a change

How many sides drop their captain after winning every test in a year?

George is getting time off the bench (he's a good impact player) and will doubtless get more time. There really is no rush. He could slot in now and I'd be fine with it, but there's no need at the moment, either from the team's point of view or his own development.

None of this is 'putting Hartley on a pedestal' or not rating George.

The champion of mediocrity is telling me I don't understand.

Not making up positions. You are a staunch supporter of Hartley. You have made this abundantly clear.


You could understand dropping your captain if

a) there is someone playing better in his position
b) there are captain alternatives
c) realise that the captain did not win all 13 games singlehandedly
d) realise that a ban is a ban for poor discipline, it's irrelevant if it's England or not.

How many countries have a captain whose been banned for 60 weeks?

Our captain is infamous for his appalling discipline.

George is getting scraps off the bench. Will he get more game time? I've heard people say it but it hasn't happened.


Hartley is on a pedestal - if you can't see it.... well I cannot help you.

When a player is literally undroppable, they become god like.

Cyril wrote:
You could understand dropping Hartley if:

he was playing poorly for England (he's not)
his captaincy was poor (it isn't)
he was getting banned or had poor discipline for England (he's isn't and hasn't)

If any of the 3 above were true I would agree with looking at a change

How many sides drop their captain after winning every test in a year?

George is getting time off the bench (he's a good impact player) and will doubtless get more time. There really is no rush. He could slot in now and I'd be fine with it, but there's no need at the moment, either from the team's point of view or his own development.

None of this is 'putting Hartley on a pedestal' or not rating George.

Hes not exactly playing great either
Hes captaining a well oiled machine, the Titanics captain was doing well until the iceberg
He does have poor discipline for England, 3 yellow cards and missed numerous games through club suspensions

I understand it's easier to argue points against those you've chosen beshocked but they're not my points which makes the whole thing, well, rather pointless.

You'd drop him marty, to bench or all together? And who would you bring in and captaincy? If it goes wrong first game with result or performance do you stick with the choice?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You'd drop him marty, to bench or all together? And who would you bring in and captaincy? If it goes wrong first game with result or performance do you stick with the choice?

I think hes still a better player than George at the minute though George does seem to be the better scrummager and his lineouts aren't far behind but I just think that Cyrils claims are hyperbole

Cyril wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Quiz :

Which 6 nations captain was first banned for gouging, then for abusing a referee and has been banned twice in the past year for dangerous tackles?

Parisse?

Corerect. But he has a god like status and is on a pedastal so wont be dropped despite being past it and not playing for Saracens.

He also wont get regulalry abused and branded a thug/disgarce etc on here because he plays for a rubbish team. And isnt keeping a Saracen out of the Italy side.

marty very true. I would say that England's turn around from the world cup was more Jones,Borthwick and Gustard rather than Hartley.

I think people praise Hartley because he doesn't get sin binned/sent off for England whereas for the vast majority of players that's just normal.

Well done Hartley - you managed to keep your demons at bay, here have a medal.

Gooseberry sorry you are comparing Hartley to Parisse now? Do you really think that Hartley's status and importance to England is equivalent of Parisse's to Italy?

Wow....

Parisse has at times been an one man team for Italy, he has stood out from the rest. He has genuinely filled that position.

I would not say Hartley has done that for England. You are putting Hartley on a pedestal.

Actually you are wrong Parisse kept Vunisa out of the Italy side though technically Vunisa kept himself out because he just doesn't seem to be good enough.

geoff999rugby wrote:For biting

It is simple the mouth moved towards the hand rather than the other way round hence the judgement

That would be the judgement that concluded:

"Although Ferris claimed that it was his right arm that was used as a lever, with his right hand not being involved, the Committee's close assessment of the video came to a different conclusion."

And

"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."

And

"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"

All of which are in direct contradiction of Ferris's claims, by the way. The panel also accepted the Doctor's assessment of the injury (skin remained intact, three obvious tooth marks) over Ferris's (Swollen with four bite marks that "had become like scabby little cuts").

Once again, from the top. In both instances Hartley did something wrong and has rightly received a ban, but the demands for draconian punishment are over the top and ignore the evidence. Including the evidence that Ferris told quite a few porkies in his testimony. Unless you think the panel were wrong to accept the photographic and medical evidence over Ferris's account.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You'd drop him marty, to bench or all together? And who would you bring in and captaincy? If it goes wrong first game with result or performance do you stick with the choice?

I think hes still a better player than George at the minute though George does seem to be the better scrummager and his lineouts aren't far behind but I just think that Cyrils claims are hyperbole

How are my claims hyperbole?

All I've done is stated that (for England) he's not playing badly (not brilliantly), that his captaincy is fine and that his discipline is ok. Yes, his club discipline is very poor and you could argue that affects his England availability. I also stated that you don't hear of captains getting dropped when a side has won all the games in a year.

How is any of this hyperbole? I'm hardly praising him to the skies, just adding a bit of perspective and giving my opinion that it's not all about playing the better form player, but also how they fit into the side and how it's complicated by captaincy.

Wow beshocked agrees Hartley is better than George! Or he hasn't read the post again?

Gooseberry wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:Quiz :

Which 6 nations captain was first banned for gouging, then for abusing a referee and has been banned twice in the past year for dangerous tackles?

Parisse?

Corerect. But he has a god like status and is on a pedastal so wont be dropped despite being past it and not playing for Saracens.

He also wont get regulalry abused and branded a thug/disgarce etc on here  because he plays for a rubbish team. And isnt keeping a Saracen out of the Italy side.

Parisse also has a pocketful of imaginary cards that he likes to show the ref and often gets picked in Planet Rugby's team of the week (even if he's not playing) because he's been hard-coded into the template.

Cyril wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You'd drop him marty, to bench or all together? And who would you bring in and captaincy? If it goes wrong first game with result or performance do you stick with the choice?

I think hes still a better player than George at the minute though George does seem to be the better scrummager and his lineouts aren't far behind but I just think that Cyrils claims are hyperbole

How are my claims hyperbole?

All I've done is stated that (for England) he's not playing badly (not brilliantly), that his captaincy is fine and that his discipline is ok. Yes, his club discipline is very poor and you could argue that affects his England availability. I also stated that you don't hear of captains getting dropped when a side has won all the games in a year.

How is any of this hyperbole? I'm hardly praising him to the skies, just adding a bit of perspective and giving my opinion that it's not all about playing the better form player, but also how they fit into the side and how it's complicated by captaincy.

How many captains have won every game?
Plus 3 yellow cards isn't a great international disciplinary record plus another ban on top of a lucky escape for a stamp on Vermeulan a few years ago

beshocked wrote:Well done Hartley - you managed to keep your demons at bay, here have a medal.

Sounds a bit like Brendan Venter - is it a Sarries thing?

How they fit in a side? So you think George who plays with both Vunipola bros,Kruis and Itoje would struggle to fit into a pack? He would struggle for fluency?

Also of course he's unfamiliar with the coaches.....

Picking George with his club mates makes a lot of sense. It's called picking combinations which work well together.

Cyril Hartley's discipline for England isn't exceptional it's what you expect.

Players should have good discipline, most do.  Though someone with 60 weeks of bans cannot claim to have good discipline.... even if it's not for his country.

Hartley's bans have affected his international career.

The great aukster Hartley plays for Northampton. Brendan Venter hasn't been with Saracens for quite a while now.

There's a no nonsense Ulster man in charge and has been for some time. Mccall isn't BV.

marty2086 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You'd drop him marty, to bench or all together? And who would you bring in and captaincy? If it goes wrong first game with result or performance do you stick with the choice?

I think hes still a better player than George at the minute though George does seem to be the better scrummager and his lineouts aren't far behind but I just think that Cyrils claims are hyperbole

How are my claims hyperbole?

All I've done is stated that (for England) he's not playing badly (not brilliantly), that his captaincy is fine and that his discipline is ok. Yes, his club discipline is very poor and you could argue that affects his England availability. I also stated that you don't hear of captains getting dropped when a side has won all the games in a year.

How is any of this hyperbole? I'm hardly praising him to the skies, just adding a bit of perspective and giving my opinion that it's not all about playing the better form player, but also how they fit into the side and how it's complicated by captaincy.

How many captains have won every game?
Plus 3 yellow cards isn't a great international disciplinary record plus another ban on top of a lucky escape for a stamp on Vermeulan a few years ago

I'm just saying he's an important part of the side (and has surprised me with how well he's taken to captaincy, calm and collected with both the ref and his team-mates). 3 yellows in around 80 games is hardly excessive for a forward. That's less than many players over that number games, especially when I would imagine they include technical offences like hands in the ruck. Also, you can't start throwing in 'lucky escapes' or maybes

For one reason or another Hartley is a different animal when he pulls on the England shirt. Arguably he could be a bit more aggressive for England

Taylor, Hartley, lcd or another for your bench beshocked?

beshocked wrote:Cyril Hartley's discipline for England isn't exceptional it's what you expect.

I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't poor. Where did you get 'exceptional' from?

I do agree that his club bans have affected his international career and that's a big minus point of course.

While playing for England though his discipline was been as acceptable as your average forward and better than many who are prospects for the Lions (including a couple of options for captain).