Report on the Hartley citing

BBDBB

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf


makes for interesting reading

decisions

Any chance you could quote it?

greendom

decisions wrote: »

Any chance you could quote it?

- 404 ERROR

seems to have been removed

BBDBB

its 13 pages long, so quoting isnt really an option, sorry

greendom

BBDBB wrote: »

its 13 pages long, so quoting isnt really an option, sorry

quite difficult to quote nothing...

BBDBB

well Im looking at the document and I followed the link above

I'll try linking it again

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf


no idea why its not working for you, perhaps if you manually typed the last bit thats greyed out??

greendom

BBDBB wrote: »

well Im looking at the document and I followed the link above

I'll try linking it again

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf


no idea why its not working for you, perhaps if you manually typed the last bit thats greyed out??

no sorry but thanks for trying - perhaps because I'm not a member of the RBS site ?

rrpc

greendom wrote: »

no sorry but thanks for trying - perhaps because I'm not a member of the RBS site ?

You need to post it in its entirety like this:

http://press.rbs6nations.com/tools/documents/DylanHartleyDecision01734770-[12372].pdf

Or copy and paste the entire link to your browser address bar. That should do it.

BBDBB

Im not a member either, maybe the pdf isnt supported on this part of the forum?

rrpc

BBDBB wrote: »

Im not a member either, maybe the pdf isnt supported on this part of the forum?

It's because the square brackets in the link are interpreted by vBulletin as bbCode and the link is truncated.

The link I gave above has corrected this.

tolosenc

greendom wrote: »

no sorry but thanks for trying - perhaps because I'm not a member of the RBS site ?

No, its the way this site is mis reading the link.

Try this:

http://bit.ly/Hz9rjw

DDC1990

Hmmm its very interesting reading.

Seemed like Ferris was on trial for a good portion of it.
They seemed to focus on his style of removing Hartley and the position of his hand.
Also having Mallander and Rowntree telling the committee what a lovely, quiet, gentle boy Hartley is was a bit rich.

Still on reading that evidence, I would almost have cleared Hartley.
Reminds me of the Suarez v Evra case in soccer. All the evidence seems to go towards Not Guilty (on the grounds of Ferris possibly having his finger in Hartleys mouth fishhooking him), but the committee finding the player guilty.

BBDBB

I do agree that Ferris technique of clearing Hartley doesnt put him in a good light and he is lucky that the process means he cant now be cited himself

The most interesting thing for me was the location of the bite being on the fifth digit, the weakest of all your fingers and an unlikely tool to use if you wanted to fishhook someoneby the cheek deliberately

.ak

For me it just sounds like Ferris was trying to roll him with his arm a bit too high, his little finger got a bit too close to Hartley's mouth and Hartley took a bite. I can see why the reduction was in place, as they think it was the 'lower end' of the offence, but still should've been 12 weeks imo.

rrpc

BBDBB wrote: »

I do agree that Ferris technique of clearing Hartley doesnt put him in a good light and he is lucky that the process means he cant now be cited himself

The most interesting thing for me was the location of the bite being on the fifth digit, the weakest of all your fingers and an unlikely tool to use if you wanted to fishhook someoneby the cheek deliberately

Also if you're fishhooking someone, your fingers are as far as they can possibly be from that person's teeth whilst still being in his mouth.

And to get three (or four) teeth marks on your little finger, the finger has to be parallel with the teeth, perpendicular contact would at best get two teeth marks in it.

castie

Ferris hasnt helped things by making mistakes.

Saying it was 4 marks when doc says three and the position in which he rolled him being impossible because of a blocking.

In the end Hartley admitted biting him with a claim of self defense and the committee disagreed with it being self defense.

They could not prove any sort of malice or intention because of no photoage and shoddy evidence.

rrpc

castie wrote: »

Ferris hasnt helped things by making mistakes.

Saying it was 4 marks when doc says three and the position in which he rolled him being impossible because of a blocking.

In the end Hartley admitted biting him with a claim of self defense and the committee disagreed with it being self defense.

They could not prove any sort of malice or intention because of no photoage and shoddy evidence.

I'm not sure that Ferris is to blame here. I've often suffered similar injuries which look like the skin isn't broken but which subsequently (after some hours) can scab and swell up.

I'm not a medical person, but it's a bit like a burn which removes a layer or two of skin and then obviously scar and scab.

.ak

castie wrote: »

Ferris hasnt helped things by making mistakes.

Saying it was 4 marks when doc says three and the position in which he rolled him being impossible because of a blocking.

In the end Hartley admitted biting him with a claim of self defense and the committee disagreed with it being self defense.

They could not prove any sort of malice or intention because of no photoage and shoddy evidence.

You're saying Ferris didn't help himself cuz he got the amount of finger marks wrong?

castie

.ak wrote: »

You're saying Ferris didn't help himself cuz he got the amount of finger marks wrong?

Read the report thats what it says.
They ignored evidence from Ferris in two different instances.
Im being objective reading this.

Id ideally of liked Hartley to be tied to a raft and make a reality version of Castaway.

rrpc

castie wrote: »

Read the report thats what it says.
They ignored evidence from Ferris in two different instances.
Im being objective reading this.

They opted to take the expert evidence of the team doctor over the 'inexpert' evidence of Ferris. That's understandable, Ferris should have had it looked at again by a doctor before submitting his evidence, but it's understandable why he didn't.

Funkstard

Meanwhile, Graham Rowntree revealed Dylan Hartley “might well soon” be made England captain in testimony which helped limit the Northampton hooker’s biting ban to eight weeks.

Hartley (26) was found guilty of biting the finger of Ireland flanker Stephen Ferris in England’s 30-9 RBS Six Nations victory at Twickenham. The independent disciplinary panel ruled Hartley’s reaction to finding Ferris’ finger inadvertently in or near his mouth was “not justifiable” and banned him until May 14th.

Hartley could have faced a much lengthier suspension given he was banned for six months in 2007 for eye-gouging Wasps players Jonny O’Connor and James Haskell in the same match.

But the panel decided to “ignore” the gouging incident — and they reduced the ban from a potential 12 weeks — following “glowing” character references from Rowntree and Northampton director of rugby Jim Mallinder.

Rowntree, the England forwards coach, insisted on attending the hearing to speak on Hartley’s behalf and detailed the “massive change” he has seen in the player since his “struggle in 2007”.

The full written judgement details Rowntree describing Hartley as “a beacon and a leader” during England’s recent troubled times and he added “no one had more credibility with his peers”.

Harlequins flanker Chris Robshaw was made England captain for the Six Nations but Rowntree said Hartley “was very close to having been made captain of the national team and might well soon become captain”.

Rowntree finished by saying Hartley’s reputation is “completely unfounded” and that “if you look at the many videotapes of the matches in which he has played you will see a man of humility and respect”.

Irish Times link

Interesting bits in bold. Is this not ridiculous to anyone else? National staff interfering with the process, earlier bans "ignored", and the expectation that he 'might' become England caption used as a mitigating circumstance? Total nonsense.

rrpc

Funkstard wrote: »

Irish Times link

Interesting bits in bold. Is this not ridiculous to anyone else? National staff interfering with the process, earlier bans "ignored", and the expectation that he 'might' become England caption used as a mitigating circumstance? Total nonsense.

To be fair, they eignored the past form as it was five years ago. There has to come a time when you drop your baggage and move on.

Not excusing Hartley and he now has a few years to get those 'points off his license'

castie

rrpc wrote: »

They opted to take the expert evidence of the team doctor over the 'inexpert' evidence of Ferris. That's understandable, Ferris should have had it looked at again by a doctor before submitting his evidence, but it's understandable why he didn't.

Yes but then the second one was where he had grabbed him.

"The Player had not cried with Pain"

Ferris has no tears

Messy judgement though, perhaps Hartley not near as bad as we've made him out to be.

That being said, claims that Ferris fish-hooked him with his little finger seem a little ridiculous. Report is pretty fair though. Ferris' hands near the mouth by circumstance of his own doing (the "rucking" technique), Hartley's bite was reactionary. 8 weeks probably too much tbh

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

"The Player had not cried with Pain"

Ferris has no tears

Messy judgement though, perhaps Hartley not near as bad as we've made him out to be.

That being said, claims that Ferris fish-hooked him with his little finger seem a little ridiculous. Report is pretty fair though. Ferris' hands near the mouth by circumstance of his own doing (the "rucking" technique), Hartley's bite was reactionary. 8 weeks probably too much tbh

It's up to Hartley now. If he can keep his slate clean for the next couple of years he'll be OK. Somehow though, I doubt it, in which case the 2007 stuff will come back to haunt him as well.

bluefinger

in fairness, Ferris could probably use his little finger to lift what most people bench press.

CIARAN_BOYLE

reading the report I'm inclined to say that 8 weeks was probably right.

rrpc

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

reading the report I'm inclined to say that 8 weeks was probably right.

Might be worth readiing this as well: http://whiffofcordite.com/2012/04/02/chop-their-hands-off/

The author is not inclined to agree with you.

CIARAN_BOYLE

rrpc wrote: »

Might be worth readiing this as well: http://whiffofcordite.com/2012/04/02/chop-their-hands-off/

The author is not inclined to agree with you.

Had he read the report when he wrote that. After reading the report it sounds very similar to the Wannenberg bite on Hartley that wasn't even cited last year.

Before reading the report I would have agreed to throw the book at him.

Its just my opinion.

rrpc

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Had he read the report when he wrote that. After reading the report it sounds very similar to the Wannenberg bite on Hartley that wasn't even cited last year.

Before reading the report I would have agreed to throw the book at him.

Its just my opinion.

It was only posted about an hour ago and has references to stuff in the report (though I think some of those were published elsewhere).

Whether or not the report had been read; and having read it myself I'm inclined to think that some inconvenient truths were ignored, the general thrust of that article is correct. Sanctions are becoming far too lenient and the references to Dupuy and Attoub are pertinent.

The Clark ban is an egregious case in point. Clark's 'explanation' was almost swallowed hook line and sinker and imo Hawkins suffered insult after injury.