Biting in Eng v Ire

by yappysnap Sun 18 Mar - 8:35

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

by majesticimperialman Tue 20 Mar - 19:22

What i dont understand is that Nigel Owens was there, right ther on the spot and he did not see anything.

Was this injury to Ferris's finger done before he came on the field?

Did Ferris try and gouge Hertley in the eye but miised and put his finger in Hertley's mouth instead? and Hertley's natural reaction was to close his mouth shut, and that how Feeris's foinger got bitten.

So all in all it was not Hertley's fault, but it was Feeris's fault all along.

But i just dont understand how the Ref who was on the spot did not see it.

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 19:23

A knee in the kidneys,anyone?

by SecretFly Tue 20 Mar - 19:26

Did you see it, majestic?

If you didn't see it then I don't hold out much hope that Owens should have seen it.

Afterall, this very 606 is kept alive by what TV watchers see that the ref never does. We always see more than the ref and hundreds of thousands of comments prove it.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 19:29

majesticimperialman wrote:What i dont understand is that Nigel Owens was there, right ther on the spot and he did not see anything.

Was this injury to Ferris's finger done before he came on the field?

Did Ferris try and gouge Hertley in the eye but miised and put his finger in Hertley's mouth instead? and Hertley's natural reaction was to close his mouth shut, and that how Feeris's foinger got bitten.

So all in all it was not Hertley's fault, but it was Feeris's fault all along.

But i just dont understand how the Ref who was on the spot did not see it.

Wasnt he watching the play? Youd hope he was. Do we know exactly when the bite happened, I assumed it was after the ball had long gone, there was a cuddle festival going on over there for the next two phases.
Given it occurred under a pile of bodies when Owens had a dozen things to look at other than forwards who were effectively out the game its hardly surprising he missed something the TV cameras couldnt pick up is it?

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 19:30

Taffineastbourne wrote:A knee in the kidneys,anyone?

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 20 Mar - 19:39

doctor_grey wrote:
Triangulation wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:I have a radical suggestion:
Since we don't have all the evidence in front of us, why not wait until the results of the hearing are published.

If they find Hartley had a bite to eat, then throw him out on his derriere. For a long, long time.
If they find there is no evidence, then we let it go.

Since it is, I presume, too late for any 'fish hooking' complaint against Ferris, the incident will end at the hearing.
A radical suggestion.... and a very unsettling one too. I think that's much too controversal an approach to be honest, grey. And I'd actually caution you to tone down further contributions lest you be banned from this site!

Ha ha nonsense but highly amusing nonetheless!

You migth as well shut this site down altogether and suck all the fun out of life while you're at it Mr-let's-wait-and-see-boring-face!

ha ha

Lookey for the result - sure we have to wait. I'm putting my theory down now. Putting it in the time capsule now.
OK, I get it. But do you want the truth?
Really?

Ferris and Hartley are lovers. Have been for years. They had a falling out over who gets to lead at the big dance. Ferris tried to tweak Hartley's nose in the ruck. He missed and impaled his finger against Hartley's teeth.

a lovers' tiff? All makes sense now!

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 19:39

Taffineastbourne wrote:A knee in the kidneys,anyone?

Taffin, not sure what you are suggesting here mate, but it does seems to be inappropriate.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 20 Mar - 19:43

Taff wishes to raise for the umpteenth time the issue of Conor Murray sliding his knees into the pelvis/hips/lower back area of J Davies after he scored in the first between Ireland and Wales. It has no relevance here other than every time something happens to an Irish player, Taff likes to bring it up in a Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat gesture - no idea what the point is tho? Headscratch

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 19:50

I think we all know what his point is Asbo.

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:03

I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 20 Mar - 20:08

Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

Don't want to go over old ground, but what indiscretion? Was Murray cited, found guilty and punished? Ah-ha, you must mean an ALLEGED indiscretion! Wink

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 20:08

I think theres lot of Irish fans whod be quite happy to put the knee in Kidney at the moment

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:13

Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

Then why didn't you just say "judge not that ye be not judged"

It seems to me you would have a whole lot more credibility in your argument if you had taken the high road.

"Wum not that ye not be Wummed back"

by SecretFly Tue 20 Mar - 20:14

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I think theres lot of Irish fans whod be quite happy to put the knee in Kidney at the moment

Nope..., just let him go back to Munster where I think his heart truly lies and where I think he'd find traction again and come back with a smug smile on his face to haunt our European club friends again.

Kidney is a Provincial hero in this country - the father of self-belief within Irish rugby. No knees in - just a "Thanks for everything, Declan, and we'll have to move on now with a new selection of coaches."

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:14

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)
Don't want to go over old ground, but what indiscretion? Was Murray cited, found guilty and punished? Ah-ha, you must mean an ALLEGED indiscretion!

If you have to rely on the efficiency of citing officionators to tell you what is right and wrong,I despair.I have seen umpteen relays of JD2's try and Murray has not pulled out once!What was he thinking as he slid knees first into the try scorer's lower back?
Anyway,back to the naughty biter.......

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 20:15

biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

Then why didn't you just say "judge not that ye be not judged"

It seems to me you would have a whole lot more credibility in your argument if you had taken the high road.

"Wum not that ye not be Wummed back"

Maybe he was hoping someone would mention Mark Jones nearly tearing out Tindalls kidney and putting him on a life support machine? Who knows Whistle

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 20:16

Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Jesus I bet the CSA payments are killing him

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:18

Sniff, sniff!

Does anyone else smell Troll?

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:22

biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

Then why didn't you just say "judge not that ye be not judged"

It seems to me you would have a whole lot more credibility in your argument if you had taken the high road.

"Wum not that ye not be Wummed back"

Dont think so.If fans can accept foul play from their own players they are on dodgy ground when the tables are turned.

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:23

Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Taffin I just watched the youtube clip on the incident you are referring too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBebwweM4t8

although I agree Murray didn't have to go down on Davies, there is no indication that he tried to maliciously injure davies, in fact davies doesn't even seem to have noticed. If Murray did connect Davies anywhere it is not near his kidney.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 20 Mar - 20:24

Taffineastbourne wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)
Don't want to go over old ground, but what indiscretion? Was Murray cited, found guilty and punished? Ah-ha, you must mean an ALLEGED indiscretion!
If you have to rely on the efficiency of citing officionators to tell you what is right and wrong,I despair.I have seen umpteen relays of JD2's try and Murray has not pulled out once!What was he thinking as he slid knees first into the try scorer's lower back?
Anyway,back to the naughty biter.......

Taff, you do know that you can watch as many replays and reruns of the incident as you like and it won't actually change ? Just checking ...

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:24

MrsP wrote:Sniff, sniff!

Does anyone else smell Troll?

Please expand.

by eirebilly Tue 20 Mar - 20:24

Wow to turn a thread on its head Very Happy

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:24

Yeah!

Definately Troll!

With heavy overtones of Hypocrite!

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:25

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)
Don't want to go over old ground, but what indiscretion? Was Murray cited, found guilty and punished? Ah-ha, you must mean an ALLEGED indiscretion!
If you have to rely on the efficiency of citing officionators to tell you what is right and wrong,I despair.I have seen umpteen relays of JD2's try and Murray has not pulled out once!What was he thinking as he slid knees first into the try scorer's lower back?
Anyway,back to the naughty biter.......
Taff, you do know that you can watch as many replays and reruns of the incident as you like and it won't actually change ? Just checking ...

Never.....????????????????

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 20 Mar - 20:26

biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Taffin I just watched the youtube clip on the incident you are referring too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBebwweM4t8

although I agree Murray didn't have to go down on Davies, there is no indication that he tried to maliciously injure davies, in fact davies doesn't even seem to have noticed. If Murray did connect Davies anywhere it is not near his kidney.

Jeebus, biltong, there's no need to apply reason and logic to the incident, you'll completely deflate poor Taff! Erm

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:27

Wasnt the English bloke naughty for biting the Irish bloke?Wasnt the Irish bloke naughty for sliding into the Welsh bloke with his knees?

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:29

biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Taffin I just watched the youtube clip on the incident you are referring too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBebwweM4t8

although I agree Murray didn't have to go down on Davies, there is no indication that he tried to maliciously injure davies, in fact davies doesn't even seem to have noticed. If Murray did connect Davies anywhere it is not near his kidney.

Biltong,WHAT WAS HE HOPING TO ACHIEVE OTHER THAN POTENTIAL INJURY???????????He may have failed but what was his INTENT?????

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:29

And....

What is that?

Yes....I'm definately detecting "No conection to reality" too!

by SecretFly Tue 20 Mar - 20:30

Happy Taffsineatbourne often make for very bitter people. Maybe there should be more 'Happiness' night classes in the valleys as nothing seems to please some of them. Earlier one of them was complaining that even though they were better than England on the 6N table, the superiority wasn't reflected on the IRB rankings board. Get it sorted IRB!

Just enjoy yourself more Taff..... it's okay to smile.

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:31

That's it folks there is no constructive debate happening here, there is thus far no proof of any of the incidents spoken about on this thread, even Murray is innocent as he has not been cited by the citing officer and there has been no complaint from JD either.

either continue like civilised adults or I will have no choice but to lock this thread.

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:33

Only one acting uncivilised Biltong!

We were all having a civilised debate until the troll arrived!

So he acheives you locking a good thread?

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:33

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Taffin I just watched the youtube clip on the incident you are referring too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBebwweM4t8

although I agree Murray didn't have to go down on Davies, there is no indication that he tried to maliciously injure davies, in fact davies doesn't even seem to have noticed. If Murray did connect Davies anywhere it is not near his kidney.
Biltong,WHAT WAS HE HOPING TO ACHIEVE OTHER THAN POTENTIAL INJURY???????????He may have failed but what was his INTENT?????

Mate if I had intent to injure someone with my knee I am not going to miss by so much that the intended victim doesn't even know I tried. you are looking at a situation crying out to find someone guilty that hasn't even been cited.

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:36

MrsP wrote:Only one acting uncivilised Biltong!

We were all having a civilised debate until the troll arrived!

So he acheives you locking a good thread?

MrsP over 300 posts on a situation that is very clear cut at this stage, there is no proof, and it has been going in circles the whole day. not convinced of how "good" it is.

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:37

English bloke says"I tried to bite his finger off,but it's still there"-Not guilty as he didnt do what he tried to do.
Irish bloke says"I tried to hurt the try scorer,but I missed"-not guilty as he didnt do what he tried to do.
In either case,Rugby would have a huge scandal to deal with.
Is one worse than the other??

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:40

biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote: Murray has not pulled out once!

Taffin I just watched the youtube clip on the incident you are referring too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBebwweM4t8

although I agree Murray didn't have to go down on Davies, there is no indication that he tried to maliciously injure davies, in fact davies doesn't even seem to have noticed. If Murray did connect Davies anywhere it is not near his kidney.
Biltong,WHAT WAS HE HOPING TO ACHIEVE OTHER THAN POTENTIAL INJURY???????????He may have failed but what was his INTENT?????

Mate if I had intent to injure someone with my knee I am not going to miss by so much that the intended victim doesn't even know I tried. you are looking at a situation crying out to find someone guilty that hasn't even been cited.

We know you know the dark arts!Maybe some are not as accomplished as a Saffer.

by SecretFly Tue 20 Mar - 20:40

Yes, the thread itself is circular. But that's to be expected as if you judge every thread, they are all more or less circular if they last long enough.

But everone here has been civil...some might have been a little 'playful'... and only one took his hangover into the room with him.

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:43

biltongbek wrote:
MrsP wrote:Only one acting uncivilised Biltong!

We were all having a civilised debate until the troll arrived!

So he acheives you locking a good thread?

MrsP over 300 posts on a situation that is very clear cut at this stage, there is no proof, and it has been going in circles the whole day. not convinced of how "good" it is.

If you only measure "good" by everyone agreeing on the subject then, no, it's not.

But how about measuring "good" by the tone of the thread, which, until the troll arrived, was very good natured and fun?

Is that not kind of the point?

The thread is not the problem. 99% of the folks posting on the thread are not causing any problem.

Solution....Stop the 1% rather than prevent the 99% from continuing to enjoy their circular but harmless and entertaining debate!

Just an idea!

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:44

Taffineastbourne wrote:English bloke says"I tried to bite his finger off,but it's still there"-Not guilty as he didnt do what he tried to do.
Irish bloke says"I tried to hurt the try scorer,but I missed"-not guilty as he didnt do what he tried to do.
In either case,Rugby would have a huge scandal to deal with.
Is one worse than the other??

Did JD complain about Murray? No
Did the citing commissioner cite Murray? NO
Did the commentators make any mention of an attempt to injure JD? No

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 20:44

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I was merely bringing reference to the "judge not that ye be not judged" element."Let him without sin cast the first stone".
If I had seen a flood of Irish posters condemning one of their own's indiscretions I might take more seriously their complaints about another wrongdoer(allegedly)

Then why didn't you just say "judge not that ye be not judged"

It seems to me you would have a whole lot more credibility in your argument if you had taken the high road.

"Wum not that ye not be Wummed back"
Dont think so.If fans can accept foul play from their own players they are on dodgy ground when the tables are turned.

Which is why I assume you ducked the Tindall nearly being killed issue.

Seriously this thread does need the last half hour removing

by Portnoy Tue 20 Mar - 20:45

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Makes me wonder about this white card system though, exactly what difference would it have made/ Other than bringing the allegation to the attention of the public and causing an almighty internet sh1t storm mid game? This was still logged, reported and cited in exactly the same way...just without the gimmick and public announcement. I dont like the idea of players being issued censures for things the officials havent seen and being put in a position where they feel persecuted with no recourse to defend themselves mid game.

Is probably the most positive remark made in this whole debate. Owens effectively 'showed a white card' for later analysis.

But for the life of me I can't see any convincing evidence of foul play from that camera angle.

Hopefully more forensically credible footage will be unearthed.

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 20:49

Taffin PM for you.

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 20:55

Portnoy,

I agree that a virtual White Card was shown and that we can not see what happened but Owens seemed convinced he had seen something significant on Ferris's finger to warrent a lecture to the captains and the English front row!

by Taffineastbourne Tue 20 Mar - 20:59

biltongbek wrote:Taffin PM for you.

Pants on fire!You havent replied to mine!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 20 Mar - 20:59

Did he lecture the front row? He sent the captains to talk to their players then set up the scrum, I assume what he was saying related to that rather than something hed already communicated via the captain. He should be calling the player over with his captain if he wants to speak to him directly.

The way this was handled was very good, it was put to bed and the game went on with no apparent ill feeling. Mincing about with white cards and the fanfare surrounding that only wouldve inflamed the situation.

by Portnoy Tue 20 Mar - 21:06

MrsP wrote:Portnoy,

I agree that a virtual White Card was shown and that we can not see what happened but Owens seemed convinced he had seen something significant on Ferris's finger to warrent a lecture to the captains and the English front row!

Fine MmeF.

I agree with what you say, but virtually the whole debate has revolved about unseen incidents and supposition about foul play regarding biting/fish hooking and whatever. But until there is more (any, in fact) convincing evidence, I tend to agree with Biltong (or was it Kiwi?) that this debate is a bit circular.

But if that's what people want, then so be it.

by Guest Tue 20 Mar - 21:12

Is this proposed White Card the same thing as going "on report" in League?

by **Biltong** Tue 20 Mar - 21:13

Taffineastbourne wrote:
biltongbek wrote:Taffin PM for you.
Pants on fire!You havent replied to mine!

I got interrupted, it has been sent now.

by MrsP Tue 20 Mar - 21:17

I think it came from League but is being used in Union somewhere in the SH as a trial?

That could be wrong though.

Can't see the point myself.

by Portnoy Tue 20 Mar - 21:17

I believe so SAM, but my understanding is that the 'on report' thing is given to an individual. But I may be wrong.

Mind you the white card may be as well. All a bit pointless really as the whole thing could be handled exactly as Nigel did.

by Sponsored content