Biting in Eng v Ire

Just a quick post to clarify that there was no gouging in the Eng-Ire match. It's come out that the Irish players were complaining of biting, specifically on Ferris's finger.

Full story here:

http://www.espnscrum.com/ireland/rugby/story/161365.html

If this story is true, the culprit can look forward to a long spell away from the England team and good riddance, whoever he is. Presumably prosecution for assault or similar might not be out of the question, either.

If, however, this story is not true, a little clarification might be called for. In particular, it would be interesting to know whether this Stephen Ferris is in any way related to an Irish international rugby union player of the same name who had such a lot to say a few days ago about how the English were such bad losers?

I would rather ferris keep quiet and sort it out at the next ruck.

That said I don't know to what extent it he was bitten. At the minute I think it is much ado about nothing

On a happier note, I think Nigel Owens's pragmatic and empathetic treatment of an incident he didn't see summed up his excellent day yesterday. There has been a lot of popping at refs on these Boards these past few weeks, so let's give credit where it's due. Another ref of the more showpony persuasion might have been giving out more cards than a travelling salesman but Owens, to his huge credit, tried to let the game flow and made clear all the time what he wanted from the players without becoming the story himself.

He is a good ref. I think the one area he isn't great is the scrum but he didn't have to be Einstein to figure out what way that went yesterday. I just think there is so much going on at rucks with hands and bodies everywhere that its not unreasonable to think that at some point a hand will end up in someone's mouth by accident.

I would be surprised and disappointed if there was any more in it than that but only ferris knows. We will see.

Maybe his finger was somewhere where it shouldn't have been!

HERSH wrote:Maybe his finger was somewhere where it shouldn't have been!

I'd question why and England players mouth would be near his teammates bumhole

Yep, Ferris is claiming he was bitten. We should know tomorrow if there's been any citing:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2012/0317/1224313516629.html?via=mr

SimonofSurrey wrote:On a happier note, I think Nigel Owens's pragmatic and empathetic treatment of an incident he didn't see summed up his excellent day yesterday. There has been a lot of popping at refs on these Boards these past few weeks, so let's give credit where it's due. Another ref of the more showpony persuasion might have been giving out more cards than a travelling salesman but Owens, to his huge credit, tried to let the game flow and made clear all the time what he wanted from the players without becoming the story himself.

+1

I can tell it was Hartley and it is currently under investigation to determine if sufficient evidence exists to cite him. They are looking at the video evidence available

geoff999rugby wrote:I can tell it was Hartley and it is currently under investigation to determine if sufficient evidence exists to cite him. They are looking at the video evidence available

Why does that not surprise me, Good player who has this silly tendency of trying to wind the opposition up at every opportunity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtN-enPWYTY

Horrible if it's true. No place for it in the game.

Agree with all the comments about Nige, think he handled teh situation well.

If it's true and that a player was bitten, hope the culprit is severly punished, not something we ever want to see in our game.

Maybe he was just hungry? Maybe if it was Hartley he just doesn't have the temperament for international rugby.

We have had scenarios in the past where players have been banned for "fish-hooking" (where they shove fingers in the mouth to inflict pain etc) and for biting when someone shoved their hand in teh mouth. It is never clear cut.

If a player moves their head to bite an opponent - it should be a long ban.

If a player shoves their fingers in someone's mouth then they deserve to be bitten - and it is the best way to get them to remove said digits.

Not casting aspersions on any player who may have been involved at the weekend - just general points.

Whilst SL is in charge any behaviour like this will be met with being dropped from the squad irrespective of the player's importance to the side and rightly so. I am totally behind Lancaster in his stance re discipline, long overdue to my mind. I hope though that this turns out to be something and nothing.

Ferris seems to complain an awful lot. I guess things just weren't going his way.

Think I've found it. It's a few phases before Owens' chat with the captains. Hartley goes in to compete for the ball at a ruck, Ferris drags him off his feet and a couple of second later Ferris gestures to Owens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dnn98/Six_Nations_Rugby_2012_England_v_Ireland/

42:06 in the video/27:20 on the match clock

It is probably something and nothing, but as Tiger said if it was a deliberate action to move the head to inflict a bite, a long ban. If Ferris put his finger in someones mouth, for whatever reason, perhaps he should be bannned, the biting is a reasonable way of making them remove it.

I did not see any blood or him getting any attention for it, so it can't have been like the case where that player got half his ear bitten off.

Have to agree, if anyone was biting, he should have a long ban.
Lifetime actually.

If the allegation is wrong, then the accuser should go.
Lifetime.

Really don't like this stuff in Rugby. Harks back to the good/bad old days.

Assuming it was Ferris's right hand.

When he grabs Hartley his left arm goes underneath Hartley's right armpit and his right hand is around Hartley's head or face. After Hartley hits the ground Ferris pulls his right hand away very quickly.

Looking at it like that it doesnt reflect well on either of them.

Really don't like this stuff in Rugby. Harks back to the good/bad old days.

Increasingly I am of the view that while foul play in general was just about acceptable in the amateur days, I think it does not sit well with professionalism for all sorts of reasons including player safety.

I doubt anything will come of it to be honest.

Cowshot wrote:

Really don't like this stuff in Rugby. Harks back to the good/bad old days.

Increasingly I am of the view that while foul play in general was just about acceptable in the amateur days, I think it does not sit well with professionalism for all sorts of reasons including player safety.

Agree on every level, mate:
Makes us look like thugs and morons. Makes us look like amateurs. And is patently unsafe.

It looked like Ferris had his right arm on Hartley's face and was pulling, so i think biting was his only option. I remember when the exact thing happened to Hartley last year, he over-reacted at the time but after the game he said it was his fault because he had his arm on the player's face and he deserved the bite.

If biting actually gets at least 12 weeks then why didn't they investigate the other incident???

I would certainly draw a distinction between someone biting a finger or arm which had been forced into their mouth and someone going out of their way to bite.

I have no idea if the Laws draw the same distinction though.

I doubt if there will be any evidence to show which of those was the case.

If Ferris put his finger in Hartley's mouth I have no sympathy whatsoever for him.

However, if Hartley bit him under any other circumstances he is an even less desirable character than I thought.

Just noticed this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2116403/Stephen-Ferris-says-England-player-bit-finger.html

It seems we are unlikely to get any evidence from the British press since they can't even tell the difference between Donnacha Ryan and Stephen Ferris!

Owens said on the pitch to England captain that an accusation of biting had been reported to him and he'd seen evidence of a clear mark on Ferris's finger but he hadn't seen anything so no idea of how it happened or who involved, so he couldn't do anything, except it would be investigated.

Which is all he could do.

Ferris probably stuck his fingers in Hartley's gob. Hartley responded accordingly. Both players seem to be the mouthy type.

So much for England being bad losers

Pot Hale wrote: Ferris probably stuck his fingers in Hartley's gob. Hartley responded accordingly. Both players seem to be the mouthy type.

Thank you for using the word probably with absolutely no justification.

Ferris mouthy - funiest thing I have heard in a while - one of the quiestest players in the game. Permanently walks around with music in his ears. You have to jump up and down in front of him to get his attention.

gowales wrote:So much for England being bad losers

Yer strange one - we are getting bad winners snydrome

Ferris sticking his finger in someone's mouth and trying to harm them is just as likely as someone biting his finger to simply harm him.

3 points

1- other than guesswork on this board we have no evidence that Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth
2-Ferris is not being considered for a citing, Hartley is
3-Please repost as that sentence doesn't make sense

geoff999rugby wrote:

Pot Hale wrote: Ferris probably stuck his fingers in Hartley's gob. Hartley responded accordingly. Both players seem to be the mouthy type.

Thank you for using the word probably with absolutely no justification. .

There was justification for using the word, otherwise the sentence would have read: "Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's gob."

But to keep you happy, I'll amend it to: "Ferris possibly stuck his fingers in Hartley's gob. Hartley responded accordingly. Both players seem to be the mouthy type.".

geoff999rugby wrote:3 points

1- other than guesswork on this board we have no evidence that Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth
2-Ferris is not being considered for a citing, Hartley is
3-Please repost as that sentence doesn't make sense

So what if Hartley's being considered for a citing? That isn't itself an offence. If you watch the clip, Ferris has his arm wrapped round Hartley's face and Hartley's hands are elsewhere occupied, so hard to see how else Ferris' fingers would end up in Hartley's mouth anyway.

It wouldn't be fair to judge either player given that the main camera angle didn't catch what really happened, but just because Hartley is apparently being considered for a citing doesn't mean he's the (only) wrongdoer.

And the post by gowales made perfect sense.

geoff999rugby wrote:3 points

1- other than guesswork on this board we have no evidence that Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth
2-Ferris is not being considered for a citing, Hartley is
3-Please repost as that sentence doesn't make sense

Geoff, Where's the evidence that it is Hartley being considered by the way? You brought his name up, no?

Anybody remember when Hartley told the ref he was bitten during a maul? He had his arm across the face of a player and the guy bit him. I seem to remember it was generally decided he deserved it for having his arm across the guys mouth.

sorry thunor thats not correct. Hartley had his forearm in the mouth of Wannenburg and yanked it back, then pointed to his arm. There was no evidence he has been bitten, other than he was pulling wannenburg back by the teeth.

as for this incident i think Robshaw got it spot on. Innocent until proven guilty.

There's as much evidence he was bit then as there is in this incident, but I agree with you overall

I havent looked at the video of ferris claim but i said at the time it was probably much ado about nothing. I dont think anyone other than ferris and hartley (if thats who it was) will ever know.

Ferris should remember it, and then the next time Ireland play england and hartley is carrying ball, mince him in the tackle. Its the best way to repsond.

Pot Hale wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:3 points

1- other than guesswork on this board we have no evidence that Ferris stuck his fingers in Hartley's mouth
2-Ferris is not being considered for a citing, Hartley is
3-Please repost as that sentence doesn't make sense

Geoff, Where's the evidence that it is Hartley being considered by the way? You brought his name up, no?

Contacts

It looked like Parling to me.

But my eye sight is very poor when watching it on a tiny screen on the iplayer.

MrsP wrote:I would certainly draw a distinction between someone biting a finger or arm which had been forced into their mouth and someone going out of their way to bite................

Madam,
In all the years I have played, I can't recall any time someone's fingers accidentally ended up in my mouth, except, perhaps, my own. My foot also, on occasion. But that's different, eh?

I looked at the regular BBC match replay, but the camera was following the ball and didn't catch anything, at least from what I saw. Perhaps someone has access to a different camera angle?

If there is clear evidence there was a bite, through the ruddy book at the offender (and let's not jump to any conclusions about who it could be. OK?). Full stop.
But, conversely, if there is clear evidence there was no bite, and a mark on the finger in a Rugby match can come from a million things, then throw the exact same book at the accuser. If no evidence, then we move on.
Clearly the only approach.

Well I think there is a definate distinction to be drawn between biting a finger which was put into your mouth and deliberately finding a part of another player to bite!

A mark can be made in many ways but there aren't too many ways to leave teeth marks. If teethmarks were seen then it must have been a bite.

I'm not sure how one can produce clear evidence that there was not a bite?

I doubt there will be clear evidence either way.

I need to look at the video again to see who is putting their gumshield back in their mouth

Think this is the ruck it happened, can't really see anything from this angle. If there's a camera from the other side it might be ok. Do have to question what ferris's hand is doing on hartley's face though?

Spoiler:

I'll say again, I think thats Parling No5 not Hartley No2

HERSH wrote:I'll say again, I think thats Parling No5 not Hartley No2

It isn't. If you actually watch the clip you can see it's Hartley going into the ruck (the one without a beard)

Actually Parling is in the ruck, but it's clearly Hartley whose face Ferris has his arm round.

HERSH wrote:I'll say again, I think thats Parling No5 not Hartley No2

I've just checked again and there both there, but it's hartley that's at the bottom with Ferris's hand near his face. Also one of the Irish player's (think it was ryan) then came over to hartley (as the ref told him to go away).