Dylan Hartly v new high tacke directive

So, how long does anyone give Dylan Hartley before he's resting for 10 mins in the sin bin (or maybe off all together) with the harder line being taken on above the shoulder tackles.

We are bound to have yellow cards galore for this new directive. Who do you think will be the first to receive a card.

Hartley, Farrell and Brown all to get regular rest periods during this six nations.

I predict barely any extra cards, but with the hysteria surrounding each card increased tenfold.

Scottrf wrote:I predict barely any extra cards, but with the hysteria surrounding each card increased tenfold.

Id say you are probably spot on.

Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

the-goon wrote:Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

What a drama queen.

the-goon wrote:Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

Yours in anger

High Dudgeon
Oirland

Scottrf wrote:

the-goon wrote:Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

What a drama queen.

You're right, Dylan can be quite the drama queen when he plays the victim

Who'll win? Hartley and the English lads going for heads or ickle Jonny and the Scottish going for the standing legs?

What new tackle rules, the rule has always been in place.

TightHEAD wrote:What new tackle rules, the rule has always been in place.

It says directive not law, though it also does say tacke but we get what he meant

marty2086 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:What new tackle rules, the rule has always been in place.

It says directive not law, though it also does say tacke but we get what he meant

.. thanks marty.. I thought by saying directive it was clear ...

Will certainly be interesting to see what happens.

Hartley has supposed to have been working hard with Gustard so hopefully he won't get himself sin binned or red carded for England.

England had good practice in the AIs playing with 14 men anyway.

I - AM - CAPTAIN - AND - I'LL - KEEP - PUNCHING - YOU - UNTIL - YOU - SAY - "YES"!

Should Eddie press charges? - that's the real question.

the-goon wrote:Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

put that dummy back in your mouth....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

the-goon wrote:Hartley's issue isn't "tackle technique", it's that he is dirty coward that resorts to cheap shots to the back of players' heads. It was pure filth, 6 weeks was a disgrace, should have been 12 minimum.

put that dummy back in your mouth....

So Healy on Cole was a rucking technique issue and not a stamp, thanks got it.

Both were cheap shots, unacceptable in the modern game. Happy to call out all instances regardless of the jersey.

What's your thought on Barrington in a similar situation. Cheap shot?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's your thought on Barrington in a similar situation. Cheap shot?

Comparing someone who got sent off but in the subsequent citing was exonerated to someone who got banned for 6 weeks who has a long record of bans.

Now I personally don't think what Hartley did was intentional but it was reckless and he deservedly got a ban. He needs to be more careful.

Yes. 2 similar situations involving dual tacklers beshocked.

You picked out an innocent player. Also a swinging arm and high tackle are different.

Barritt got a ban and by the new rules it was deserved.

Two different incidents though. Also two different players, one who has a very poor disciplinary record and one who doesn't.

Picking out 2 similar incidents which wouldn't have occurred without a 2nd tackler beshocked. But fair enough if we say that whatever the citing officer says is 100% correct every time then yes you're correct, one deemed ok the other not. Not bothered about past discipline as that's by the by.

I wouldn't say that being red carded and having a player banned is deemed okay. It was deserved.

I would say that the incident with Barrington and Barritt was more unfortunate, two players who do not have a record for dirty play.

High tackle and swinging arm are different. Both dangerous but different.

Not arguing about Hartleys red card but both incidents are very similar. Just interested for goons take on them (incidents not already set in bias).

To be fair you are right there are some similarities but there are also differences too.

It does matter about the reputations of the players involved whether you like it or not.

To some it does. That should really only come into play when discussing length of ban though. There's another example of this from the NZ Ireland match as well but happened previous to harsher rules and with involving an Irish player thought it wouldn't get a fair response (possibly). To my mind the response around Barrington was conflicting with recent changes, getting off as it was accidental. but hey ho.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Hartley, Farrell and Brown all to get regular rest periods during this six nations.

I'd say a full week after Gameweek 2 and Gameweek 3 would probably be about right for them?

Scottrf wrote:I predict barely any extra cards, but with the hysteria surrounding each card increased tenfold.

Most probably.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To some it does. That should really only come into play when discussing length of ban though. There's another example of this from the NZ Ireland match as well but happened previous to harsher rules and with involving an Irish player thought it wouldn't get a fair response (possibly). To my mind the response around Barrington was conflicting with recent changes, getting off as it was accidental. but hey ho.

My understanding was that purely accidental doesn't necessitate a card but that reckless is yellow at least. Have I misremembered? Remember as well that bans are only supposed to be dished out for red-card offences, so the fact that he was let off a ban doesn't mean he was fully absolved of blame.

Disclaimer: haven't actually bothered to read the judgment so the above is speculation.

It did state as it was accidental it shouldn't have been red so ro my mind Hartley shouldn't have received a ban and neither would Cane for his tackle vs NZ. Or more likely they don't know how they want implement this consistently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It did state as it was accidental it shouldn't have been red so ro my mind Hartley shouldn't have received a ban and neither would Cane for his tackle vs NZ. Or more likely they don't know how they want implement this consistently.

Hartley's wasn't accidendal. He lined up SOB from behind and hit him with a straight arm to the back of the head with full force. Look at the huge backswing he puts on his arm before contact. He may not have "aimed" his swinging arm to the head, but the fact remains that it was a swinging arm, not a tackle attempt. He could see the entire situation in front of him, he could see Wood(?) had his legs and was bringing him to ground. You don't accidentally swing a stiff arm, you choose to. And why would you swing the arm rather than a forceful shoulder + wrap of the arms to drive him backwards? Or wait for him to hit the deck and jackel? After 54 weeks of suspensions prior to this one, I simply no longer can give him the benefit of the doubt.

Barrington didn't even make the initial contact to the head, that was Barritt. parling was already going down from the tackle from Barritt, before the collision.

Cane was a reckless tackle

How you can even begin to compare Hartley with Cane or Barrington is ridiculous.

Because they were very similar. Lining up tackles other players gt to them and he players end up falling into challenges. I appreciate where you're coming and admire you saying that you're judging from a position of bias as we can then all move on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because they were very similar. Lining up tackles other players gt to them and he players end up falling into challenges. I appreciate where you're coming and admire you saying that you're judging from a position of bias as we can then all move on.

No they weren't.

Hartley:
1. SOB back is turned, stand straight
2. No forward momentum
3. Slowly being scragged to ground
4. Hartley has a couple of seconds/heart beats to assess situation
5. Decides to use a swinging arm.

Barrington:
1. Parling charging towards him
2. Low body position
3. High tackled by Barritt and going down from it
4. No time to react from Barritt tackle to impact
5. No swinging arm, Parling crashes into his shoulder.

I really don't understand how you can't see the clear distinctions between the 2 events. Maybe generalising is easier than actual analysis, but doesn't really help your argument. Your one line analysis is so vague it is almost pointless.

Like you said you can't see beyond it being Hartley. No point in saying anything else as it won't change your view.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like you said you can't see beyond it being Hartley. No point in saying anything else as it won't change your view.

But I didn't, did I. I said won't give him the benefit of the doubt when arguing intent. The facts I listed don't take that into account. At the end of the day, unless Hartley admits he meant it, we will never truely know, but his past actions do come into consideration when I make my opinion on intent. This is why I called it a cheap shot. You argue he didn't mean it, and you could argue he did. His character comes into play, and that means evaluating what his has done in the past.

If the roles were reversed between Hartley and Barrington, outside intent, the what I've said would remain consistant. I would be far more ready to listen didn't mean it/not that type of player argument defending Barrington than I would Hartley. Can you not see why?

You seem to really struggle understanding the words I write....  it's almost like you have a conclusion and look for what confirms it, and dismiss anything else.

the-goon is right to be fair. The incidents are sufficiently different.

no 7 & 1/2 I would say your pro Hartley bias means you'll jump to his defence whatever he does.

Trying to mitigate what Hartley done by comparing to another incident.

Ban Bias.

I am dismissing what you're saying goon that's completely true. Beshocked to be fair you said you also don't judge in incident but on player so again can't really judge what you're saying to be valid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I am dismissing what you're saying goon that's completely true. Beshocked to be fair you said you also don't judge in incident but on player so again can't really judge what you're saying to be valid.

Then why ask me for my views on 2 incidents if you won't take in what I say?

I will least give you the respect of reading and taking in what you say and responding in kind, seems like you can't say the same of me. Sad.

Wanted to see what you'd say. To be fair there really isn't much point in me trying to persuade you in changing your mind about the Hartley tackle when you've said you judge on the fact it's Hartley and not what happened. It's an emotive stance and I'm willing to accept that I can't affect your view.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wanted to see what you'd say. To be fair there really isn't much point in me trying to persuade you in changing your mind about the Hartley tackle when you've said you judge on the fact it's Hartley and not what happened. It's an emotive stance and I'm willing to accept that I can't affect your view.

No its not. He hit someone in the head with a swinging arm. He deserved his ban and the referee, the citing committee and even probably his mum all agreed. Case closed.

the-goon no 7 & 1/2 does that a lot. He generally ignores evidence and generally defends things he shouldn't.

Also frequently he's inaccurate, like comparing the innocent Barrington to the guilty Hartley.

Even if you step back - ignore that the player in question has one of the worst disciplinary records in rugby, the swinging arm by Hartley was reckless. Now I personally don't think Hartley intended to decapitate O Brien but I can understand Irish fans and players not being a big fan of a player who has a history of altercations with Irishmen.

Poor Irish repeatedly targeted by Hartley. Now you might say Beshocked, that's ridiculous.

No, not if you look at many of his incidents involving Irishmen, punching,gouging and hitting them with swinging arms.

Can you blame Irish fans thinking Hartley's actions were deliberate? I don't.

Don't be silly beshocked.

I'm with 7 & 1/2 on this, take reputation out of it and I don't see a lot of difference between what Hartley and Barrington did, the fact one didn't receive a ban doesn't mean it's not up for debate.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm with 7 & 1/2 on this, take reputation out of it and I don't see a lot of difference between what Hartley and Barrington did, the fact one didn't receive a ban doesn't mean it's not up for debate.

You don't see the difference between a swinging arm and someone essentially falling into someone?

beshocked wrote:

Poor Irish repeatedly targeted by Hartley. Now you might say Beshocked, that's ridiculous.

No, not if you look at many of his incidents involving Irishmen, punching,gouging and hitting them with swinging arms.

Can you blame Irish fans thinking Hartley's actions were deliberate? I don't.

I like Hartley.  Well.............maybe 'like' is not the word.  I think he's impulsive, like a wild child.  Now he's naughty to be sure but my instincts force me to think of him as being just a bullish, overly enthusiastic child-man.  
I do like to give a few playful sideswipes at Eddie Jones (his demeanour and opinions)  but in his treatment and attitude to Hartley, I think he has it spot on.  I think his opinion of Hartley is similar to mine.  Yes, the player needs a tight rein but even after his record, I regard him as mostly a niggler rather than an out and out vicious and devious player.

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Poor Irish repeatedly targeted by Hartley. Now you might say Beshocked, that's ridiculous.

No, not if you look at many of his incidents involving Irishmen, punching,gouging and hitting them with swinging arms.

Can you blame Irish fans thinking Hartley's actions were deliberate? I don't.

I like Hartley.  Well.............maybe 'like' is not the word.  I think he's impulsive, like a wild child.  Now he's naughty to be sure but my instincts force me to think of him as being just a bullish, overly enthusiastic child-man.  
I do like to give a few playful sideswipes at Eddie Jones (his demeanour and opinions)  but in his treatment and attitude to Hartley, I think he has it spot on.  I think his opinion of Hartley is similar to mine.  Yes, the player needs a tight rein but even after his record, I regard him as mostly a niggler rather than an out and out vicious and devious player.

Secretfly you are entitled to feel that way. I agree that's he's a niggler but the problem is that's got him in hot water frequently. Now perhaps that's part of what makes him a pretty effective hooker but it has marred his career. He just seems to have a knack for getting himself into trouble and the only person IMO he can blame is himself though he's a built up a fanbase of sympathisers who believe he is victimised. The more bans he gains, the more support he gains.

Very few players have as many weeks banned or variety of bans and yet have a significant fanbase.

He's a controversial figure.

beshocked wrote:
Secretfly you are entitled to feel that way. I agree that's he's a niggler but the problem is that's got him in hot water frequently. Now perhaps that's part of what makes him a pretty effective hooker but it has marred his career. He just seems to have a knack for getting himself into trouble and the only person IMO he can blame is himself though he's a built up a fanbase of sympathisers who believe he is victimised. The more bans he gains, the more support he gains.

Very few players have as many weeks banned or variety of bans and yet have a significant fanbase.

He's a controversial figure.

Oh I know you're right on the ton of circumstantial evidence that he has an issue with inner discipline, shocked. He's made his own bed as regards his conviction sheet. I'm just trying to work out in my own mind why I can appreciate the majority view on him and yet stubbornly cling to this instinct I have that he doesn't want to be a bad player but just repeatedly fails to hold in that more impulsive guy inside.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wanted to see what you'd say. To be fair there really isn't much point in me trying to persuade you in changing your mind about the Hartley tackle when you've said you judge on the fact it's Hartley and not what happened. It's an emotive stance and I'm willing to accept that I can't affect your view.

Your inability to put forward any kind of agrument is your main obstacle, and the fact you are trying you defend a player who has been suspended for 60 weeks now... The fact it was against an Irish player isn't really the issue, it's the action.

Please pick apart what I have said, and show me where I am wrong, my analysis of the events are right there for all to see. I would really like to see break down each event in detail, then come to your conclusion.

I have defended you in the past when you have made good points (re: Farrell, I think), just in this case you have not.

Like I said no point. You've made your decision as it's Hartley. I'm ok that you want to make that decision. Just wondered your take on the other similar examples. If you want to see more sure I commented on the Hartley thread St the time though I can't remember what.

As far as I am aware, Hartley has been sent off just once in his career for a high/dangerous tackle. So he does not have the worst record in town. Was his tackle any worse than that made by Brad Barritt against Exeter? However as Brad is not public enemy number one then it is not a real issue. Anyway, I look forward to hearing all the plaudits for Dylan when he lifts the trophy after England win back to back grand slams. And goes on to captain the Lions to a series win over the All Blacks.

He's still a very naughty boy though....................................