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.

No it's not been below average for England but then again if it's another player we wouldn't talk about it.

I am just saying that Hartley gets praised for being normal for England. Being normal isn't something you should be praised for as it should be easy.

It takes a special sort of stupidity to rack up the amount of bans Hartley has and that's the England captain.

no 7 & 1/2 we'll see closer to the time.

beshocked wrote:It takes a special sort of stupidity to rack up the amount of bans Hartley has and that's the England captain.

Can't argue with that. Dylan is a conundrum and no mistake.

Perhaps the Saints shirt is lined with itching powder and the England jersey is coated with a soothing balm...

I still thinking he's doing a good job for England though. Also excited to see more of George at some point soon, but I'm a patient fellow

Wouldn't an untouchable player get a 0 week ban?

Another player would have a 2 week ban so he doesn't sound untouchable.

You can't call the bench but can call starters and lions teams? If all on form and fit who would you like?

When are people going to give Dylan a break? Born in NZ with a Welsh name like Dylan and an impressive record for England he has to be the standout choice.

Even Rory sees how misunderstood he is:
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/rory-best-on-the-time-he-got-dylan-hartley-a-reduced-ban-for-punching-him/67042

I simply cannot understand why people get so aggravated when their club players don't get picked, Hartley has done a good job as captain so continues to get picked because of that. George has done well when he's come on but I don't see him as being any better in reality, he's a part of the most dominant pack in club Rugby so he'll obviously look good.

Mako Vunipola is a monstrous scrummager everyone knows that....

It's Mako who makes George look good at scrummaging...

Hammersmith Harrier I just want to see the best team picked.


Spinning it on it's head you could say - Hartley was in one of the most dominant packs in international rugby - so obviously he'll look not bad....

Easy to look like a good captain when getting an awful lot of help from your team mates.

Jones picked 3 VCs to help.

It's not as if Hartley has masterminded an inexperienced England with mediocre players to their unbeaten run through his leadership alone. He's been surrounded by experienced players.

Plus obviously Jones,Gustard and Borthwick will have helped Hartley a lot.


I think there have been other England players more influential than Hartley.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I simply cannot understand why people get so aggravated when their club players don't get picked, Hartley has done a good job as captain so continues to get picked because of that. George has done well when he's come on but I don't see him as being any better in reality, he's a part of the most dominant pack in club Rugby so he'll obviously look good.

The scrum is notably better when George is on - Marler scrummages ok with Hartley alongside him, but Mako struggles and both of them go well with George. George is also better in the loose, but it's not yet so big a difference that England are losing out materially by starting with Hartley.

I don't think Hartley is "praised" at all for his disciplinary record with England. People correctly note that his discipline on the pitch for England hasn't been a problem and therefore shouldn't be a big factor in whether he's selected or not, at least on those occasions when he's actually available for selection. I don't think that would meet most people's definition of "praise"; but then, to paraphrase Shaw, I often feel that beshocked and other England fans are one nation separated by a common language.

My player is unfairly overlooked and being held back by poor selection decisions
Your player is praised as an undroppable deity atop a pedestal while actually being very average
His or her player is largely irrelevant to the discussion because he hasn't won as many things as Saracens players have.

When did this message reputation thing start?

The Great Aukster wrote:When are people going to give Dylan a break? Born in NZ with a Welsh name like Dylan and an impressive record for England he has to be the standout choice.

Even Rory sees how misunderstood he is:
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/rory-best-on-the-time-he-got-dylan-hartley-a-reduced-ban-for-punching-him/67042

I gave your message reputation a positive because I strongly suspect you're not being serious

What's with the plus and minuses? Do you win a prize for most plusses? A slaped wrist for minis?
To be honest my sausage fingers have been randomly hitting both all day

Do we have to look upon the reputation buttons seriously or can we treat them like polls?

Oh, they must be very serious. I'm sure everyone will use them sensibly and maturely

Munchkin wrote:Oh, they must be very serious. I'm sure everyone will use them sensibly and maturely

Downvoted.

Have a go beshocked, ideal starting hooked and bench.

Scottrf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Oh, they must be very serious. I'm sure everyone will use them sensibly and maturely

Downvoted.

I can take it. Nails

Edit: Keep em comin

The punishment should be to rub Hartley's nose in dog sh1t. He's that stupid I honestly think this is the level of punishment required. A year of bans not playing is not working.

ebop wrote:The punishment should be to rub Hartley's nose in dog sh1t. He's that stupid I honestly think this is the level of punishment required. A year of bans not playing is not working.

Best suggestion I have heard. The funny thing is a lot of English posters actually think it was an accident. Hahahahahahah.

ebop wrote:The punishment should be to rub Hartley's nose in dog sh1t.

He will have to do that in the scrum against Wales if Owens gets picked.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:The punishment should be to rub Hartley's nose in dog sh1t. He's that stupid I honestly think this is the level of punishment required. A year of bans not playing is not working.

Best suggestion I have heard. The funny thing is a lot of English posters actually think it was an accident. Hahahahahahah.

No funnier than all the Irish posters who thought Payne's upending of Goode in the air was an accident.

In fact, considerably less funny, because there hasn't been a single English poster who has argued against Hartley's red card or ban; all we've done is to point out that to assume Hartley was deliberately going for the head requires you to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whereas I remember a pretty much blanket denial that Payne had done anything wrong.

Take the blinkers off for a bit, eh? You might be surprised what you can see.

Poorfour wrote:

No funnier than all the Irish posters who thought Payne's upending of Goode in the air was an accident.

In fact, considerably less funny, because there hasn't been a single English poster who has argued against Hartley's red card or ban; all we've done is to point out that to assume Hartley was deliberately going for the head requires you to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whereas I remember a pretty much blanket denial that Payne had done anything wrong.

Take the blinkers off for a bit, eh? You might be surprised what you can see.

Two Kiwis? Let 'em at it, says I. They play a tougher version of rugby innit - or so the publicity goes.

C'mon....lets not fall out with the Irish, we have enough problems with the Welsh.

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:The punishment should be to rub Hartley's nose in dog sh1t. He's that stupid I honestly think this is the level of punishment required. A year of bans not playing is not working.

Best suggestion I have heard. The funny thing is a lot of English posters actually think it was an accident. Hahahahahahah.

No funnier than all the Irish posters who thought Payne's upending of Goode in the air was an accident.

In fact, considerably less funny, because there hasn't been a single English poster who has argued against Hartley's red card or ban; all we've done is to point out that to assume Hartley was deliberately going for the head requires you to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whereas I remember a pretty much blanket denial that Payne had done anything wrong.

Take the blinkers off for a bit, eh? You might be surprised what you can see.

It was an accident. That was never in dispute. What was in dispute was whether the accident deserved a red. Now it would, but the red at that time set a precedent.

What Hartley did wasn't an accident by any stretch. He didn't intend to strike the head, but it was still a straight arm and still deserved red.

There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

No funnier than all the Irish posters who thought Payne's upending of Goode in the air was an accident.

In fact, considerably less funny, because there hasn't been a single English poster who has argued against Hartley's red card or ban; all we've done is to point out that to assume Hartley was deliberately going for the head requires you to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whereas I remember a pretty much blanket denial that Payne had done anything wrong.

Take the blinkers off for a bit, eh? You might be surprised what you can see.

Two Kiwis?  Let 'em at it, says I.  They play a tougher version of rugby innit - or so the publicity goes.

Which reminds me, the other player sent off was George Pisi, What was the outcome of George's hearing?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

Even Norths injury a few weeks ago was an accident, the player grabbed at him but seemed like an 'Oh sh*t' moment from him trying to stop North going @rse over t*t

There are angles were it seems like Hartley makes a slight adjustment for SOB falling to catch the head but others it does look accidental but from all angles he is winding up for a big shot, which is what Mallinder seemed to allude to post match

SecretFly wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

No funnier than all the Irish posters who thought Payne's upending of Goode in the air was an accident.

In fact, considerably less funny, because there hasn't been a single English poster who has argued against Hartley's red card or ban; all we've done is to point out that to assume Hartley was deliberately going for the head requires you to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whereas I remember a pretty much blanket denial that Payne had done anything wrong.

Take the blinkers off for a bit, eh? You might be surprised what you can see.

Two Kiwis?  Let 'em at it, says I.  They play a tougher version of rugby innit - or so the publicity goes.

Also sent off last weekend were Phil Burleigh for Edinburgh and Paul Williams for Stade Francais

Munchkin wrote:

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

Maybe he thought SOB was choking.... on someone's finger?  That's what you do when someone is choking, isn't it?  

My humble apologies, Dylan.  You were trying to save SOB's life.  An entire new varnish on things.

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

That makes literally no sense. Why would you hit someone in the back to dislodge the ball? His arm doesn't even wrap around at any point to SOB's front where the ball is.

Some bizarre theories here.

To be fair to Hartley I don't think he deliberately went for the head but it's not a coincidence when it's the same player getting himself banned.

Similar to Ashton in that sense. Yet Hartley is a much more revered figure.

I would call Hartley's action reckless. Similarly Payne's actions were reckless too.

The Daly red card was more reckless than Payne's.

Now Payne's actions IMO was borderline - perhaps unlucky to get a red but I understand why.

Both Hartley's and Dalys were more clear cut reds IMO.


I don't think Hartley necessarily means to get himself bans but trouble seems to gravitate itself towards him.

Basically he's his own worst enemy.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

That makes literally no sense. Why would you hit someone in the back to dislodge the ball? His arm doesn't even wrap around at any point to SOB's front where the ball is.

Some bizarre theories here.

It makes perfect sense. Hit someone hard enough for them to spill the ball.

I don't think he wanted to go for the head. But he did intend going for an iffy area at the top of the shoulder...with a swing, not a tackle. A wild moment from the lad, Hartley (to use football parlance).

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

That makes literally no sense. Why would you hit someone in the back to dislodge the ball? His arm doesn't even wrap around at any point to SOB's front where the ball is.

Some bizarre theories here.

It makes perfect sense. Hit someone hard enough for them to spill the ball.

In the back or head? That makes no sense. If you want to knock the ball out of someones hands you aim for the ball or at least near it, everyone knows that.

Why not just punch someone in the face and hope they drop the ball?

He fell into the challenge. When I watched it I thought sob was past woods challenge as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He fell into the challenge. When I watched it I thought sob was past woods challenge as well.

Some great theories. The most plausible one still is that it was a cheap shot.

Not really. Did you not notice that Hartley was already in the process of tackling when sob started to fall? At the least the panel agreed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really. Did you not notice that Hartley was already in the process of tackling when sob started to fall? At the least the panel agreed.

Tackling? Or swinging an arm?

Same thing. They saw it as not deliberate and thus not taking a cheap shot. You must have hated bod s tackling the whole of his career. It's done and dusted now, slightly too long for me but he ll be back.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

That makes literally no sense. Why would you hit someone in the back to dislodge the ball? His arm doesn't even wrap around at any point to SOB's front where the ball is.

Some bizarre theories here.

It makes perfect sense. Hit someone hard enough for them to spill the ball.

In the back or head? That makes no sense. If you want to knock the ball out of someones hands you aim for the ball or at least near it, everyone knows that.

Why not just punch someone in the face and hope they drop the ball?

You're a wee bit dramatic, Guns.

SOB dropped down just before impact. Hartley was aiming high, but not head high. See it all makes sense if you think about it.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:There is no way of knowing if Hartley intended to strike the head or not. Based on his record it is fairly likely that he was at least trying to hit SOB with a cheap shot. I dont buy the nonsense that SOB slipped causing Hartley to hit his head rather than his body.

Hartley's own reaction to the incident was very telling. He made no attempt to plead his innocence etc. He knew exactly what he had done. Eddie Jones' reaction told a similar story.

However, with the Payne incident you could see that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and not the man so its fairly easy to conclude that it wasn't malicious. Even though possibly less obvious Id be fairly sure that the Elliot Daly red v Argentina was similarly an accident.

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

That makes literally no sense. Why would you hit someone in the back to dislodge the ball? His arm doesn't even wrap around at any point to SOB's front where the ball is.

Some bizarre theories here.

Makes sense. But it misses the point somewhat. No-one disputes it was an illegal straight arm, but only a few are claiming Dylan was deliberately targeting the head. Funny how you know this as well as knowing that Stephen ‘I’m more a Christian than Keven’ Ferris wasn’t fish-hooking. That’s some insight you have – are you a professional judge?

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

Maybe he thought SOB was choking.... on someone's finger?  That's what you do when someone is choking, isn't it?  

My humble apologies, Dylan.  You were trying to save SOB's life.  An entire new varnish on things.

You may need to brush up on your first aid techniques there Secret!!

@Barney. There is no way to know if he was targeting the head. Equally there is no way of knowing that he wasn't targeting the head. However, you seem sure he wasn't. Are you a judge?

What we do know was he was looking at SOB at the time and therefore targeting him.
We know it was a swinging arm with no intention to wrap therefore intentionally not a tackle but a strike.

For me the probability is that it was a cheap shot based on his record of cheap shots and the lack of any concrete reason to believe otherwise. Plenty think otherwise but based on what I'm still not sure. So far fairly implausible theories. The Ferris comments smack of desperation.

Munchkin wrote:

You're a wee bit dramatic, Guns.

SOB dropped down just before impact. Hartley was aiming high, but not head high. See it all makes sense if you think about it.

How does that have anything to do with knocking the ball out of his hands?

He was a bad aim if he was aiming for the head as he would have been no where near. Also never going to be able to complete a tackle once sob was falling. The problem here is too many are doing what you've confessed to guns ie judging not on the incident but on a person you consider to be a bad egg.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was a bad aim if he was aiming for the head as he would have been no where near. Also never going to be able to complete a tackle once sob was falling. The problem here is too many are doing what you've confessed to guns ie judging not on the incident but on a person you consider to be a bad egg.

He makes no attempt to wrap his arms on impact. It is not a tackle it is a strike. Basically you are saying that its SOBs fault Hartley hit him in the head and any involvement by Hartley was accidental?

MrsP wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I first thought Hartley aimed at the head, but after reviewing it, frame by frame, I changed my mind and think his intention was to strike the back to dislodge the ball. Still very stupid.

Maybe he thought SOB was choking.... on someone's finger?  That's what you do when someone is choking, isn't it?  

My humble apologies, Dylan.  You were trying to save SOB's life.  An entire new varnish on things.

You may need to brush up on your first aid techniques there Secret!!

I didn't expect to be going down the actual science of a blatant sardonic aside but that's a certified trier (i.e. it's been used probably hundreds of thousands of times) in an emergency Mrs P.   If you don't know the Heimlich maneuver, if you've never been to first aid classes, and someone is close to edge of lights going out, I don't think you just phone emergency and wait for help.
There are supposed rights and wrongs/pros and against to back slapping to be sure - but there are also right and wrong approaches to the Heimlich maneuver.  So, I've seen a back slap work.

Better to have first aid training of course...but not everyone gets that far or can wait for one to turn up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He was a bad aim if he was aiming for the head as he would have been no where near. Also never going to be able to complete a tackle once sob was falling. The problem here is too many are doing what you've confessed to guns ie judging not on the incident but on a person you consider to be a bad egg.

I'm judging it on both which is perfectly logical as opposed to ignoring Hartley's disciplinary record which is what you are doing.