Biting in Eng v Ire

First topic message reminder :

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

Well Ferris managed to get his complaint in and show some evidence of it,I think everyone here making insinuations that Ferris probably did something to deserve being bitten needs to either show some evidence or stay quiet.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Well Ferris managed to get his complaint in and show some evidence of it,I think everyone here making insinuations that Ferris probably did something to deserve being bitten needs to either show some evidence or stay quiet.

As I said before, I agree its purely insinuations and assumptions. It will come out if cited, which since itll be in the refs report youd assume it would.

Well people insinuating that Hartley did it needs to show some evidence or stay quiet

Not the same,Ferris accused Hartley of it and showed the ref evidence.

Hartley did not accuse Ferris or show any evidence of anything happening,hugely different scenarios.

asore - people are just speculating, no one is saying for definite what someone has/has not done, nowt wrong with speculation.

Kiwi's always bite

HERSH wrote:Kiwi's always bite

Someone will bite on this Im sure

rugbydreamer wrote:asore - people are just speculating, no one is saying for definite what someone has/has not done, nowt wrong with speculation.

I don't really agree with that,I think it's just an attempt to have a cover story in place just in case Hartley did bite.I'll leave it alone now anyway as I don't think anything will come of it,there's no video evidence and while Ferris was annoyed at the time he doesn't seem to be making a big deal of it now.

Asore,

The Irleand camp has been quite dignified about it ...that doesnt mean it didnt happen. The citing commission will report decide this evening if there a case to answer, but apparently none of the BBC footgage shows conclusive evidence there was a bite.

That aside, the suspension rage is 12 weeks to 4 years for biting, surprisingly harsh compared to the sanction range Clark will face.

gowales wrote:Well people insinuating that Hartley did it needs to show some evidence or stay quiet

Ferris showed the ref the evidence - he had teeth marks on his fingers

Geoff - how do we know for sure it was Hartley? There was more than one english player in that ruck.

rugbydreamer wrote:Geoff - how do we know for sure it was Hartley? There was more than one english player in that ruck.

Its been widely reproted that its Hartley who was accussed. Ok its quite possibble that Ferriss may have gotten one of his teammates to bite it and then ran off to show the ref, but on the balance of probability I think we can say that the finger was most likley bitten and that Ferris believed Hartley did it. What else when on and the context and ferocity of that bit is another question. The level of damage certainly couldnt have been that great as Ferris was happy to go through the next scrum before geting it looked at by the physio.

Oh I agree with all that PSW, just that geoff was saying that Ferris showed evidence of a bite, fair enough, but there's no evidence to say it was Hartley that did it (although he does appear the likely candidate)

Just saying that we don't know what went on there, there is no conclusive video evidence, so all we can do is speculate!

As I mentioned early I have been told by someone who should know that it is Hartley being considered for a citing. Having said that I still would not be surprised if we hear nothing more

So get a dentist to match the teethmarks...oh wait a minute..

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Not the same,Ferris accused Hartley of it and showed the ref evidence.

Hartley did not accuse Ferris or show any evidence of anything happening,hugely different scenarios.

I'm not sure that's a fair argument. If Hartley made any accusation against Ferris, he would incriminate himself. Worse, there's a chance that the accusation wouldn't stick, but the confession would. Why would he risk that if the ref didn't see the incident anyway?

And more to the point, what 'evidence' could Hartley have supplied that Ferris fish-hooked him? "Look ref, my mouth's a bit red."

I know most people don't like Dylan Hartley (and I'm guessing that includes anyone who's aware of his existence), but some of the arguments being put forward for his guilt are just witch-hunting.

Its also Hartleys name in the press, and he was one of only two England players in the vicinity of ferris when it happened.

So I dont think its unfair to speculate that it was him and there was a bite.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

I'm not sure that's a fair argument. If Hartley made any accusation against Ferris, he would incriminate himself. Worse, there's a chance that the accusation wouldn't stick, but the confession would. Why would he risk that if the ref didn't see the incident anyway?

And more to the point, what 'evidence' could Hartley have supplied that Ferris fish-hooked him? "Look ref, my mouth's a bit red."

I know most people don't like Dylan Hartley (and I'm guessing that includes anyone who's aware of his existence), but some of the arguments being put forward for his guilt are just witch-hunting.

I haven't made any argument against Hartley like I said there's no video evidence and Ferris isn't making a big deal of it post match.

However if a player is just after being fish hooked in the middle of an international test he would not be thinking anyway near as clearly as you suggest.He'd be raging and would let the ref know about it.

I think the arguments that Ferris somehow deserved it are much worse.

I really don't think Ferris is lying about being bitten. It would be a rather strange thing to do. The question is what was the bite like and why did it happen. You don't have to bite very hard to leave a mark (my brother was a biter). You do to break the skin. Was the bite a response to a finger in the mouth? Or was it act of aggression. These things would only come out in the citing report (possibly).

Just because there's no video evidence doesn't mean it won't end in a ban. Owens apparently saw the mark so their the evidence something happened. When Tincu got banned for 18 weeks for gouging James is was based on the fact James did have damage to his eye and he punched Tincu. He couldn't remember that Tincu wore gloves and Ian Evans' testimony was discounted because he lied about what he saw. Tincu was still banned.

However if a player is just after being fish hooked in the middle of an international test he would not be thinking anyway near as clearly as you suggest.He'd be raging and would let the ref know about it.

Hartley doesn't tend to react. Even though people still go on about him having a temper and is easily wound up I don't remember his retaliating for anything. He puts in sly nasty little digs in generally (never known biting before but possible). Possibly because he knows people try to wind him up and he's been coached not to. The most I've seen him react to anything was the bite from the Ulster player and he was laughing about that (certainly not in anger).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I do think that as its Hartley involved everyone is assuming that he has done wrong and that Ferris is squeaky clean.

The reason I think Ferris did nothing wrong is because even when the ref went to talk to the English player about what happened he said nothing.If Ferris had done anything wrong he had the perrfect opportunity to highlight it there.

Ge didnt talk to Hartley, just Robshaw. What he did say was along the lines of " I didnt see it, theres nothing i can do, ill punish what I see"

Ahd he said that to Hartley whats he going to say " Oh well you didnt see this that and the other as well so can you make sure that doesnt get openalissed too please".

If he gets cited, he will make his case. If there was mitigation he will mention it then, as will the other withnessing players. There were at least two other Irish players and one Englishman in the pile.

After he spoke to Robshaw he went over to the scrum and spoke to the English front row.

Would the citing officer cite on just an accusation and bite mark or will he need to see something on the video too?

Also,

When Hartley said he was bitten by Wannenberg (I think) he was trying to pull Pedrie out of a maul. Hartley was behind him and was pulling the Ulster player's head backwards with his arm across Pedrie's mouth. He pretty much pulled his own arm into the Ulster player's mouth.

Also, I would see a huge difference between a player biting a finger which had been shoved into his mouth and biting a finger that happened to be near his face.

MrsP wrote:Also,

When Hartley said he was bitten by Wannenberg (I think) he was trying to pull Pedrie out of a maul. Hartley was behind him and was pulling the Ulster player's head backwards with his arm across Pedrie's mouth. He pretty much pulled his own arm into the Ulster player's mouth.

Also, I would see a huge difference between a player biting a finger which had been shoved into his mouth and biting a finger that happened to be near his face.

But since you don't know where Ferris' hand was, you can't draw that distinction.

Totally agree that I have no idea where Ferris' hand was but someone mentioned that it would have been close to Hartley's face.

I am saying, for me, "close to his face" is totally different from "deliberately put in his mouth"!

Exactly putting a finger in his mouth is pure guess work.

The one fact we have is Hartley is beign considered for a citing - the rest is speculation

Hartley has just been cited.

rugbydreamer wrote:Hartley has just been cited.

Well they must have had something to go on. What about the arm puller ?

no news on that sadly Cymro, seems to have escaped media attention unforuntately, just saw up on my twitter feed that Hartley had been cited.

Well at least we can now say that the match had some bite to it despite the one-sided score line.

Don't know how he could have been cited if there's no video evidence.

England's Dylan Hartley cited for alleged biting against Ireland
England hooker Dylan Hartley has been cited for an alleged biting incident during the Six Nations match against Ireland on Saturday.

The Irish flanker Stephen Ferris drew attention to it during the first half of the match, but the referee Nigel Owens did not see anything himself.

The lowest level of suspension for biting is 12 weeks. The top-end sanction is 24 weeks.

That's what i was thinking, they can't just accuse him because Ferris said he did it surely

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17440125

gowales wrote:That's what i was thinking, they can't just accuse him because Ferris said he did it surely

the4re would be the evidence that someone did it. They could ask him under on his honour if he did it, and if not who did. he was there, he should know. Depending what his answer is wee'll know a lot about his character.

Even if they cant prove it enough to uphold the citeing its important they are sen to be at least taking it seriously.

As someone mentioned previously Tincu was banned despite really dodgy testimony, he may or may not of have done it but if he didnt he didnt shop his mate thinking hed get off so I didnt have a lot of sympathy for him

Hope Ferris is a good boy and wash his hands after he goes to the loo

Just watched the video on youtube and at the ruck where it apparently happens Ferris hardly reacts at all.. either with pain or anger.

Now this doesn't suggest that he's lying... more likely that he is making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no bust up between teams because of it which often always happens when things like this happen.

Biting has no part in the game... but lets be honest, if someone puts their fist in your face in a ruck you're hardly going to kiss it are you?

Ferris fuelled the fire when he said England were bad losers prior to the match... sounds a bit like kettle pot black to me.

Can't see how Hartley can be banned for this as the evidence is very low on the ground.

glamorganalun wrote:Hope Ferris is a good boy and wash his hands after he goes to the loo

I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere about being more concerned that Ferris's tetanus cover is up to date, but maybe that would be too unkind?

fa0019 wrote:Ferris fuelled the fire when he said England were bad losers prior to the match... sounds a bit like kettle pot black to me.

Interesting that biting is equated with media comments out of context. Austin Healy must be glad he retired before getting his heart served up with a nice Chianti.

People are having a go at Hartley but Ferris hardly an angel off the pitch.

SafeAsMilk wrote:People are having a go at Hartley but Ferris hardly an angel off the pitch.

He was bound over.

And what has that to do with Dylan Hartley biting him?

About time Hartley was caught again.

MrsP wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:People are having a go at Hartley but Ferris hardly an angel off the pitch.

He was bound over.

And what has that to do with Dylan Hartley biting him?

Did Hartley bite him? It's only alleged and a citing.

Just trying to show that some folk jump down on previous crimes quite quickly.

We are talking about what happened in a rugby match.

What are you trying to say?

Are you saying that Hartley bit him because of the fact that he was bound over?

MrsP wrote:We are talking about what happened in a rugby match.

What are you trying to say?

Are you saying that Hartley bit him because of the fact that he was bound over?

Don't be silly. I'm saying that lot's of folk are saying that Hartley is guilty because he's not liked by a fair few opposition fans and he's had a bit of previous.

maestegmafia wrote:About time Hartley was caught again.

What on earth has this been reported for???

maestegmafia wrote:About time Hartley was caught again.

Innocent until proven guilty Maes.

No you weren't. You were having a fairly cheap shot.

Ferris has not been cited for any foul or illegal play so what on earth does his binding over have to do with anything?

When was the last time Stephen Ferris was found guilty of foul play?

Can you name any?

You all know you're going to talk this into another 30 page epic and no solutions or agreements at the end again - just like the last one on red-card-no-card

If Hartley's teef were extracted surgically from Ferris's hand in a pristine forensics lab, you'd still have a guy questioning the authenticity of the teef, suggesting they might be candy ones, suggesting Ferris might have done a Bloodgate on it, suggesting Hartley never had teef to begin with due to a genetic disorder!

No solutions here, I'm afraid; even when the verdict of innocent or guilty comes in.

MrsP wrote:No you weren't. You were having a fairly cheap shot.

Ferris has not been cited for any foul or illegal play so what on earth does his binding over have to do with anything?

When was the last time Stephen Ferris was found guilty of foul play?

Can you name any?

For crying out loud! It's not about specifics it was just an example to show that no-one is whiter-than-white and shouldn't be pre-judged.

So that would be a NO then!

MrsP, you go on supporting Ferris and I'll wait until we hear a verdict. None of us know the answer.

SafeAsMilk wrote:For crying out loud! It's not about specifics it was just an example to show that no-one is whiter-than-white and shouldn't be pre-judged.

I'm not so sure. Those English boys looked pretty durned White to me when they emerged from the tunnel. Dazzling kit, that was. How do they get them so white? Do they use DAZ or BOLD