Forum menu
AA yep agree, gouging and biting what a tool Hartley is. Citing is becoming a bit of a farce.
The minimum for biting is 12 weeks but they took off 4 as he had managed not to gouge anyone for a few years. By amazing coincidence he is available for next England game.
Disgusting. Like above, citing is becoming a joke. I say bring in a 3 strikes rule for serious, intentional incidents. Eg - biting, gouging, stamping (as opposed to rucking) etc.
Also, increase the bans. 1st offence = 12 weeks. 2nd = 36 and 3rd = permanent.
Not long enough.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Not long enough.POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
But entirely expected. 26 weeks for Clark anybody?
Richie Rees got longer for recklessly grabbing Hartley's face whilst being cleared of gouging intentionally or accidently. Its a complete joke he's back for the next england game. Hartley is a dirty cheap shot merchant.
Definitely not long enough. I fear that Callum Clark isn't really going to get a meaningful ban either. When is his hearing?
Thursday for Clark. He is bang to rights on the other tv angle that Sky released last weekend. I would hope 6 months, but would like to be pleasantly suprised by longer. I suspect that it will be much shorter than 26 weeks.
I dont know other than whats on the interweb but given that he hasnt been cited for 5 years (?) does
does that stack up?Hartley is a dirty cheap shot merchant.
What was Ferris doing to get his finger in Hartleys mouth?
Genuine question as it wasnt picked up on camera, (I am no Hartley fan BTW)
What Clark did was well out of order and I would question that he has the temperemant to ever play again.
I would expect Ferris had a hand over/in Hartleys face, Hartley sharked him. Ferris on a wind-up; Hartley...err..bit
[i]What Clark did was well out of order and I would question that he has the temperemant to ever play again.[/i]
Lifetime ban for that wouldn't be over the top I reckon. It's a hard enough sport without that kind of malicious behaviour. He should become a footballer or something.
Hartley is a dirty cheap shot merchant.
does that stack up?
well leaving aside his 6 month ban for gouging have a quick look on youtube, I can remember a arm drop onto Richie Mcaw that should have been cited and an incident where he tries to provoke a Scarlets 9 (I think) by pinching the back of his neck. I dont watchAviva premiersip but I reckon there must beore from that too Biting, piching and hair pulling .... oh no that was a team mate. cant stand the was northampton play.
I would expect Ferris had a hand over/in Hartleys face
But we dont know that and ferris has no form on that front, seems like a hard fair player from what I've seen. Hartley has made his bed though so even if that were the case......
I think that the whereabouts of Ferris' hand was the reason for the mitigation (reading between the lines).
I'm not defending Hartley here (I'm no great fan), but I will say that any player who puts his hand in the mouth of an opposition player deserves to be bitten. I know this may not make me popular (as if I was!) but I'll also say that if it was the case that Ferris had done this, I do not believe that Hartley should have received any ban at all.
Clark on the other hand should be receiving a ban in terms of months, not weeks.
I'll also say that if it was the case that Ferris had done this, I do not believe that Hartley should have received any ban at all.
Lost of ifs and buts in that but do agree in principle. But as said Hartley has made his bed
Hnag on AA I am not saying Hartley is an angel but it seems to be mainly you refering to his bad record. Other than the citing in 2007 I am not aware of any others. A nasty incident I agree and I am not making excuses and as I said earlier I am no fan (I am a Sale fan so have my own cross to bear!)
I did see the McCaw forearm and again I am not making exscuses but most front row players have committed similar fouls during their career, naughty as it was.
Agree with wrecker this far [i]any player who puts his hand in the mouth of an opposition player deserves to be bitten[/i] but would also add that if that's in a high profile telivised game with multiple camera angles and slo-mo replays then he deserves to be cited, investigated and banned too.
Now I'm [i]reading between the lines [/i] too here, but without any citing, investigation, banning, acusations or, more importantly, evidence against him then Ferris is inocent.
Its out of order to blame the victim, and a cheap diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the actual issue of Hartley being a vicious cheat with previous history who appears to have conveniently got off very lightly to allow him to continue on England's summer tour.
As for Clark, I know it's been done already on this thread but it's GBH if its off the pitch and I'd be happy to see cases like this involve criminal prosecution.
Now I'm reading between the lines too here, but without any citing, investigation, banning, acusations or, more importantly, evidence against him then Ferris is inocent.
But there doesnt appear to be much evidence against Hartley either(although enough to get a ban) We dont know if Hartley has accused Ferris of anything and the video I have seen is inconclusive of anything untoward being done by either Hartley or Ferris, only the accusation immediately after (I assume bite marks as well)
I made mention of where Ferris's hand was but I am not in any way accusing Ferris of anything and he has a good disciplinary record as far as I know however some players have been known to put fingers in players mouths so I raised the question.
Now I'm reading between the lines too here, but without any citing, investigation, banning, acusations or, more importantly, evidence against him then Ferris is inocent.
As surfer said, there is no evidence against Hartley less Ferris' testimony. Going by your statement, Hartley should not have been cited at all either.
Its out of order to blame the victim, and a cheap diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the actual issue of Hartley being a vicious cheat with previous history who appears to have conveniently got off very lightly to allow him to continue on England's summer tour.
Nobody has blamed the "victim", so there has been no "cheap diversionary tactic" anywhere.
The signs are there. Hartley has previous, which does mean that punishments are likely to be severe for any wrongdoing. This punishment was not severe. It has been stated that there was mitigation. What do you think happened?
Nobody has blamed the "victim"
Doesn't sound like that to me:
wrecker - Member
I think that the whereabouts of Ferris' hand was the reason for the mitigation (reading between the lines).
If he's done something wrong, he would have been cited too. He wasn't.
What do you think happened?
The written report of the citing hearing is published Friday, until then it's pure speculation. All we know at the moment is Hartley's citing was upheld, and no charges were made against Ferris.
Still not a blame is it?
It's reason for mitigation.
Hartleys citing was upheld because he confessed. I wonder why he did that? (knowing that there was NO evidence)
As surfer said, there is no evidence against Hartley less Ferris' testimony
apart from the ref clearly saying that ferris had a bite mark and the video evidence to show the only person it could have been is Hartley.
Its not just Hartley in the ruck, its not quite that clear cut. I have watched it over and over and it looks like Hartley but its deniable.
Although if there are teeth marks (And there must be some for Ferris to shout about it) they could always get a dentist in to take an impression!
apart from the ref clearly saying that ferris had a bite mark and the video evidence to show the only person it could have been is Hartley.
No actual evidence then? Independent witness? Video?
I actually don't doubt that he did it at all; he is a bit of a cock but that's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that there may well be more to it. Doesn't really matter though, he has got his ban.
So teeth marks, video evidence of his face on ferris' hand prior to the marks, ferris' testimony and his own admition of guilt add up to no evidence?
admition of guilt
Did he?
video evidence of his face on ferris' hand prior to the marks
Really? Link? Was this reported?
his own admition of guilt
I might have got this part wrong. I might not, I'm not entirely sure 😳
The point is, there is no evidence aside from Ferris' testimony. The bite mark is neither here not there.
If it transpires that he was banned on this alone, I'll be surprised and disappointed. As Loum has pointed out, we'll find out on friday.
Some more [s]news[/s] opinion on the incident - this time from STW-favourite, England's Daily Mail:
But crucially, the panel decided there was sufficient ‘mitigation’ to allow a reduction of four weeks which will keep the New Zealand-born forward out of action until May 14. That reduction was an unexpected twist given Hartley’s personal record, which includes a six-month suspension for gouging back in 2007.
Sportsmail understands England forwards coach Graham Rowntree and Northampton director of rugby Jim Mallinder, who attended the hearing, both spoke at length of the efforts Hartley has made to clean up his act since that ugly episode and the panel accepted he has largely managed to do so.
[b][u]By noting the absence of significant disciplinary problems in the last five years, Morris and his colleagues effectively ignored the gouging offence as a factor. This in turn led to a reduction in tariff.
It is understood nothing which emerged in the proceedings suggested any actions on the part of Ferris were a mitigating factor. The Ulsterman, 26, who gave evidence via video link, is not thought to have done anything which could be construed as provocation.[/u] [/b]
He made an immediate complaint to referee Nigel Owens at the time, claiming he had been bitten, and the Welsh official noted what he deemed to be bite marks on Ferris’s finger.
Owens lectured the captains of England and Ireland, Chris Robshaw and Rory Best, but confirmed he could not take any action as he had not seen what had taken place.
The outcome of the hearing is a relief for England, who are planning for the June series against the Springboks, with Tests in Durban on June 9, Johannesburg on June 16 and Port Elizabeth on June 23.
Having Hartley available will be welcome with the shortage of Test-calibre hookers after Steve Thompson’s retirement and, more recently, Rob Webber’s shoulder surgery.
It is possible there could be further action from Stuart Lancaster, if he is appointed England’s long-term head coach later this week, although this may be construed as undermining the official disciplinary process.
It was not such a welcome verdict for Northampton, who must do without their captain for the last four matches of the regular season in the Aviva Premiership, along with a play-off semi-final if they qualify for that stage.
Hartley said: ‘I’m disappointed by the result and I’ll wait for the written judgment as to how the panel came to their conclusion. I now have to put it behind me and focus on supporting Saints in training and off the field.’
http://www.****/sport/rugbyunion/article-2121111/Dylan-Hartley-lands-week-ban-biting-Stephen-Ferris.html
12 weeks is the minimum biting ban.
1/3 extra off for not biting or gouging anyone in the previous 5 years is very generous. There appears to be more to it.
[u]My opinion[/u] is that these [s]summer tours[/s] Lion's Trials are the last opportunity to test the players against Southern hemisphere teams on Southern hemisphere grounds. Hooker is one position that's still undecided and its in the interests of all concerned (financially?) that the contenders attend.
There were no Frenchmen (or Ozzies) on the citing panel. 😉
"The Daily Telegraph "understands that Hartley’s case was based on the fact that he was caught up in a tangle of other bodies and that he felt he was being pulled out forcibly around the head area and responded to that. Hartley did not dispute that he had bitten Ferris’s finger but was at pains to explain why. The full judgment will be released on Friday. Hartley was taken aback by the decision.
Looks like Lancaster has got the job then.
Aye but maybe with out Farrel.
Ben Youngs in trouble for Sunday's savaging of a forward too
http://www.****/sport/rugbyunion/article-2121721/Leicesters-Ben-Youngs-cited-allegedly-striking-opponent.html
I was there and it was quite funny how Jamie Gibson completely ignored Youngs trying to punch him! Twice! Then Allinson dived on Youngs like he was protecting his poor, defenceless number 8 and gave Youngs a bloody nose. The touch judge was standing literally right next to the incident and only recommended a penalty against Youngs.
The citing is fair. I watched it on the telly and Youngs seemed to be needling Gibson trying to provoke a response for a lot of the game.
Looked like a player frustrated by lack of form trying to get noticed for something.
The citing commissioner was Wade Dooley so the suggestion is that he was reported because he failed to hit Gibson hard enough.
I saw that!
Someone must have been smirking when they gave the job of citing officer to wade bloody dooley!
The Blackpool Tower 🙄
Well, Lancaster is definately in - its been announced.
The have to buy out Farrell Snr's contract from Saracen's if they want to keep him. Not sure though that he's actually brought the back line alight.... is he worth it?
I think the Farrell deal's being done as we speak. He's done well in defence but England need an attacking coach IMO.
Is that all?
I want a lifetime ban for what he did.
I thought his hearing was Monday.. 32 weeks definitely not enough.
Given it runs through the off season too its pathetic.