Dylan Hartley rehabilitation setback

First topic message reminder :

Red-carded tonight for a swinging arm tackle against Leinster.

Saints were behind on the scoreboard but on the attack when Hartley came off the bench. Two scrum penalties later, Leinster were on the Saints goal line and duly scored. a try. Not long afterwards, Hartley was sent off, and Saints promptly crumbled. Not really an effective contribution.

It's the sort of thing Hartley has done before but seemed to have left behind under Jones. Poetically, both Lancaster and Jones were at the ground to bear witness.

This red happened in a club match but it has international implications. Jones might stand by his man, or he might take it as a cue to start looking elsewhere for captaincy options. The 6N match against Ireland could be a crucial encounter, and the referee will be Jerome Garces, who just sent Hartley off the field.

If Hartley doesn't lead England during the 6N, then his Lions chances will take a hit.

TJ wrote:Poorfour
I think most sensible people accept it was an attempt to dislodge the ball that went wrong.  Reckless rather than intentional.
However it ends up as a swinging arm to the head which means its a red card.
World rugby guidance means its a 4 week starting point for a ban - intentional would be 8 weeks starting point
then they look at the outcome - SOB has to go off as he is concussed.  that adds a couple of weeks.  Nothing off for previous good record.  so around 6 wks seems to be right

If you do say so yourself

Well marty - the one eyed on one side say it was nothing, the others side say its premeditated thuggery. MOst of us accept its reckless not intentional

poissonrouge wrote:Taking a freeze frame can make things look different to what they actually were - You say Hartley had "already made contact with his left arm" - I have frozen the video just at the point he approaches and you can see that he is not aiming to wrap his left arm he is actually bracing for an impact against O'Brien. And the reason for that is that he is winding up his right arm to wallop him. That isn't a tackle it is a blow aimed at the player - which is illegal

That's the crux of it - a swinging arm is not a tackle. You can argue that Hartley was unfortunate that it connected with O'Brien's neck (I'd say O'Brien is the more unfortunate) but even if it had connected with his back, it would still not have been a tackle.

TJ wrote:Well marty - the one eyed on one side say it was nothing, the others side say its premeditated thuggery.  MOst of us accept its reckless not intentional

Well according to poissonrouge, neither recklessness nor intent comes into the equation, just the action.

So we're all wasting our time debating it. Even Hartley is wasting his time turning up to plead a defence case.

He still has to decide which biscuits to bring. I'd go with brandy snaps - that would really throw them.

TJ wrote:Well marty - the one eyed on one side say it was nothing, the others side say its premeditated thuggery.  MOst of us accept its reckless not intentional

Not seen premeditated mentioned anywhere

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:He still has to decide which biscuits to bring. I'd go with brandy snaps - that would really throw them.

Don't worry, Eddie already bought him a pack out of the England kitty.

The worst thing about Hartley is that he has shown he can control himself but then decides not to bother anymore; that goes to show he intended to straight arm SOB.

This recklessness argument is tripe, you can't be reckless using a straight arm which we are all in agreement he did. He didn't try and tackle anyone, his body position was not for a tackle but was wound up to throw his right arm; there is your 'intent'.

A very good point by Gwlad. All those high stakes International games and Hartley gets through them with flying colours. He's told by Jones he is Captain and that requires him to lead by example. Hartley conforms wonderfully.

Then he gets back to a club game and............................ well, it's only a club game. A man has to unwind from the self-imposed tension of International now and again...

Thats how i see it Fly….and no doubt he'd be on his best behavior on tour but he'd be a target for the club teams and on the basis he isn't even the best hooker available i just can't see how he makes Lions skipper now having never toured before.

54 weeks of bans…its just incredible really.

Any news of his hearing yet?

My view is he cant be trusted to remain on the field.

PS The guy is an out and out thug.

majesticimperialman wrote:Any news of his hearing yet?

Its on Wednesday

Allty wrote:My view is he cant be trusted to remain on the field.  

PS The guy is an out and out thug.

I though he had grown up having been given such a reprieve with the England captaincy but now he's done and yes, he is a thug in the Calum Clark mould.

Any player that leads his country to 13 successive victories is a very special player, in fact there would be very few international players that could claim such a statistic.Yes he plays on the edge, and every now and then it doesnt come off. Some of the vilifying/insulting comments about the man on this thread are way over the top.

Perhaps he will get a ban for a few weeks, but he will be back.

I suppose its OK to have a nibble at opponents now and again ........

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Any player that leads his country to 13 successive victories is a very special player, in fact there would be very few international players that could claim such a  statistic.Yes he plays on the edge, and every now and then it doesnt come off.  Some of the vilifying/insulting comments about the man on this thread are way over the top.

Perhaps he will get a ban for a few weeks, but he will be back.

Totally agree. As was said by BT commentators prior to the game something wasn't/isn't right at the Saints to have put him on the bench as England captain & he needed game time - it just doesn't add up somehow. I am not condoning his reckless behaviour but I don't believe it would have happened if he was wearing white.

Saints in general have a tonne of problems emanating from Mallinder and showing themselves on the pitch. This really is a storm in a tea cup though.

aucklandlaurie 54 weeks of bans speaks for itself though I can imagine you feel some affiliation for Hartley as he was born in New Zealand.

The biggest issue I have is if Hartley is banned we might have Farrell as England captain.

Would rather England doesn't pick someone who is a nasty piece of work.

Of course Robshaw was too nice but surely England can pick someone who has the right balance?

Does it matter if Hartley is unpleasant on the pitch, or off it come to that, if he's an effective captain and good player?

Well it matters if he gets sent off in a game you want to win.

Some people on here are failing to grasp the simple truth.

Hartley is a nasty piece of work. Eddie Jones knew this and picked him because of it. He'll serve his time and be England captain again.

The nicest of nice guys (seemingly) get sent off though see Daly. This is just an accident. He's a good captain and I'm sure he could be a good servant to England and his club for a few more years net. Again don't care if he's seen as nasty.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Does it matter if Hartley is unpleasant on the pitch, or off it come to that, if he's an effective captain and good player?

Guess it doesn't really matter if all you care about is winning and are prepared to accept that loss of a good player halfway through a match may lead to a loss of a game. However if you consider whether you want to teach younger players how to play appropriately within the rules and with some consideration as to the health and welfare of other players - well not quite so sure whether one would want Hartley as a role model for your kids. Apparently I hear he is a nice guy off the pitch, but his track record doesn't exactly come across as good behaviour.

The humanity of it all etc? Are all high shots going to get the same hand wringing, I mean I'm assuming we're all going to get on our high horses for all things against the rules like Beale getting sin binned on debut etc? This is rugby and things like this happen, yes against the rules, yes a red card but come on not the crime of the century.

no 7 & 1/2 yes but Daly doesn't have 54 weeks of bans. He hasn't been done for almost every offence.

Daly was an idiot but it didn't cost England the game either. They won without him.

If Daly goes on to pick up cards then yes he could reach Hartley's infamy.

You forget Hartley cost Saints an AP title.

I personally don't think you have to an A hole to be an effective captain.

It's not an accident when a player repeatedly gets banned.

Hartley isn't a dirty player on the Int stage. What concerns me more about his Lions credentials is he isn't actually playing that well. His darts are immaculate which is obviously a must for a Lions spot....but his scrummaging and work around the park is not quite at the level you'd want imo.

I think the best 2 hookers currently are Best and George, I'd personally want those in the starting squad.

That's part of the problem beshocked, too many aren't judging the incident but looking at the list of bans.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Any player that leads his country to 13 successive victories is a very special player, in fact there would be very few international players that could claim such a  statistic.Yes he plays on the edge, and every now and then it doesnt come off.  Some of the vilifying/insulting comments about the man on this thread are way over the top.

Perhaps he will get a ban for a few weeks, but he will be back.

Totally agree. As was said by BT commentators prior to the game something wasn't/isn't right at the Saints to have put him on the bench as England captain & he needed game time - it just doesn't add up somehow. I am not condoning his reckless behaviour but I don't believe it would have happened if he was wearing white.

How did he need game time? He had just played 4 tests and Saints have a very good hooker in Haywood who was playing well and hadn't been away from the club for a month

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hartley isn't a dirty player on the Int stage. What concerns me more about his Lions credentials is he isn't actually playing that well. His darts are immaculate which is obviously a must for a Lions spot....but his scrummaging and work around the park is not quite at the level you'd want imo.

I think the best 2 hookers currently are Best and George, I'd personally want those in the starting squad.

Spot on

Regardless of the outcome of the hearing both George and Best are playing at a far higher level this year.
The only debate at hooker should be who gets the third seat on the plane with those two.

no 7 & 1/2 the incident itself is not one of Hartley's worst. If this was another player with a lower profile or indeed a cleaner record there would not be the same talk.

It's the same player though. Also he's a player many wanted as Lions captain prior to this incident.

So you reckon this incident is a deliberate attempt to hit his head? I just can't see it myself. And then I think about the amount of big hits players do in each game and think yup red card but mainly by misfortune.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hartley isn't a dirty player on the Int stage. What concerns me more about his Lions credentials is he isn't actually playing that well. His darts are immaculate which is obviously a must for a Lions spot....but his scrummaging and work around the park is not quite at the level you'd want imo.

I think the best 2 hookers currently are Best and George, I'd personally want those in the starting squad.

That depends how you look at it, he has played over 200 games for Saints and less than 80 for England, a few of those for England were as second choice were as hes mostly first choice for Saints

marty2086 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hartley isn't a dirty player on the Int stage. What concerns me more about his Lions credentials is he isn't actually playing that well. His darts are immaculate which is obviously a must for a Lions spot....but his scrummaging and work around the park is not quite at the level you'd want imo.

I think the best 2 hookers currently are Best and George, I'd personally want those in the starting squad.

That depends how you look at it, he has played over 200 games for Saints and less than 80 for England, a few of those for England were as second choice were as hes mostly first choice for Saints

I look at it as in the point he has hardly put a foot wrong whilst playing for England. Forget about Saints, he's obviously in a different mindset when turning out in White.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Hartley isn't a dirty player on the Int stage. What concerns me more about his Lions credentials is he isn't actually playing that well. His darts are immaculate which is obviously a must for a Lions spot....but his scrummaging and work around the park is not quite at the level you'd want imo.

I think the best 2 hookers currently are Best and George, I'd personally want those in the starting squad.

That depends how you look at it, he has played over 200 games for Saints and less than 80 for England, a few of those for England were as second choice were as hes mostly first choice for Saints

I look at it as in the point he has hardly put a foot wrong whilst playing for England. Forget about Saints, he's obviously in a different mindset when turning out in White.

Hasnt he been yellow carded 2 or 3 times for England plus his biting ban? There are some teams with better records than that

Bryan Habana has 7 yellow cards at international level....

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bryan Habana has 7 yellow cards at international level....

Probably not for dirty play though.

Hartley has missed a world cup and lions tour because of his diciplinary record. Regardless of whether his biggest offenses have occured for England or not it has had a huge impact on his international carreer. You just cant trust him.

Ironically I also don't think those 2 bans were that bad. The swearing to me was directed at Youngs as what he said didn't really make sense if directed at Barnes ( thoguh was stupid to swear as there had just been a warning) and the 'headbutt'...well come on it wasn't really was it? the problem he has had since that first ban is the rep that comes with it. Every ban there after is justified as he's a 'thug' etc. instead of looking at the incidents which on the whole are borderline.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Bryan Habana has 7 yellow cards at international level....

Probably not for dirty play though.

What else do you get yellow cards for?

I've always considered Habana to be a bit of a self-centred ass.... yeah, I can believe imagine 7 yellow cards.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ironically I also don't think those 2 bans were that bad. The swearing to me was directed at Youngs as what he said didn't really make sense if directed at Barnes ( thoguh was stupid to swear as there had just been a warning) and the 'headbutt'...well come on it wasn't really was it? the problem he has had since that first ban is the rep that comes with it. Every ban there after is justified as he's a 'thug' etc. instead of looking at the incidents which on the whole are borderline.

He plead guilty to the headbutt so cant blame his reputation on him saying he did it

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ironically I also don't think those 2 bans were that bad. The swearing to me was directed at Youngs as what he said didn't really make sense if directed at Barnes ( thoguh was stupid to swear as there had just been a warning) and the 'headbutt'...well come on it wasn't really was it? the problem he has had since that first ban is the rep that comes with it. Every ban there after is justified as he's a 'thug' etc. instead of looking at the incidents which on the whole are borderline.

He plead guilty to the headbutt so cant blame his reputation on him saying he did it

England players seem to have a habit of just owning up to things don't they like Launchbury getting into trouble rather than pulling a Canes. You've seen the headbutt, do you really consider it to be one? I mean we talk about bad technique in that tackle but he must have amazingly bad technique in headbutts given what happened after it!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ironically I also don't think those 2 bans were that bad. The swearing to me was directed at Youngs as what he said didn't really make sense if directed at Barnes ( thoguh was stupid to swear as there had just been a warning) and the 'headbutt'...well come on it wasn't really was it? the problem he has had since that first ban is the rep that comes with it. Every ban there after is justified as he's a 'thug' etc. instead of looking at the incidents which on the whole are borderline.

He plead guilty to the headbutt so cant blame his reputation on him saying he did it

England players seem to have a habit of just owning up to things don't they like Launchbury getting into trouble rather than pulling a Canes. You've seen the headbutt, do you really consider it to be one? I mean we talk about bad technique in that tackle but he must have amazingly bad technique in headbutts given what happened after it!

You really are putting in a real effort to defend him, he tried to headbutt somebody poor technique or not it was stupid, unprofessional and potentially dangerous so whether you think it was a proper headbutt or not he still did it, he still crossed a line and he got himself banned

You say England players have a habit of owning up? Except St. Dylan hasnt always owned up has he?

He squared up to him and shoved his head in his face. Stupid maybe but hardly crime of the century for a front row.

Don't need to put much effort in, marty come on do you think that's a headbutt really? This is what I mean by things linked to Hartley judged differently.

Scottrf wrote:He squared up to him and shoved his head in his face. Stupid maybe but hardly crime of the century for a front row.

Which is a headbutt!

Right fair enough.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He squared up to him and shoved his head in his face. Stupid maybe but hardly crime of the century for a front row.

Which is a headbutt!

In your simplistic world maybe.

Is a hand off a punch?

Youre being a little absurd.

He's no saint obviously, hes got a bit of bite.....hes a hooker.

Im not concerned he'll get into trouble when he plays for England, id feel the same with the Lions.

Some posters on here go on like Rugby is tiddlewinks, its a brutal, physical sport.