Hartley Out of Lions Tour Best called up.

First topic message reminder :

Sent off for bad language to the referee Wayne Barnes. Well, this isn't soccer...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22668122





Hartley now given an eleven week ban...!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22674429

At this point I believe that Hartley is not definitively ruled out of the tour isnt that right?

If his appeal is sucessful then he will still tour correct?

I think the only person who knows whether or not his comments were aimed at Barnes is Hartley himself but its way to late for him to be getting the benefit of any doubt so its unlikely he will get off. I must say Im pretty happy about that because either way he is not Lions quality and would be too much of a liability to take to Australia.

Just a question for all then. Usually a reffing decision is made controversially, 606 gets wind of it and a week (or two week!!!) long dissection of every frame of footage is used to either prove the ref is a saint or a demon.

So............... just what is everone basing their opinions on this time? Was detailed footage shown at any time during the game of the actual bad words incident?

I know that during the game itself (being played live) there certainly wasn't any footage that was used that might prove Hartley's guilt or innocence. There wasn't even footage that suggested anything at all happened. Whatever did happen happened off the camera angles used during the live footage. All I saw was Hartley before he rose from the scrum falldown, and he was patting a Leicester player (I think) as if suggesting the player get up.

But I did then see close up slow motion footage of Hartley standing and uttering the words. Can't find that since the first time I looked at it on ESPN site. Was that shown at a later time in the game or during the half time break?

SecretFly wrote:Just a question for all then. Usually a reffing decision is made controversially, 606 gets wind of it and a week (or two week!!!) long dissection of every frame of footage is used to either prove the ref is a saint or a demon.

So............... just what is everone basing their opinions on this time? Was detailed footage shown at any time during the game of the actual bad words incident?

I know that during the game itself (being played live) there certainly wasn't any footage that was used that might prove Hartley's guilt or innocence. There wasn't even footage that suggested anything at all happened. Whatever did happen happened off the camera angles used during the live footage. All I saw was Hartley before he rose from the scrum falldown, and he was patting a Leicester player (I think) as if suggesting the player get up.

But I did then see close up slow motion footage of Hartley standing and uttering the words. Can't find that since the first time I looked at it on ESPN site. Was that shown at a later time in the game or during the half time break?

No footage was inconclusive. Im am basing my comments on the fact that I dont like him, he didnt deserve to tour and Im glad he wont be.

GunsGerms wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Just a question for all then. Usually a reffing decision is made controversially, 606 gets wind of it and a week (or two week!!!) long dissection of every frame of footage is used to either prove the ref is a saint or a demon.

So............... just what is everone basing their opinions on this time? Was detailed footage shown at any time during the game of the actual bad words incident?

I know that during the game itself (being played live) there certainly wasn't any footage that was used that might prove Hartley's guilt or innocence. There wasn't even footage that suggested anything at all happened. Whatever did happen happened off the camera angles used during the live footage. All I saw was Hartley before he rose from the scrum falldown, and he was patting a Leicester player (I think) as if suggesting the player get up.

But I did then see close up slow motion footage of Hartley standing and uttering the words. Can't find that since the first time I looked at it on ESPN site. Was that shown at a later time in the game or during the half time break?

No footage was inconclusive. Im am basing my comments on the fact that I dont like him, he didnt deserve to tour and Im glad he wont be.

kind of hard to disagree with you on that

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dylan-Hartley-Lions-Shirt-Never-Warn-/111082425748?pt=UK_Rugby_Shirts&hash=item19dd074d94

Janecory wrote: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Dylan-Hartley-Lions-Shirt-Never-Warn-/111082425748?pt=UK_Rugby_Shirts&hash=item19dd074d94

Can follow the link in work. I assume that this is just a joke and he isnt really selling his shirt.

In any case if in the unlikely case he sucessfully appeals the ban he will still tour wont he? Has he actually been dropped? I dont think he has.

From what Gatland has said I get the feeling that perhaps he was in favour of taking Best in the first place but Rowntree convinced him to take Hartley.

He has said that he expect Best to compete for a test spot

The plot thickens. Gatland phones Barnes: "Look, you...I know we probably don't get on but are you behind the Lions this year? Coz if you are, I'll need a favour................ Now, you're reffing the AP final, I hear. So here's what I want you do......."

Oh damn it!!! The tape recorder has run out of batteries..... Sorry Daily Mail. Guess the rest.

Six nations citing committee take note.

Harsh words deemed disrepectful gets eleven weeks.
Stamping on an ankle, lucky not to break it, gets three weeks.
Inconsistent and unacceptable.

I am no Hartley fan but the hysteria from the 'keyboard warriors' on here is predictable. I havent met him or played test rugby so will comment no further. Presumably Best will be sending the RFU a Xmas card from now on....

Recwatcher wrote:Six nations citing committee take note.

Harsh words deemed disrepectful gets eleven weeks.
Stamping on an ankle, lucky not to break it, gets three weeks.
Inconsistent and unacceptable.

I am no Hartley fan but the hysteria from the 'keyboard warriors' on here is predictable. I havent met him or played test rugby so will comment no further. Presumably Best will be sending the RFU a Xmas card from now on....

Short, sharp, pertinent.

Recwatcher wrote:Six nations citing committee take note.

Harsh words deemed disrepectful gets eleven weeks.
Stamping on an ankle, lucky not to break it, gets three weeks.
Inconsistent and unacceptable.

As I said elsewhere, that's no disciplinary quirk. The guidelines are specifically written that way:

http://www.rfu.com/~/~/media/files/thegame/regulations/rfu%20regulation%2019%20appendix%202%20%281213%29.ashx

Recwatcher wrote:Harsh words deemed disrepectful gets eleven weeks.
Stamping on an ankle, lucky not to break it, gets three weeks.
Inconsistent and unacceptable.

The reason for that is respect for the referee as a neutral adjudicator. It's much worse to attack or abuse a referee than an opponent for the reason that in the heat of battle in a physical game tempers do get frayed. But to lose it with the ref undermines the authority he needs to control the game and diminishes the respect he's held in. Rugby is a full-contact game played by some massively powerful men. The authority the ref has over them comes from the respect in which he is held.

Also, you overlook prior record there. Had this been Hartleys first offence we'd definitely be shaving off a few weeks.

Recwatcher wrote:Six nations citing committee take note.

Harsh words deemed disrepectful gets eleven weeks.
Stamping on an ankle, lucky not to break it, gets three weeks.
Inconsistent and unacceptable.

I am no Hartley fan but the hysteria from the 'keyboard warriors' on here is predictable. I havent met him or played test rugby so will comment no further. Presumably Best will be sending the RFU a Xmas card from now on....

Hilarious, were back to Healy. Prior record?!? Its astonishing that one of the Lions with the cleanest diciplinary record of all the Lions would be compared to Hartley.

I for one would prefer to see a player stamp on someone when they are intentionally slowing play down than someone swearing at a ref, biting, eye gouging or ground and pound off the ball.

The fact that some people still fail to see the difference between agression towards a player who is slowing ball down and agression off the ball with intention to injure or agression towards the ref is just bonkers to me.

Oh dear...

I dont remember saying eleven weeks was inappropriate.

The player involved in the ankle stamp is irrelevant, I was commenting on the inconsistency - we will never know the nature of the intent.

The reaction does sum up my previous hysteria comment.

Recwatcher wrote:Oh dear...

I dont remember saying eleven weeks was inappropriate.

Never said you did.

Recwatcher wrote:
The player involved in the ankle stamp is irrelevant, I was commenting on the inconsistency - we will never know the nature of the intent.

The reaction does sum up my previous hysteria comment.

Not sure how you can comment on inconsistency when we are dealing with apples and oranges. Why reference Healy?

Healy's ban was lenient because he has a very clean record. Has never been cited or carded for foul* play before that. Hartley has many times, hence the larger ban notwithstanding the fact that the crime was probably worse.

In any case my personal opinion is that a stamp on a player slowing down the ball should receive a smaller sanction that if it was a similar off the ball incident as it seems less callous and pre-meditated and harder to prove that the action was intended to injure rather than simply free up the ball.

*an action that could cause injury.

Recwatcher wrote:
I am no Hartley fan but the hysteria from the 'keyboard warriors' on here is predictable. I havent met him or played test rugby so will comment no further. Presumably Best will be sending the RFU a Xmas card from now on....

It's Best that should be getting the Xmas cards after being ridiculously overlooked for players not fit to lace his boots.

The elephant in the room was never Hartley, but Youngs.

Dylan is unfortunate, he'll learn from this. Nice of Alan Quinlan to come out and publically support him.

rodders wrote:
It's Best that should be getting the Xmas cards after being ridiculously overlooked for players not fit to lace his boots.

The elephant in the room was never Hartley, but Youngs.

Dylan is unfortunate, he'll learn from this. Nice of Alan Quinlan to come out and publically support him.

Well he would be a hypocrit to do other wise as much as I like Quinlan.

Recwatcher wrote:Oh dear...

I dont remember saying eleven weeks was inappropriate.

The player involved in the ankle stamp is irrelevant, I was commenting on the inconsistency - we will never know the nature of the intent.

The reaction does sum up my previous hysteria comment.

Not sure the Healy incident is relevant here, is it?

Anyway, that particular incident wasn't in keeping with the character of Healy. He is a fair player really. Just ask Afoa

GunsGerms wrote:He would be a hypocrit to do other wise as much as I like Quinlan.

He's not being hypocritical. All he's suggested is that people go easy on Hartley because he'll be devastated. As someone who fell into deep depression after missing out himself, he's just showing concern.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:He would be a hypocrit to do other wise as much as I like Quinlan.

He's not being hypocritical. All he's suggested is that people go easy on Hartley because he'll be devastated. As someone who fell into deep depression after missing out himself, he's just showing concern.

This. Hopefully Dylan Hartley will reflect on this and this will be the last time he shoots his own foot off. But as self-inflicted as his pain is he's still got to be absolutely devastated. You can have sympathy with him whilst still believing justice has been served and he doesn't deserve to tour.

Notch wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:He would be a hypocrit to do other wise as much as I like Quinlan.

He's not being hypocritical. All he's suggested is that people go easy on Hartley because he'll be devastated. As someone who fell into deep depression after missing out himself, he's just showing concern.

This. Hopefully Dylan Hartley will reflect on this and this will be the last time he shoots his own foot off. But as self-inflicted as his pain is he's still got to be absolutely devastated. You can have sympathy with him whilst still believing justice has been served and he doesn't deserve to tour.

To be honest I don't feel sympathy for him simply becase he was let off lightly for his past misdemeanors so maybe this will be the one that makes him realise that he cant act like he does

Dewi Morris was talking yesterday about playing on the edge but Hartley doesnt, his actions are always away from play

As Gatland put it "he's gone to the edge of the cliff and jumped off"

Pretty slow penny to drop. This could cost him not just the Lions but his international career. Mallinder seems to be myopically standing by him regardless.

JM has to stand by his skipper but i am sure the owners want answers and JM will have to distance himself from DH who, in my view, is finished as skipper and with england assuming Youngs continues to thrive. But i have little sympathy for Hartley. He was just given a golden opportunity to prove his worth and squandered it. Fool.

Just listened to the Green and Gold podcast where they said they heard that Rory Best once punched Warren Gatland at a dinner.

Anyone know anything about that?

Rugby Fan wrote:Just listened to the Green and Gold podcast where they said they heard that Rory Best once punched Warren Gatland at a dinner.

Anyone know anything about that?

It was last night at the leaving dinner, it was his way of telling Gatland he was an idiot

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ggr-podcast/

2 years ago at an official function after a 6N game according to the above podcast.

Haha! Hmm. Woah.

It's probably BS right?

Rugby Fan wrote:Just listened to the Green and Gold podcast where they said they heard that Rory Best once punched Warren Gatland at a dinner.

Anyone know anything about that?

The way I heard it was that Gatland got a bit fresh and wanted his way with Best. Old Rory took offense and said he was not that kind of boy. Just a spat, no doubts.

doctor_grey wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Just listened to the Green and Gold podcast where they said they heard that Rory Best once punched Warren Gatland at a dinner.

Anyone know anything about that?

The way I heard it was that Gatland got a bit fresh and wanted his way with Best. Old Rory took offense and said he was not that kind of boy. Just a spat, no doubts.

well, there is nothing quite like watching 2 hookers go at it

ok...let me get this straight...

Best punched Gats 2 years ago,

Hartley punched Best 2 weeks ago....

Hartley gets selected for Lions

Hartley self destructs
Best gets picked for Lions...

by my calculations, shortly after the first test Gats will punch Best.

marty2086 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:He would be a hypocrit to do other wise as much as I like Quinlan.

He's not being hypocritical. All he's suggested is that people go easy on Hartley because he'll be devastated. As someone who fell into deep depression after missing out himself, he's just showing concern.

This. Hopefully Dylan Hartley will reflect on this and this will be the last time he shoots his own foot off. But as self-inflicted as his pain is he's still got to be absolutely devastated. You can have sympathy with him whilst still believing justice has been served and he doesn't deserve to tour.

To be honest I don't feel sympathy for him simply becase he was let off lightly for his past misdemeanors so maybe this will be the one that makes him realise that he cant act like he does

Dewi Morris was talking yesterday about playing on the edge but Hartley doesnt, his actions are always away from play

Hartley has served more than a rugby season in time banned from playing. After this 11 week ban, he will be at at 47 weeks of time out of the game for bad behaviour.

He has been caught and punished for eye gouging, biting, punching and now swearing at a ref and accusing him of cheating. All deliberate, mast and vindictive acts.

Surely he has the worst reputation in the game? Is there anyone else equal?

I have no sympathy, the guy is a complete thug.

maestegmafia wrote:Surely he has the worst reputation in the game? Is there anyone else equal?

I can't think of anyone. Calum Clark might be a candidate for the gravity of his offence rather than length of ban.

I was a bit surprised just how much, and how quickly, Hartley's bans had totted up. He's in the spotlight like never before now, though. Even biting Stephen Ferris doesn't compare in terms of repercussions.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Surely he has the worst reputation in the game? Is there anyone else equal?

I can't think of anyone. Calum Clark might be a candidate for the gravity of his offence rather than length of ban.

I was a bit surprised just how much, and how quickly, Hartley's bans had totted up. He's in the spotlight like never before now, though. Even biting Stephen Ferris doesn't compare in terms of repercussions.

I am surprised Clarke was allowed to play the game again to be honest.


More has to be done.

Sorry for the diversion but I've only just noticed.

In the midst of all the confusion the commentator actually got to say,

"Some people are on the pitch! They think it's all over...."

How long has he waited to get the chance to say those immortal words?

11 weeks for allegedly calling the ref a cheat. 8 weeks for gouging.

Regardless of the merits of a ban in this case, its grossly outweighted.

fa0019 wrote:11 weeks for allegedly calling the ref a cheat. 8 weeks for gouging.

Regardless of the merits of a ban in this case, its grossly outweighted.

Where are you getting your figures from? Hartley received a 6 month ban for eye gouging in the past.

fa0019 wrote:11 weeks for allegedly calling the ref a cheat. 8 weeks for gouging.

Regardless of the merits of a ban in this case, its grossly outweighted.

The problem is not the 11 weeks for calling the ref a 'f***ing cheat', it is that the 8 weeks for gouging is nowhere near enough!

Moral high grounds busy today....

a bit too old tie for me.

The Stormers were accused of the same, they only got a fine. Countless times you've heard it by managers yet they haven't been done.

It was an ego thing for Barnes. A better ref would have dealt with the situation better... it was a moment of rash judgement true, but in the end it was a word. Not a infringement etc. He ruined the game for the fans... we're the ones who pay the ticket fees, the TV subscriptions, buy the shirts etc. People deserved more from a final... a better ref would have taken that into consideration.

We shouldn't even know his name, in the old days we never did.... yet now they are becoming notorious.... sometimes more so then the players themselves. They should be in the shadows... guys like Steve Walsh act like they're Gods of the sport.

Breadvan wrote:Moral high grounds busy today....

Maybe unlike your self I never called a ref a cheat I called him Sir, never gouged anyone's eyes, never bit anyone's finger and never punched a player.

I have seen a few punches, have heard of plenty of gouges and bites to all types of body parts but have never heard a ref called a cheat to his face.

I don't condone any of these actions, do you?

Is anyone who doesn't condone these actions taking the moral high ground? I sincerely do not think so.


How about you give your opinion instead of just pointing fingers at others...!!!

If Dusautoir had called Joubert a cheat in the RWC final would it have been justifiable given his performance?

Fa0019, surely a big part of that was no slow motion replays and detailed analysis of the decisions in the way it is today.

Referees officiate the same way now as they did in amatuer rugby. Look at a situation, see about five penalty offenses at a ruck and decided which of them has had the biggest effect. If there ain't really anyone badly affected then play on.

In days gone by that was it. Referees word was final, he made a call and players just got on with it. If he penalised them they worried about getting the ball back. If they got a penalty they tried to score. There was no big screens, slow motion replays, fans watching an incident three of four times before eventually deciding guilt.

You say that in years gone by a referee would not have reacted to being called a "f*king cheat with a red card". He wouldn't have had to. I have never heard any manager or coach call a referee that before. I have seen them question their integrity and I have seen them punished for it.

Referees have gone soft. There is a lot of backchat on the rugby field now a lot more than we are used to. Why are referees not marching a team back 10m as they used to do (I remember it being done in the 1st Test Lions v Aus in 2001). Or taking the captain aside to tell team to zip it.

If Webber, Youngs, Buchanan, Lindsay, etc fullfill their potential it'll be irrelevant anyway as Hartley wont be anywhere near the England squad.

He's still first choice at Saints though...and i dont think it will have changed after the weekend. He's a main player for them.

In terms of Joubert we didn't need video plays to re-analyse his performance, it was that bad and still in my opinion very suspect.

In terms of overall, I agree the game has become more analytical in terms of what TV can now show and the breakdown has become a lot tighter to control.

However is this word really worse than potentially blinding someone? Is it worse then dropping someone on his head and maybe breaking his neck and putting him in a wheelchair.

At the beginning of the season Steve Walsh was able to push a player out of his way.. and nothing happened to him. Had it been the other way round it would have been an instant red card and probably a lengthy ban. He claimed it wasn't intentional.... total bull, you don't unintentional shove a person and if you look at the video he was looking at the player.

I'm pleased that the result of all this is that Best is going on tour after all.

fa0019 wrote:In terms of Joubert we didn't need video plays to re-analyse his performance, it was that bad and still in my opinion very suspect.

In terms of overall, I agree the game has become more analytical in terms of what TV can now show and the breakdown has become a lot tighter to control.

However is this word really worse than potentially blinding someone? Is it worse then dropping someone on his head and maybe breaking his neck and putting him in a wheelchair.

At the beginning of the season Steve Walsh was able to push a player out of his way.. and nothing happened to him. Had it been the other way round it would have been an instant red card and probably a lengthy ban. He claimed it wasn't intentional.... total bull, you don't unintentional shove a person and if you look at the video he was looking at the player.

Not at all and I agree 100% with you on the issue of bans. Gouging etc should be longer.

As for the Steve Walsh thing thats a load of tosh. How many "Friday Funny" style videos do you see where the referee gets tackled.

Here's one for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5WS8psbtI4

Referee is actually tackled by a Munster player as you would a player. He knows its a mistake and gets on with it.

Similarly here is a push on a referee by Juan Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa8md6WSuBs

Not an issue. Referee knows it was a mistake.

Was Tom Youngs interviewed in the hearing??
What did he say about the incident?? I Haven't seen anything about this in the press.. just a thought as I wondered if he thought Hartley was referring to him..

red_stag wrote:

As for the Steve Walsh thing thats a load of tosh. How many "Friday Funny" style videos do you see where the referee gets tackled.

Here's one for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5WS8psbtI4

Referee is actually tackled by a Munster player as you would a player. He knows its a mistake and gets on with it.

Similarly here is a push on a referee by Juan Smith: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa8md6WSuBs

Not an issue. Referee knows it was a mistake.

Quite right Stag.