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.

Yeah he would make an attempt to wrap the arm round the head, why would you? What I am saying is that it was an accident full stop, and a deserved red card.

Yes I wouldn't bring past actions into at all. Nothing to so with judging this.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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?

A strong enough strike will likely make anyone drop anything they happen to be holding.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah he would make an attempt to wrap the arm round the head, why would you? What I am saying is that it was an accident full stop, and a deserved red card.

Thats the ridiculous part. How can you conclude it was accidental when his disciplinary record suggests it more than likely wasn't? All you are going on is some wishey washey frame by frame interpretation of the incident which no matter how many times you watch it proves nothing except Hartley struck SOB in the head with a singing arm.

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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?

A strong enough strike will likely make anyone drop anything they happen to be holding.

and how is that a mitigating factor when you arent allowed strike an opponent?

I never known how an accident can deserve a red card in theory or practice...or indeed how you can ever then define accident given that the citing rules seem to suggest intent is never a factor in them deciding a sanction.

How can a man who was the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in a physical game of rugby, be guilty of causing an 'accident' and get 6 or 8 weeks punishment for getting himself mixed up in an accident?

Surely there is some sense of negligence implied in the sanction.

It was accidental as he lines up the tackle and then sob falls as initially seeming to get passed wood. Again it seems you made your mind up due to this being Hartley rather than what has happened. You're not open to judging the incident so we'll just leave it that the panel agreed it was a deliberate shot to the head.

Clearly the laws disagree with you fly!

[quote="No 7&1/2"]Yes I wouldn't bring past actions into at all. Nothing to so with judging this.[/quote]

Sorry 7 I think his past actions are everything to do with judging him

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clearly the laws disagree with you fly!

I'm not making a judgement on the laws. I'm questioning (in isolation of this distinct case) how the laws - in general - are worded to make any kind of conventional/logical sense?

The logic seems weird to me.

Not on this allty.

Suppose fly it's to promote people try and protect other players or at least think twice before doing anything risky. Swinging a little too much at present I think but it is what it is.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

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?

A strong enough strike will likely make anyone drop anything they happen to be holding.

and how is that a mitigating factor when you arent allowed strike an opponent?

It isn't. I'm not defending Hartley. He deserved red.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was accidental as he lines up the tackle and then sob falls as initially seeming to get passed wood. Again it seems you made your mind up due to this being Hartley rather than what has happened. You're not open to judging the incident so we'll just leave it that the panel agreed it was a deliberate shot to the head.

You made your mind up based on a theory of what you think happened that you cannot prove rather than what actually happened.

I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

Well I'll go on judging the incidents instead of judging the player. Pointless otherwise and shows too much bias

SecretFly wrote: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).  

If you look at the freeze frames I posted somewhere above, SOB has the ball in the crook of his right arm and his elbow is sticking out. Hartley's body position is low (his front knee is bent at 90 degrees), and his arm at the start of the swing is level with the ball. Hartley's body position and arm angle don't change, but SOB's does, because Wood has his ankles and he drops like a sack of spuds.

He was definitely going in hard, and with a straight arm. Nothing about his positioning at the start of the movement is consistent with aiming for the head unless you think he's anticipated SOB going down. Even targeting the the shoulder doesn't make much sense in the situation - if you're going to make a straight arm tackle, why smash the inside of your arm into the boniest part of your opponent and why come at it from a low angle?

I think Hartley went for an aggressive play that would probably have been fine had SOB been upright, but failed to account for the possibility that SOB might be tackled. It was reckless on that count and deserved a red and a ban, but I don't think there was anything in his positioning to suggest intent to harm beyond possible bruising of the upper arm.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

Intent cannot be definitively determined by any means whatsoever. The written judgement on Hartley hasn't been released yet but in other judgements I have read the player's previous record is taken into account primarily in adjusting the length of the ban when found guilty and not in considering the merits of the case itself.

The Hartley / Ferris biting example is a case in point. Despite Ferris's saintly record and Hartley's reputation as a sinner, the panel made its judgement by studying the medical and photographic evidence - leading to it directly stating that it didn't agree with several key points of Ferris's testimony.

There's a good reason for this. If you judge first on character and not on facts, you tend to fall prey to confirmation bias - if someone has a history of being guilty of things, then they are more likely to be judged guilty regardless of the facts. You only look for things that confirm your assumptions, rather than for whether there are alternative explanations that might be better supported by the evidence. That seems to be happening here.

SecretFly wrote:

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.

Indeed.

I was also being facetious.

But...
Heimlich=good  
Back slap =way better than nothing  
Stiff arm up side the head=highly unlikely to help and very likely to add further injury to...injury  

was my sardonic point.

MrsP wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

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.

Indeed.

I was also being facetious.

But...
Heimlich=good  
Bad slap =way better than nothing  
Stiff arm up side the head=highly unlikely to help and very likely to add further injury to...injury  

was my sardonic point.

If I was let use the plus/minus bar... I'd give you a plus there, Mrs P. But the basterdes won't let me use it!

Sure you would...



My post should have read back slap!



Do those funny +/- things apply to each post individually? When did they start?

I think a lot of people like him because the last great Captain England had, Jonno, was also an abrasive in your face lump. Difference is Jonno wasn't a dirty player. Yes he could get physical and rarely he got pinged for it, but mostly he was just nasty. Nasty and dirty are different and everyone whoever played knows there is no place for dirty players in rugby.

MrsP wrote:Sure you would...



My post should have read back slap!



Do those funny +/- things apply to each post individually? When did they start?

I believe so on the 'each post' thing. On the second question - I think yesterday at some point in the morning.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

That would only be true in instances where a defendant is charged with an offence which is founded upon a previous conviction  ie a person charge with driving whilst disqualified, the burden is then upon the prosecution to prove the previous offending that resulted in the subject order of disqualification. but not in the citing process as you have described it GGv2.

Intent is not proven by a offenders previous history, there are other evidential standards to establish that.

Secret.

Would you believe that Henry Heimlich has just passed away aged 96.

Choker

Maybe I should have added that, as far as I know, no one is suggesting that DH had anything to do with it.

Must admit I couldnt see the connection either, just presumed it must have been part of his rehab setback.

Could I point out - maybe its being pedantic - but the Heimlich manoeuvre is an abdominal thrust - usually applied from behind the patient with the hands clasped in the xiphisternal notch. If Hartley was trying for a Heimlich - he was way off and maybe needs to go back to first aid class!

MrsP wrote:Secret.

Would you believe that Henry Heimlich has just passed away aged 96.

RIP.

That is weird timing as was the passing of Greg Lake at Christmas.

I had Nothing to do with Hemlich's passing..................

MrsP wrote:Secret.

Would you believe that Henry Heimlich has just passed away aged 96.

Read somewhere that he found himself in a position to actually use the technique for real, for the first time - he was 92.

It worked - bet he was relieved   as was the person he used it on

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

That would only be true in instances where a defendant is charged with an offence which is founded upon a previous conviction  ie a person charge with driving whilst disqualified, the burden is then upon the prosecution to prove the previous offending that resulted in the subject order of disqualification. but not in the citing process as you have described it GGv2.

Intent is not proven by a offenders previous history, there are other evidential standards to establish that.

The citing commissioner added 2 weeks to the punishment for Hartley's record and removed one for admission of guilt. They clearly take the players history into account and logically makes sense.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

That would only be true in instances where a defendant is charged with an offence which is founded upon a previous conviction  ie a person charge with driving whilst disqualified, the burden is then upon the prosecution to prove the previous offending that resulted in the subject order of disqualification. but not in the citing process as you have described it GGv2.

Intent is not proven by a offenders previous history, there are other evidential standards to establish that.

The citing commissioner added 2 weeks to the punishment for Hartley's record and removed one for admission of guilt. They clearly take the players history into account and logically makes sense.

A player's record is relevant to the assessment of any punishment. It is not part of the process to decide whether an act has taken place or not.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I made my mind up by watching what happened. Not by who did it.

Thats where you are going wrong. Makes more sense to consider both the individual and the video because intent cannot be definitively determined from watching a frame by frame video. A history of transgressions is a more reliable indicator of intent. A players rap sheet also forms part of the citing process as it would if it was assessed in a court of law because if is a logical way of measuring intent.

That would only be true in instances where a defendant is charged with an offence which is founded upon a previous conviction  ie a person charge with driving whilst disqualified, the burden is then upon the prosecution to prove the previous offending that resulted in the subject order of disqualification. but not in the citing process as you have described it GGv2.

Intent is not proven by a offenders previous history, there are other evidential standards to establish that.

The citing commissioner added 2 weeks to the punishment for Hartley's record and removed one for admission of guilt. They clearly take the players history into account and logically makes sense.

GG Do you actually read my remarks before taking issue with them?

Rugby Union
menu
Dylan Hartley: Red card let England down - Eddie Jones
1 hour ago From the section Rugby Union
Dylan Hartley
Dylan Hartley was sent off six minutes after coming on for Northampton against Leinster for this swinging arm on Sean O'Brien
England captain Dylan Hartley "let his country down" with the third red card of his career, says coach Eddie Jones.

Northampton hooker Hartley is serving a six-week ban for catching Leinster's Sean O'Brien with a swinging arm in a Champions Cup match earlier this month.

The 30-year-old has now accumulated 60 weeks in suspensions, but is available for England's Six Nations defence.

"This is not the last chance for him but he understands he can't behave in the way he did," Jones said.

Speaking in the Telegraph, the Australian added: "Dylan will be more disappointed than anyone about what has happened. He has got to cop the penalty because the World Rugby directive on protecting the head is 100% right.

"He has let down himself, he has let down his club and he has let down his country."

Hartley's dismissal in Northampton's 37-10 home defeat by Leinster had jeopardised his involvement in England's Six Nations campaign, with their opening fixture against France at Twickenham on 4 February. However, he is eligible to play again from 23 January.

He was dropped from the World Cup squad last year under former head coach Stuart Lancaster after he headbutted Saracens' Jamie George.

Hartley has been selected to lead the side for Jones' 13 Tests in charge, all victories, but the 56-year-old has not guaranteed he will retain the captaincy.

Jones said: "He is eligible for selection for the Six Nations and it comes down to the case for every selection - we pick the best 23 and if he is in the best 23, then he has a chance to be captain."

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GG Do you actually read my remarks before taking issue with them?

I love reading your comments Laurie. Always good for a debate. Happy Christmas, you grumpy old Aucklander.

Apparently Eddie Jones has come out and condemned Hartley over his ban. Can you imagine an AB coach ever doing something like this. It would never happen. Fair play Jones.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/20/eddie-jones-england-dylan-hartley

Interestingly he didn't make any ridiculous or weak excuses such as it was all because Sean O'Brien slipped etc.

You mean unbiased.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GG Do you actually read my remarks before taking issue with them?

I love reading your comments Laurie. Always good for a debate. Happy Christmas, you grumpy old Aucklander.

Of course Im grumpy, just look at what I have to put up with,

Not only do I have to put with the disappointment of supporting Auckland, but thats topped off with the toughest gig of all. Being an All black supporter, you wouldnt believe how tough it is, constantly being attacked by the rest of the World from every point of the compass, one is constantly defending the blackness. Its dirty fighting too that kicking, punching, spitting, biting stuff.

Sometimes I envy fans with the nice easy simple life, and wish I supported a country like Ireland or Wales.

Eddie Jones wrote:This is not the last chance for him

Well thats true as he'd already had that under Lancaster (twice).

This is absolutely the final not his last chance.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Apparently Eddie Jones has come out and condemned Hartley over his ban. Can you imagine an AB coach ever doing something like this. It would never happen. Fair play Jones.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/20/eddie-jones-england-dylan-hartley

Interestingly he didn't make any ridiculous or weak excuses such as it was all because Sean O'Brien slipped etc.

Dont be fooled GG, Eddie is a true blue Australian, I'd trust him as far as I could kick a bag of cement. He'll be up to something.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GG Do you actually read my remarks before taking issue with them?

I love reading your comments Laurie. Always good for a debate. Happy Christmas, you grumpy old Aucklander.

Of course Im grumpy, just look at what I have to put up with,

Not only do I have to put with the disappointment of supporting Auckland, but thats topped off with the toughest gig of all. Being an All black supporter, you wouldnt believe how tough  it is, constantly being attacked by the rest of the World from every point of the compass, one is constantly defending the blackness. Its dirty fighting too that kicking, punching, spitting, biting stuff.

Sometimes I envy fans with the nice easy simple life, and wish I supported a country like Ireland or Wales.

I hope that is tongue in cheek. Id say people spend more time praising the ABs. You have got so used to it I dont think ABs fans can remember anymore how to deal with criticism.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Apparently Eddie Jones has come out and condemned Hartley over his ban. Can you imagine an AB coach ever doing something like this. It would never happen. Fair play Jones.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/20/eddie-jones-england-dylan-hartley

Interestingly he didn't make any ridiculous or weak excuses such as it was all because Sean O'Brien slipped etc.

Dont be fooled GG, Eddie is a true blue Australian, I'd trust him as far as I could kick a bag of cement. He'll be up to something.

Hard to disagree with that.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GG Do you actually read my remarks before taking issue with them?

I love reading your comments Laurie. Always good for a debate. Happy Christmas, you grumpy old Aucklander.

Of course Im grumpy, just look at what I have to put up with,

Not only do I have to put with the disappointment of supporting Auckland, but thats topped off with the toughest gig of all. Being an All black supporter, you wouldnt believe how tough  it is, constantly being attacked by the rest of the World from every point of the compass, one is constantly defending the blackness. Its dirty fighting too that kicking, punching, spitting, biting stuff.

Sometimes I envy fans with the nice easy simple life, and wish I supported a country like Ireland or Wales.

I hope that is tongue in cheek. Id say people spend more time praising the ABs. You have got so used to it I dont think ABs fans can remember anymore how to deal with criticism.

Well now that you mention it the tongue is feeling a little sore.

Which will end first, Hartley's ban or this thread?

Hartleys next ban will probably be over before this thread

Being Christmas and a time of year to think the best of people, I have to say that Hartley's ban is ridiculous, all he tried to do was run up and give SOB a big cuddle; SOB thought he wanted to give him a kiss as well and understandably ducked out of the way and tried to cuddle Wood on the ground instead, as a result he suffered a mild tap around the head which did not seem to have much effect.

Lets get into the Christmas spirit people, not everybody is as bad as they sometimes look. DH has actually walked across a whole 5m of turf to shake my hand a few years ago, so he cannot be that bad.

How do you know he actually intended to do that wellpasit?
I bet you ducked into it.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Being Christmas and a time of year to think the best of people, I have to say that Hartley's ban is ridiculous, all he tried to do was run up and give SOB a big cuddle; SOB thought he wanted to give him a kiss as well and understandably ducked out of the way and tried to cuddle Wood on the ground instead, as a result he suffered a mild tap around the head which did not seem to have much effect.

Lets get into the Christmas spirit people, not everybody is as bad as they sometimes look. DH has actually walked across a whole 5m of turf to shake my hand a few years ago, so he cannot be that bad.

Youre a true gent WPI, a couple of weeks ago Sam Cane tried to give Robbie Henshaw a bit of love and look at the thanks he got.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Well now that you mention it the tongue is feeling a little sore.

It depends where you out it, old chum.