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

From the video it doesn't look like hartley moved his head to bite him. But that doesn't explain why Ferris's hand was in his face? Could the moaning to the ref backfire for him?

Of course we can't tell from the angle we've got, but it would leave Ferris pretty red faced if he was cited and banned for making contact with the eye area.

There were a couple of times I noticed players being grabbed by the face or under the chin in rucks and having their heads pulled. This was done by both sides. If it turns out a player was bitten during one of these incidents, I wouldnt have a lot of sympathy for him.

Wasn't Ferris noted (by fans) for a lot of face grabbing while rucking in other 6N matches?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:There were a couple of times I noticed players being grabbed by the face or under the chin in rucks and having their heads pulled. This was done by both sides. If it turns out a player was bitten during one of these incidents, I wouldnt have a lot of sympathy for him.

Of course not. But if the biting happened to a player in white... the pathetic desperation of a terrible side reverting to cheap shots would no doubt be trotted out.

Biting is not only wrong by the rules...it's cowardly in nature. All players know how to be tough in rucks - they give and they take. Biting is gaining traction from what we always called 'sissy' activity at school. Biting and pulling hair was always considered unmanly when I was growing up. I still think it should be regarded as such in sport.

I'm not talking about the specifics of this accusation. I haven't looked at it, wasn't concerned about it, was more interested in the appalling Irish performance, but to suggest 'biting' is something you'd sanction in a tough game is difficult to comprehend

I'm fairly sure that there is nothing wrong with touching an opposing player's face. It certainly isn't comparable with gouging as some people are ridiculously suggesting. Biting on the other hand is truly disgusting. I have been bitten before at the bottom of a ruck. A team mate of mine had his ear bitten through earlier in the season too, so it is an issue I've been familiar with, and one which makes me feel totally sick.

I don't mean to attack anyone, but if it came down to one man's word against another, I certainly know who I would be siding with given both players' history on the pitch. But then again, innocent until proven guilty...

SecretFly wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:There were a couple of times I noticed players being grabbed by the face or under the chin in rucks and having their heads pulled. This was done by both sides. If it turns out a player was bitten during one of these incidents, I wouldnt have a lot of sympathy for him.

Of course not. But if the biting happened to a player in white... the pathetic desperation of a terrible side reverting to cheap shots would no doubt be trotted out.

Biting is not only wrong by the rules...it's cowardly in nature. All players know how to be tough in rucks - they give and they take. Biting is gaining traction from what we always called 'sissy' activity at school. Biting and pulling hair was always considered unmanly when I was growing up. I still think it should be regarded as such in sport.

I'm not talking about the specifics of this accusation. I haven't looked at it, wasn't concerned about it, was more interested in the appalling Irish performance, but to suggest 'biting' is something you'd sanction in a tough game is difficult to comprehend

Well said Fly. Couldn't agree more...!

Wasn't there a Welsh rugby player sent to prison for biting?

I just watched that segment again. I think it is Hartley. But from what I saw, Ferris' hand disappears into the pile. Yes. towards Hartley. But I cannot see anything.

I think we have to wait until the evidence is heard. As I said before, throw the book at the wronged party. But, a banged finger came from quite a number of things in a game of Rugby. Let's simply see what comes from it.

I'd throw the book at the perpetrator rather than the wronged party myself.



If Owens saw teeth marks it wasn't a bang!

Why would any player randomly say that he had been bitten if it wasn't true?

It's not as if he hit someone and then tried to claim it was because he had been bitten.

My money's on Hartley, and that was before I reviewed the footage and saw he was in the ruck.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Wasn't there a Welsh rugby player sent to prison for biting?

Yes

In 2008

It is because we don't want thugs in our game. Good riddance too...

MrsP,.
I mis-typed when I said wronged party. I meant the one who comitted the wrong. Good catch (I was testing you anyway.....) I believe a false accusation is equally bad as the act of biting.

Owens looked at the finger for only a second. Do you think he can tell a bite mark from any other of many dings, nicks, etc. which occur to body parts in a match? I don't think so. So there needs to be real video evidence. And if there is solid visual evendence there was or was not a bite, then either the accused or the accuser need to see an early end to thier career. No second chances.

Did I pass?

I really doubt we will get evidence one way or the other but, given that Ferris had a fairly instant reaction, went half way across the pitch to seek out the ref at the next break in play and that Owens was pretty evercised about it, I doubt it was an invention. That is before we consider the character of the players involved.

Ferris' reaction was the same as when David Attoub tried to poke his eye out while they were buried at the bottom of a ruck. Thankfully, on that occasion, there was photographic evidence to corroborate what he had said. I have neither seen nor heard anything of Stephen Ferris to suggest that he would even consider inventing such a horrendous accusation.

And the witch hunt begins....

What would you suggest lost?

That we just shrug our shoulders and pretend it didn't happen? Do you feel a player who is bitten should not bring it to the ref's attention?

I just think that because its Hartley hes been prejudged.

My honest opinion is that both of them were stupid. I think Hartley probably did do 'something' but from what I could see from iplayer he didnt move his head - he didnt go looking for something to bite but he did have a hand in his face. In the scheme of things it seems a lot of fuss about not very much. I am not trying to defend biting - it can do a lot of damage - but this 'event' didnt.

lostinwales wrote:I just think that because its Hartley hes been prejudged.

My honest opinion is that both of them were stupid. I think Hartley probably did do 'something' but from what I could see from iplayer he didnt move his head - he didnt go looking for something to bite but he did have a hand in his face. In the scheme of things it seems a lot of fuss about not very much. I am not trying to defend biting - it can do a lot of damage - but this 'event' didnt.

Both of them were stupid?

Either one of them did something that was enough for a complaint or the other one did something to tarnish the reputation of a fellow player. The two of those things didn't happen, only one of them did. Meaning one of the players was stupid (if that's what biting and false claims now are)

I'd consider either more serious than stupid. I'd consider only one of the players did something serious enough for one of them to be called stupid by you.

The term "both of them were stupid" is really a cover-story for suggesting Ferris is the stupid one for making a big deal of things. So Ferris is the stupid one and the offending player (whoever he might be or not be) is just a very naughty boy.

MrsP wrote:What would you suggest lost?

That we just shrug our shoulders and pretend it didn't happen? Do you feel a player who is bitten should not bring it to the ref's attention?

Well, first to be a touch legalistic, Ferris should go to his Captain, and then they go speak to the referee together.

But, I agree, if indeed there was a bite, these are the things we have to get out of Rugby. It reflects on all of us. Badly.

Theres a bit of a difference between chewing an ear off a trapped opponent and biting a finger which is covering the mouth ( a dirty tactic in itself) .
I have no doubt that Ferris was bitten if thats what he claims. The exact circumstances and how bad the bit was though, thats another thing. If it was a significant bite and anything more than an attempt to get him to move his hand then there will be physical evidence, and there shoudl be a lengthy ban...even more so it it were unprovoked. But Ive seen nothing that suggests that was the case.
I dont have aproblem with Frerris reporting the foul play, infact more players should have bought to attention some of the things going on in the rucks during that game rather than trying to police it by being dirty back.

Having seen the footage of Hawkins getting his arm dislocated in the LV game by a deliberate out of play action by an opponent Id like to bring some perspective back to this. Sure biting may be seen as a taboo thing to do, but compared to using werstling holds to seriously injure a bit of a nip to intimidate is hardly a hanging offence.

We dont want to see players being bitten, we dont want see players being injured or hurt by foul play full stop. But lets judge each case on its individual merits and take in context, rather than flying into rages every time someoens accussed of something.
Till we know the extent of the damage and the circumstances reserve judgement.

PSW,

Who is "flying into rages"?

Certainly not Ferris and even on here, all I see are several folks having a calm and resonable debate, no?

Wasn't really paying much attention to the England v Ireland test on Saturday, as we were getting out of the ground, trying to get into a pub, then get home. However, I've just seen this allegation of BITING. Does anyone have any light they can shed on it ?

Here is a link to the thread where it is being/has been discussed Penfro!

https://www.606v2.com/t26125-biting-in-eng-v-ire

Very little made of it during the live feed of the game. Moore, to be fair to the fella, made a couple of good comments that if something did happen, any perpertrator should be punished.

Didn't realise it was biting! No place for that on a rugby field. Must have occurred if there were teeth marks on Ferris' finger.

The incident didn't change the course of the game, Ireland were poor, England were the better team and won comfortably in the end.

I would usually say what happens on the field stays on the field and there is always niggle between Ireland/England but that would be for punches and other glorified handbag moments. Biting is a different level and should be punished if the person responsible is identified.

It's difficult to see what happens Penfro. There is a tackle made on an Irish player and the ruck forms. Hartley gets over the ball and Ferris comes in to clear him out and wraps him up around the neck area. They are then on the floor and due to body positions you can't see Hartley's head as Ferris arms a sort of around and Ferris body is in the way.

Ferris then pulls his arm out sharpish and as the ball goes away there is a bit of a scuffle on the deck. At the next breakdown the ball is lost forward and Nige whisltes for a scrum and Ferris runs over to show him his finger.

It's about 40 minutes into the coverage on the iPlayer.

Cheers Ozzy / MrsP, just didn't see any thread

MrsP wrote: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!

MrsP, this is the Mail, they are lucky to be able to tell up from down, certainly truth from fiction. Correctly identifying a "foreign" rugby player is so far beyond their abilities, you would need a telescope to be able to see that far, probably Hubble.

If Hartley did not move his head as seems to be the concensus on here, then what was the finger doing in Hartley's mouth?

There is a lot of talk about how bad biting is, but little about having your cheeks elongated by a few inches.

If a player has his hands trapped and someone sticks their finger in your mouth and starts to pull, what do you do? Ask them politely to remove it or bite it and make them remove it?

I somehow suspect that not many would choose option one.

IF, and I am not accusing either player at this point, Ferris fish-hooked Hartley (seems out of character) and Hartley bit him (um... less so, but I'd still rather believe Hartley wouldn't do that) then BOTH players should be banned

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:If Hartley did not move his head as seems to be the concensus on here, then what was the finger doing in Hartley's mouth?

There is a lot of talk about how bad biting is, but little about having your cheeks elongated by a few inches.

If a player has his hands trapped and someone sticks their finger in your mouth and starts to pull, what do you do? Ask them politely to remove it or bite it and make them remove it?

I somehow suspect that not many would choose option one.

This practice is known colloquiolly as "fish hooking".

I wait with interest to see what comes out of this.

It is all speculation at this point.

I will add my own 2 pence worth of speculation -

IF Ferris was fish hooking hartley and got bit - serves him right. It would be strange behaviour to fish hook, get bitten and then cry about it to the ref. IF that is indeed what happened i never want to see Ferris grace a rugby field again. He would be the ultimate bad looser.

It's been talked about on here a lot that Hartley is easy to wind up; also mentioned by Gatland a few years ago. I wonder if it's been discussed in the Irish camp.

Just watched the iplayer footage. The ruck where it happens is about 27 minutes in, Hartley is at the bottom of it , the ball goes off and play continues. You can then see and Irish player in the background put his hand towards Hartleys head and press down, its not Ferris though hes by his side on the gound. Camera loses it for a bit then switches and catches it in the corner of the shot. Theres a pile of players with a green shirt trying to pull someone out and an England player going in. The ref blow up for a penalty and Ferris comes hoofing over to speak to him.
The bite didnt happen on camera, unless another angle caught it that someone has? It does appear to have been part of an off the ball handbags moment apprently initiated by the Irish players.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's been talked about on here a lot that Hartley is easy to wind up; also mentioned by Gatland a few years ago. I wonder if it's been discussed in the Irish camp.

Gatlands remarks came back to haunt him, Hartley played a blinder.

Hartley is excellent at winding up others, but rarely loses it these days. He is quite happy to let the opposition smack him or do something else silly and get a yellow card.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It's been talked about on here a lot that Hartley is easy to wind up; also mentioned by Gatland a few years ago. I wonder if it's been discussed in the Irish camp.

Gatlands remarks came back to haunt him, Hartley played a blinder.

Hartley is excellent at winding up others, but rarely loses it these days. He is quite happy to let the opposition smack him or do something else silly and get a yellow card.

And hes been largekly rubbish suince becoming that player.
Suddnely he plays well, and looks set to get cited.

Maybe England should just accpet that theyw ill have to play every game with 14 men for at least 10 minutes if they want a hooker worth his place in teh sdie?

It was Hartley Nigel Owens was speaking to when they were about to go down for the scrum, so presumably that's who Ferris identified to him.

It's very hard to see exactly what happened.

Am trying not to let my view of Hartley influence my take on the incident. I'd be gutted if he were a Lion, though.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's been talked about on here a lot that Hartley is easy to wind up; also mentioned by Gatland a few years ago. I wonder if it's been discussed in the Irish camp.

I think it's pretty poor form to make any insinuation that Ferris did something wrong here.No English player made any complaint to the ref so any suggestion of fish hooking or foul play by Ferris is groundless.

Bluenote,

Yep its pretty much confirmed it was Hartley given what Owens said. The incident itself is identifibale in the footage, just not what actually happened.

Asore,

Yes its jumping the gun to move form the idea that Ferris may have put his hands in harms to claiming he fish hooked. Its pure speculation. Im confident that there was more than one Irish player involved in the usual lovefest following a ruck, who did what to who and why is not clear though.


I dont think its unfair to say that if he were fishooked theres some mitigation for repsonding with a bite though. IF. It will come out in the citing hearing.

Given Hartley has previously been blamed for attacking a welsh players fingers with his eyes he may get the book thrown at him by the internet if theres real substance to this. The finger did require a sticky plaster from the physio.

The citing commission liked Ferris the last time he went before them!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:There were a couple of times I noticed players being grabbed by the face or under the chin in rucks and having their heads pulled. This was done by both sides. If it turns out a player was bitten during one of these incidents, I wouldnt have a lot of sympathy for him.

In the back of my mind, I think I remember Ben Kay and Dayglo on separate occasions when talking about clearing out rucks that 'where the head goes, the body follows'

BlueNote wrote:The citing commission liked Ferris the last time he went before them!

You mean the way they liked the way he made a perfectly legal tackle which they publicly had to admit shouldn't have warranted a citing, a yellow card, or indeed a penalty.

BlueNote wrote:The citing commission liked Ferris the last time he went before them!

You mean when he told him that it probably wasn't a penalty and definitely not a yellow card.

Ferris is not the one being considered for a citing here Hartley is.
Does anyone seriously think Ferris would mention it to the referee if he had indulged in some skull duggery before hand !
One thing Ferris isn't is stupid.

In the end I suspect there is not sufficient evidence to take it further - unless there is a camera/video angle none of us has seen

Depends geoff, there would have been several witnesses and theres no question his finger was damaged. I would be surprissed it wasnt cited.
There probably wont be good footage at least one camera caught the group of players from a distance and could be enhanced to show the sequence of events that lead to it.

Hartleys a pretty good citing room lawyer though. Cant see him getting a heavy ban. Again in comparisson to what his "SaintS" cohort did at the weekend this is a bit of a nothing.

geoff998rugby wrote:

BlueNote wrote:The citing commission liked Ferris the last time he went before them!

You mean when he told him that it probably wasn't a penalty and definitely not a yellow card.

Ferris is not the one being considered for a citing here Hartley is.
Does anyone seriously think Ferris would mention it to the referee if he had indulged in some skull duggery before hand !
One thing Ferris isn't is stupid.

In the end I suspect there is not sufficient evidence to take it further - unless there is a camera/video angle none of us has seen

They both could be cited we just have to wait and see.

As a matter of interest, what I was referring to was positive comments from the Panel about the way Ferris had conducted himself at the hearing. He seems to be a decent sort. Unlike Hartley.

By the way, they didn't say it wasn't a penalty, although it could be inferred from their comments that they thought it may not have been.

They said it was not a dangerous tackle in the cold light of the slomo replays!

Not a dangerous tackle therefore not a penalty.

Noooooo don't start this circular argument again

I do think that as its Hartley involved everyone is assuming that he has done wrong and that Ferris is squeaky clean. Can no-one remember when Hartley was very clearly bitten during a maul when he had his hand over a players mouth? No fish-hooking but it was there and the oppo took exception to it and bit him. Afterwards Hartley brushed off and said something along the lines of "oh no nothing happened, i think i was dreaming or imagining things" as he had realised that he got what he deserved. At that time most were calling for his head as he had his hand near the guys mouth and that the opponent was perfectly entitled to bite him.

Seems when positions are reversed (not accusing Ferris of anything, but this seems the most likely explanation with no clear-cut video evidence) Hartley should suffer a ban and Ferris has done nothing wrong. Of course this is all speculation but from the footage and the lack of Hartleys movement it seems likely that Ferris' hand must have been very close to Hartleys mouth.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Noooooo don't start this circular argument again

+1

belovedfrosties wrote:I do think that as its Hartley involved everyone is assuming that he has done wrong and that Ferris is squeaky clean. Can no-one remember when Hartley was very clearly bitten during a maul when he had his hand over a players mouth? No fish-hooking but it was there and the oppo took exception to it and bit him. Afterwards Hartley brushed off and said something along the lines of "oh no nothing happened, i think i was dreaming or imagining things" as he had realised that he got what he deserved. At that time most were calling for his head as he had his hand near the guys mouth and that the opponent was perfectly entitled to bite him.

Seems when positions are reversed (not accusing Ferris of anything, but this seems the most likely explanation with no clear-cut video evidence) Hartley should suffer a ban and Ferris has done nothing wrong. Of course this is all speculation but from the footage and the lack of Hartleys movement it seems likely that Ferris' hand must have been very close to Hartleys mouth.

And dont forget the number of people who blamed him for getting gouged by the Welsh lad.

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.

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.