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

lostinwales wrote:toothless....

Nice to see Triangulation repeat what I wrote back on page 1 or so...

Nice try lostboy. Maggots michael! You're eating maggots!

Anyone know when the hearing is yet?

biltongbek wrote:Don't feel bad nobbled, I can't see a thing either.

Thanks - makes me feel better.
Is this going to be the evidence do we think? If so, and bar the players pointing at each other and saying "it's his fault" it'll be quite a quick hearing.

Admittedly there is the evidence of the "hurty finger", but I can't see anything being proven.

nobbled wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Don't feel bad nobbled, I can't see a thing either.

Thanks - makes me feel better.
Is this going to be the evidence do we think? If so, and bar the players pointing at each other and saying "it's his fault" it'll be quite a quick hearing.

Admittedly there is the evidence of the "hurty finger", but I can't see anything being proven.

If that is the only video evidence I can't see any bans being handed out.

what happened to benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker where the video evidence is inconclusive?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker where the video evidence is inconclusive?

Lol

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker where the video evidence is inconclusive?

Lol

He didn't have ball in hand.

I honestly cant see Heartly getting a ban. It all looks to inconclusive to me.

Ferris's evidence will do it lads. you dont have to have a video.

damned video games generation!

So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

Wow, just wow.

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

Yep gets more like football ever day when fans can't admit one of their own players did something wrong,instead they make up stories to show how the wronged player must have done something to deserve it.

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

Given that on several Saints boards there are loads of fans using a similar argument to blame Cockeril for the Clark citing I'd suggest that you're putting up a pretty daft defence.

Yes Ferris said some daft things pre-match. Regardless, foul play has no place in the game, and allegations should be investigated. If there turns out to be no caes to answer, then so be it.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

Given that on several Saints boards there are loads of fans using a similar argument to blame Cockeril for the Clark citing I'd suggest that you're putting up a pretty daft defence.

Yes Ferris said some daft things pre-match. Regardless, foul play has no place in the game, and allegations should be investigated. If there turns out to be no caes to answer, then so be it.

It is being portrayed on these boards as a rather inconclusive case? Ferris shows ref he has been bitten by a player in the ruck, says it was Hartley, Ref acknowledges that he can see the bite marks, tells both captains he is aware of the incident and that the player will be cited. Apologises to Ferris, while he is receiving treatment for the inflicted wound, that despite there being evidence of it happening neither himself or the touch judges saw the actual incident take place.

Hartley is cited and there is a hearing taking place.

Foul play has no part in Rugby. Neither do the pathetic excuses made for it.

maestegmafia wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

Given that on several Saints boards there are loads of fans using a similar argument to blame Cockeril for the Clark citing I'd suggest that you're putting up a pretty daft defence.

Yes Ferris said some daft things pre-match. Regardless, foul play has no place in the game, and allegations should be investigated. If there turns out to be no caes to answer, then so be it.

It is being portrayed on these boards as a rather inconclusive case? Ferris shows ref he has been bitten by a player in the ruck, says it was Hartley, Ref acknowledges that he can see the bite marks, tells both captains he is aware of the incident and that the player will be cited. Apologises to Ferris, while he is receiving treatment for the inflicted wound, that despite there being evidence of it happening neither himself or the touch judges saw the actual incident take place.

Hartley is cited and there is a hearing taking place.

Foul play has no part in Rugby. Neither do the pathetic excuses made for it.

What pathetic excuses?

Also i think that there is a tendency to go way over the top on this. Yes biting is to be condemned but to call it a "wound" is frankly pathetic.

englandglory4ever wrote:So Ferris throws out a few uncalled for comments before the game and then goes running to tell tales to the ref during the match? Whatever is happening to our game. It gets more like fussball everyday. Especially when he's losing.

It would be a lovely twist if Hartley reports that little fecker Ferris was doing things in his mouth.

For the record Ferris did not call England arrogant
He said he made friends with some of the English lads on tour
He said they were bad losers. As he would be the first to admit he is the World worst loser.

If you choose to totally twisted that against him thats your problem not his...................


There is a fecker here ...look in the mirror

Lets just all wait for the findings of the hearing. Whatever will be will be. One thing we can all agree on though, foul play like biting and gouging have to be removed from the game.

If there is evidence then yes someone should be cited. If there is no clear evidence. Nothing should come of it. It's that simple.

biltongbek wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker where the video evidence is inconclusive?

Lol

He didn't have ball in hand.

Are we sure about that maybe thats what Hartley reacted to!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:what happened to benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker where the video evidence is inconclusive?

Lol

He didn't have ball in hand.

Are we sure about that maybe thats what Hartley reacted to!

Oh, balls!

Triangulation wrote:Yes biting is to be condemned but to call it a "wound" is frankly pathetic.

Biting is condemned by a minimum 12 week ban.

That is a pretty seriously condemned act mate...!

In the spirit of fairness,I hope that Hartley gets what he deserves!!

maestegmafia wrote:

Triangulation wrote:Yes biting is to be condemned but to call it a "wound" is frankly pathetic.

Biting is condemned by a minimum 12 week ban.

That is a pretty seriously condemned act mate...!

maesteg

I think that what you are attempting to say is that there is an entry point of a ban for 12 weeks for biting indicating that the IRB considers that biting is to be treated very serious.

I am not sure about this because i am not an IRB rules anorak but I would be very suprised if there was not some discretion reserved for the disciplinary decision makers to go below the entry point where there are extraordinary circumstances.

Biltong might know?

Either way to call the injury to Ferris' pinky a "wound" is risible.

The cited offence falls under law 10.4M

The sanction for this kind of offence is

Lower end (minimum 12 weeks)
Middle range (18 weeks)
Top end (24 weeks plus up to 208 weeks)

Maybe Hartley thought Ferris' finger was a nice piece of biltong

Hartley is a goner.

no player will have respect for ferris.

everyone loses.

Thats a rather odd thing to say gower

don't know about you, but I eat my biltong by slicing bit size slithers of meat with my biltong knife and eat it like an educated man one pinky in the air.


WE AREN't ALL SAVAGES you know.

One pinky in the air? Isnt that reserved for drinking tea?

gowershowerpower wrote:Hartley is a goner.

no player will have respect for ferris.

everyone loses.

you saw the report already and spoken to all the players?

Good work Gower.

I have a feeling that its time to let MrsP loose on this Gower chap

eirebilly wrote:One pinky in the air? Isnt that reserved for drinking tea?

Do you drink tea with your biltong?




No, I didn't think so.

eirebilly wrote:I have a feeling that its time to let MrsP loose on this Gower chap

I'll make sure it is my night off, when that happens.

Stop making me hungry and thirsty biltong. Now i crave a beer and some cheap beef jerky since we cant gety biltong here.

it's obvious.

hartley is a cowardly thug who doesn't deserve to play rugby. At any level.

Ferris is just a dirty child.

did fitz run to the ref when another [Offensive Term Removed - KRD] knocked his teeth out?

Respect gone.

gowershowerpower wrote:it's obvious.

hartley is a cowardly thu who doesn't deserve to play rugby. At any level.

Ferris is just a dirty child.

did fitz run to the ref when another dirty paddy knocked his teeth out?

Respect gone.

I dont normally react but that is a poor comment to make. I do hope you grow up at some stage.

Ok. Sorry.

foul-playing irishman?

I wonder where i have seen your posting style before

biltongbek wrote:The cited offence falls under law 10.4M

The sanction for this kind of offence is

Lower end (minimum 12 weeks)
Middle range (18 weeks)
Top end (24 weeks plus up to 208 weeks)

Thanks Biltong.

Next question for argument's sake does the IRB recognise the concept of self defence? provocation?

AND is there a way out of the "minimum 12 weeks" in "extra-ordinary circumstances" or is that it?

What if a player gives another a playful nibble on the ear to put them off their game? 12 weeks?

I know that last one is weird but that is close to what my old prop team mate used to do to wind up his opponents in scrums (though to be fair i think he used his tongue rather than his teeth)

Triangulation wrote:
Next question for argument's sake does the IRB recognise the concept of self defence? provocation?

AND is there a way out of the "minimum 12 weeks" in "extra-ordinary circumstances" or is that it?

What if a player gives another a playful nibble on the ear to put them off their game? 12 weeks?

I know that last one is weird but that is close to what my old prop team mate used to do to wind up his opponents in scrums (though to be fair i think he used his tongue rather than his teeth)

If you are refeering to the possibility that Ferris' fingers were in Hartleys mouth (fish hooking) then i would be very suprised if they didnt and i would then also expect Ferris to face a charge and a ban.

If the position is that:

(1) Ferris showed the ref a clear, fresh bite mark on his finger, and said Hartley had just done it;

(2)We can see from video footage that immediately before that complaint was made, Ferris' hand was around Hartley's face where he could have bitten it;

(3) The panel find Ferris a credible witness;

I could easily see Hartley getting done for that. You don't have to have actual footage of teeth on finger to establish that it has happened. It is hard to think of an innocent explanation for biting someone's finger. The best answer (if it is established he bit the finger) would be retaliation/self-defence as mitigation.

Triangulation, mate there I have no idea. The citing commissioners have their own interpretation of what can be deemed extenuating circumstances and according to their interpretation (where have I heard that before) anything is possible.

biltongbek wrote:Triangulation, mate there I have no idea. The citing commissioners have their own interpretation of what can be deemed extenuating circumstances and according to their interpretation (where have I heard that before) anything is possible.

Thanks mate. Yes i have vague memory of them dishing out punishments below minimum entry points before so if that is right then yes they do give the decision makers the discretion to go outside the perameters in "extenuating circumstances" as you say.


Anyway we shall see....

ps. i had a look at Callum Clark's breaking that guy's elbow and it saddened me. Real thuggery that was. He will be banned for a loooong time for that one i would've thought.

Yeah, that was very ugly, at a time like that I am surprised players don't retaliate and knnock the guys block off.

The play had moved on and very few people saw it, thats why there was no other player reaction. It was disgusting and i hope he gets a solid ban for it.

12 weeks in the minimum entry point. How far upo the scale they start will be determined by how deliberate and egregious it was and the level of damge caused ( bit like the robot wars scoring system I think)

From that they look at extenuating circumstances and the context of the bite. Was it provoked? Is the defendant of good character? How clean is his record? Is he apologetic and did he aid the citing process or try and lie his way out of it?
Answers to those questions can see the ban shortened. Given Hartley has a pretty poor record for serious foul play IF hes found guilty of a deliberate bite ( remebering the player who bit him wasnt) he will struggle to convince tehm to bring the ban down by much. Even if they go in at 12 weeks hes still going to be sat on the naughty step for a long time.

Do you remember the SA prop I think it was a Le roux guy, he got banned for more than 2 years if I remember correctly.

Just checked it, he got 19 months.

19 months is still some serious length of ban...

The most ridiculous ban in rugby was Matt Stevens' year ban for recreational cocaine use.

I know that players should be role models but it isnt a performance enhancing drug he wasnt trying to use it as such and i think he had a very clean record.

Now i know he was stupid. Very stupid. Reckless with his career BUT......

2 years!!!!

It is amazing that he made it back from there at all.

Seriously career threatening ban.