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

pbuk0 wrote: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..

The hearing was Sunday morning.

Youngs won the Premiership final on Saturday and was leaving for a Lions tour to SH Monday morning.

Not sure he could have fitted in the hearing even if he had anything to add.

pbuk0 wrote: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..

Talksport asked him at the Lions dinner but he made no comment about whether he though Hartley had been talking to him. Understandably, I don't think he wants to get dragged into it.

Your videos clips were all in play though and more due to the ref getting in the way of the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifQh80FGum8

Thats an off play shove and it was meant, a little different, like Di Canio all those years ago. Had that been the other way round it certainly would have been a red... especially if Walsh was the ref.

Youngs was wise to keep his mouth shut. There is no right answer to that question. "Yes, I am a cheat its understandable Dylan would say it to me" or else "No Dylan must have been calling the referee a f*king cheat".

He wouldn't win no matter which way he said it.

fa0019 wrote:Your videos clips were all in play though and more due to the ref getting in the way of the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifQh80FGum8

Thats an off play shove and it was meant, a little different, like Di Canio all those years ago. Had that been the other way round it certainly would have been a red... especially if Walsh was the ref.

We'll agree to disagree FA0019

On the issues of bans; gouging, biting and squeezing of gentlemans area are especially henious and deserve hefty sanctions. However rugbys values are what set it apart from other sports and one of the reasons many people are fans of the game. Things like verbal abuse of the referee and spitting at an opponent, while not likely to cause physical harm, should also be punished heavily too.

red_stag wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Your videos clips were all in play though and more due to the ref getting in the way of the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifQh80FGum8

Thats an off play shove and it was meant, a little different, like Di Canio all those years ago. Had that been the other way round it certainly would have been a red... especially if Walsh was the ref.

We'll agree to disagree FA0019

On the issues of bans; gouging, biting and squeezing of gentlemans area are especially henious and deserve hefty sanctions. However rugbys values are what set it apart from other sports and one of the reasons many people are fans of the game. Things like verbal abuse of the referee and spitting at an opponent, while not likely to cause physical harm, should also be punished heavily too.

not a problem stag... I guess you have experience both sides of the situation so can appreciate the difficulties refs go through a bit more.

The honest answer is I think rugby refereeing needs to become more black and white if the whole respect for the referee thing is to continue.

Above all else I'm a rugby fan; I'd never label myself a referee first and foremost.

For fans its very difficult when you can see a guy in an offside position or a player not rolling away who doesn't get penalised. The referee might deem it immaterial but in the mind of the fan every chance to get a penalty is important.

Its very simple therefore for fans to legitimately point to most decisions in matches and call them "harsh" or suggest that something similar later in the game wasn't penalised etc.

I suppose its more of an inexact art than a definite science. There's no right/wrong way to do it.

red_stag wrote:The honest answer is I think rugby refereeing needs to become more black and white if the whole respect for the referee thing is to continue.

Well said, I think most fans would agree that the simpler you make the subjectivity of the refereeing decision the easier the game is on Players, fans and Refs.

maestegmafia wrote:

red_stag wrote:The honest answer is I think rugby refereeing needs to become more black and white if the whole respect for the referee thing is to continue.

Well said, I think most fans would agree that the simpler you make the subjectivity of the refereeing decision the easier the game is on Players, fans and Refs.

What you need is Nigel Owens cloned and reffing every game

Someone on Whiff of Cordite has done some calculations and worked out Hartley has been banned for 12% of his career.

Astonishing.

(If accurate.)

Don Alfonso wrote:Someone on Whiff of Cordite has done some calculations and worked out Hartley has been banned for 12% of his career.

Astonishing.

(If accurate.)

Don the scary thing is with every ban hes received its been cut for one reason or anything so imagine what it could have been

marty2086 wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:Someone on Whiff of Cordite has done some calculations and worked out Hartley has been banned for 12% of his career.

Astonishing.

(If accurate.)

Don the scary thing is with every ban hes received its been cut for one reason or anything so imagine what it could have been

But that's the same for any ban.

Or the Nigel Owens classic warning to Treviso gobby SH:

"... I don't think we've met before... I'm the referee...."

I think that shut him up.

I understand mitigating circumstances but did anyone see he got a 1 week reduction this time for "good conduct during the hearing"?

Seems an absolutely bonkers reason to reduce a ban. During the hearing itself to be well behaved.

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

What date does the regular season restart?

red_stag wrote:I understand mitigating circumstances but did anyone see he got a 1 week reduction this time for "good conduct during the hearing"?

Seems an absolutely bonkers reason to reduce a ban. During the hearing itself to be well behaved.

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

If he pled guilty it may be understandable but he was essentially calling Barnes a liar by pleading not guilty and if Im not mistaken the ERC reduced his ban earlier this season for previous good conduct

MrsP wrote:What date does the regular season restart?

Opening match this season was Saturday September 1st. So I'm guessing next season starts Saturday August 31st.


So he's basically missing the Lions tour.

Its an odd one alright. How do you behave well at a hearing? Does that mean as long as you turn up and smile at everyone you guarenteed to have a week knocked off the ban? If you dont smile you get the full ban.

GunsGerms wrote:Its an odd one alright. How do you behave well at a hearing? Does that mean as long as you turn up and smile at everyone you guarenteed to have a week knocked off the ban? If you dont smile you get the full ban.

I'm still convinced that the panel works out how long a ban they want to give, then apply gradings and discounts to get to that point. So they've probably judged that missing the Lions tour plus pre-seaosn is roughly sufficient

marty2086 wrote:

red_stag wrote:I understand mitigating circumstances but did anyone see he got a 1 week reduction this time for "good conduct during the hearing"?

Seems an absolutely bonkers reason to reduce a ban. During the hearing itself to be well behaved.

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

If he pled guilty it may be understandable but he was essentially calling Barnes a liar by pleading not guilty and if Im not mistaken the ERC reduced his ban earlier this season for previous good conduct

Hartley probably claimed Barnes to have been mistaken (about who Hartley was swearing at) rather than claim B to be a liar. H does not deny the words, just the intent. I'm sure the panel would see the difference, and so may have cut H a little slack on that basis.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Its an odd one alright. How do you behave well at a hearing? Does that mean as long as you turn up and smile at everyone you guarenteed to have a week knocked off the ban? If you dont smile you get the full ban.

I'm still convinced that the panel works out how long a ban they want to give, then apply gradings and discounts to get to that point. So they've probably judged that missing the Lions tour plus pre-seaosn is roughly sufficient

Me too!

I understand as missing the Lions Tour is a huge punishment.

I have wondered what the ban would have been like if he hadn't been due to tour.

MrsP wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Its an odd one alright. How do you behave well at a hearing? Does that mean as long as you turn up and smile at everyone you guarenteed to have a week knocked off the ban? If you dont smile you get the full ban.

I'm still convinced that the panel works out how long a ban they want to give, then apply gradings and discounts to get to that point. So they've probably judged that missing the Lions tour plus pre-seaosn is roughly sufficient

Me too!

I understand as missing the Lions Tour is a huge punishment.

I have wondered what the ban would have been like if he hadn't been due to tour.

I suspect it'd have run through to the end of September anyway - 4 weeks of regular season plus pre-season. Bans running across end-of-season are always tricky

I wonder how much the guys on the panel let that sort of thing influence their decision?

If he hadn't been touring then any ban would have started at the beginning of the season, yes?

Who was it convinced a disciplinary panel that they would be required for all their team's pre-season games? Was it the guy who knocked Bradley Davies spark out?

MrsP wrote:I wonder how much the guys on the panel let that sort of thing influence their decision?

If he hadn't been touring then any ban would have started at the beginning of the season, yes?

Who was it convinced a disciplinary panel that they would be required for all their team's pre-season games? Was it the guy who knocked Bradley Davies spark out?

That's been done a fair few times. And Mark Cueto got his gouging ban reduced for a good prior record, and served half the ban in the off-season

Personally I think we should go down footballs route.

Domestic bans should stay domestic, test bans should stay test and bans should be for X number of games rather than weeks.

A result of this would be no bias depending on the time of year.... last game of the season and you still get banned for the same number of games as someone banned mid season.

Also players can't get away with using small club matches as a method of reducing ban. If you get banned for 2 matches in test rugby its 2 test rugby matches you miss.

Do you really think the panel looks into the ins and outs of a players schedule for both his club and country? I don't myself.

Yeah Ive always thought that bans should only be applicable to the tournament/competion you get the ban in. Im happy to make an exception for DH though as Im very relieved he isnt touring.

That's the thing fa0019.

Would you be happy if Hartley was off on Tour after the events of the weekend and having been found guilty of abusing a ref?

I can see the logic of bans expressed in matches rather than weeks although I think it actually rarely makes much material difference but I would not like to see someone who gouged in an International turn out against my club the next weekend as if everything was fine.

fa0019 wrote:...If you get banned for 2 matches in test rugby its 2 test rugby matches you miss...

That's only effective if the player is likely to get selected for the next two Tests.

fa0019 wrote:Personally I think we should go down footballs route.

Domestic bans should stay domestic, test bans should stay test and bans should be for X number of games rather than weeks.

A result of this would be no bias depending on the time of year.... last game of the season and you still get banned for the same number of games as someone banned mid season.

Also players can't get away with using small club matches as a method of reducing ban. If you get banned for 2 matches in test rugby its 2 test rugby matches you miss.

Do you really think the panel looks into the ins and outs of a players schedule for both his club and country? I don't myself.

So what happens during the 6 nations? Can if banned for an international can they just go back to their club to play? Or if banned for club can they count the off weekends? It would work fine if there was a separation in scheduling. Or we could go down the football route where friendlies don't matter and all competitions are out of the domestic season.

I would rather put a fixed date on the ban. Forget number of weeks because being banned for 4 weeks over the summer means.......what?

A fixed date to be allowed back to play can be set based upon the types and number of matches upcoming.

Well he's c0cked it up for himself this time. I just hope that instead of a summer being part of a rugby pros dream, he'll finally.....finally, learns and accept this behaviour cannot go on. Instead of calling for lengthy bans, he's a thug, I hate him etc ...

doctor_grey wrote:I would rather put a fixed date on the ban. Forget number of weeks because being banned for 4 weeks over the summer means.......what?

A fixed date to be allowed back to play can be set based upon the types and number of matches upcoming.

I think his ban covers the 11 (rugby) weeks that he could play. It is not a straight 11 weeks

i.e it uses the Lions games and his clubs pre-season friendlies. So he will be playing at the start of next season

red_stag wrote:I understand mitigating circumstances but did anyone see he got a 1 week reduction this time for "good conduct during the hearing"?

Seems an absolutely bonkers reason to reduce a ban. During the hearing itself to be well behaved.

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

"Well done for not biting the judge Dylan! And you brought your own biscuits, what a guy."

There is some more context in this article from Wayne Barnes' testimony that I haven't seen mentioned previously that actually succeeds in making Hartley seem even stupider. Something I didn't think was possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/28/dylan-hartley-lions-tour?CMP=twt_gu

The panel was told that Barnes had spoken to Hartley twice before he showed him a red card. In his report to the hearing, Barnes said: "Two minutes before (sending him off), I had called the player across and told him to think about the way he was speaking to me. I had done this on at least two occasions as a scrum was setting he said: 'As usual he's against us.'"

Barnes said that on two other occasions, following scrums that ended in penalties to Leicester, Hartley had asked to speak to him only to be told when he gave the Northampton captain the opportunity: "I don't want to talk to you."

Seriously couldn't make it up.

Needs to grow up,but to be fair Rory Best should have been on the plane anyway instead of Hartley or Youngs.

i don't want to talk to you?

well if true that is certainly the end of him as saints capt and brings mallinder's judgment in keeping faith with him under intense scrutiny

Notch wrote:There is some more context in this article from Wayne Barnes' testimony that I haven't seen mentioned previously that actually succeeds in making Hartley seem even stupider. Something I didn't think was possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/28/dylan-hartley-lions-tour?CMP=twt_gu

The panel was told that Barnes had spoken to Hartley twice before he showed him a red card. In his report to the hearing, Barnes said: "Two minutes before (sending him off), I had called the player across and told him to think about the way he was speaking to me. I had done this on at least two occasions as a scrum was setting he said: 'As usual he's against us.'"

Barnes said that on two other occasions, following scrums that ended in penalties to Leicester, Hartley had asked to speak to him only to be told when he gave the Northampton captain the opportunity: "I don't want to talk to you."

Seriously couldn't make it up.

I wonder how that conversation went.....

Hartley: "Can I have a word ref?"

Barnes: "Sure"

Hartley: "I don't want to talk to you"

Full report is up if anyone interested

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/28th%20may%20uploads/hartley%20northamptonsaints%20judgment%20may13.ashx

The question Ia asked early about what was low entry. It would probably if he just insulted a ref. instead he accused him in a manner that questioned his integrity.

It reads to me like Hartley was being a dick like a school kid trying to swear at a teacher without getting caught. Although it basically came down to Barnes being sure even though Hartley was only in his peripherals. Perhaps he's seen 40 year old virgin and has trained.

Also for the 11 weeks they've estimated that he would be involved in 8 match day squads over the Lions (probably not but maybe) and then the 3 pre-match games.

Oh dear.

Were I a Saints fan I would be furious with Hartley. Of course we would never have known about it if he hadn't been carded but he was clearly making an absolute mess of communicating with the ref long before that.

Does anyone actually believe that nonsense about his earlier utterances?

If Barnes could hear him then so could the Tigers and I can not see any front row giving the opposition the satisfaction of hearing you say you were up against it.

I fear he is a bigger fool than even I had given him....credit(?) for!

How can he remain as captain?

What i find hardest to understand is why he did this with Barnes as ref....i mean that guy always makes his mark in some way and Hartley, in an act of galactic masochistic stupidity, gave him his opportunity

Did anyone see the video of him swearing that was shown after the game, he clearly looks to the right of the camera (where I think Barnes is) and says Frak cheat. Then looks to the floor where t. Young is.

100%beefy wrote:What i find hardest to understand is why he did this with Barnes as ref....i mean that guy always makes his mark in some way and Hartley, in an act of galactic masochistic stupidity, gave him his opportunity

To be fair you could say that about any referee. Allan Rolland, Craig Joubert, Nigel Owens, Romain Poite, Steve Walsh etc.

Can anyone see how it would be possible for Hartley to captain Saints again next season? Every referee will have this incident in the back of their minds for some time. I'm not saying they will penalize any little frustrated comment from Hartley but they'll be on high alert. His relationship with officials is surely broken for now.

It'll be tough enough next season for him with opposition crowds and players on his case.

Even before the Red Card incident he was making a complete mess of it by the sounds of things.

Even asking to speak to the ref about penalties and then saying he doesn't want to speak to him when the ref gives him a chance is just....just...incomprehensible.

MrsP wrote:Even before the Red Card incident he was making a complete mess of it by the sounds of things.

Even asking to speak to the ref about penalties and then saying he doesn't want to speak to him when the ref gives him a chance is just....just...incomprehensible.

As well as passively aggressively muttering to team mates about how the ref has it in for them within ear shot.

Seriously bizarre that a teams Captain is behaving this way. He's meant to exemplify maturity and leadership, be able to cool heads when he needs to.

MrsP wrote:Even before the Red Card incident he was making a complete mess of it by the sounds of things.

Even asking to speak to the ref about penalties and then saying he doesn't want to speak to him when the ref gives him a chance is just....just...incomprehensible.

Unless Barnes was blowing smoke he's got a good rep with refs. God knows hat happened this game.

I would say he needs to lose the captaincy (Wood would make sense). Also Micky Haywood has had a good game every time I've seen him.

red_stag wrote:

100%beefy wrote:What i find hardest to understand is why he did this with Barnes as ref....i mean that guy always makes his mark in some way and Hartley, in an act of galactic masochistic stupidity, gave him his opportunity

To be fair you could say that about any referee. Allan Rolland, Craig Joubert, Nigel Owens, Romain Poite, Steve Walsh etc.

ah walsh, that combo of aus and kiwi! he would have chinned hartley on the spot

Rory Best was a good actor before he turned to Rugby...watching him now in Desperado.

MrsP wrote:Oh dear...........

Nuff said.
Actually, I said it a bit differently. A bit more earthy, as it were.

Not only did he embarrass himself, the club, supporters, and the city, he cost me countless hours away from work talking to other rather hacked-off Saints supporters about this.

doctor_grey wrote:

MrsP wrote:Oh dear...........

Nuff said.
Actually, I said it a bit differently. A bit more earthy, as it were.

Not only did he embarrass himself, the club, supporters, and the city, he cost me countless hours away from work talking to other rather hacked-off Saints supporters about this.

You can take the lad out of Franklin Gardens but...



What can I say?



Do you think Malinder will stand by him, even now?