Was Hartley up to old (and distasteful) trick? - now cited!!

[Ray2418]

First message on here but after reading the comments I can't help but have to add my opinion to the mix.

Firstly, I think IF Hartley is found guilty (innocent until proven, and as of yet there's no verdict to that one) then he should have the book thrown at him certainly and I am sure the RFU will give the ban that they see fit. However, to claim that it was a premeditated attack with intent I believe is wrong. What was the Irish players finger doing in Hartley's mouth? It was clearly a spur of the moment thing and an incident that just happened in the heat of the moment. I see no way that he would have gone in there intentionally looking for someones finger to bite...makes no sense whatsoever!

Secondly, linking the Clark incident with this when they are totally unrelated is just wrong. Apart from the fact they are in the same club thy are no way related. Again, IF Clark is found guilty of intentionally hurting Hawkins then he should be severely punished and I am sure the RFU will give him a long ban.

However, whatever the outcome of that it should be dealt with and the 2 clubs move on. neither incident should show any reflection on the ethos of any of the players or coaching staff at Northampton and neither should it affect the relationship between players, staff or supporters. We are all united in our love of rugby and that should be the main priority of every match. I personally love the banter and rivalry between our 2 clubs and hope it continues in the friendly way it does at the moment. Please lets not turn into football yobs who have to be separated at matches, after all this is supposed to be a gentleman's sport!

[BJ.]

However, whatever the outcome of that it should be dealt with and the 2 clubs move on. neither incident should show any reflection on the ethos of any of the players or coaching staff at Northampton and neither should it affect the relationship between players, staff or supporters. We are all united in our love of rugby and that should be the main priority of every match. I personally love the banter and rivalry between our 2 clubs and hope it continues in the friendly way it does at the moment. Please let's not turn into football yobs who have to be separated at matches, after all this is supposed to be a gentleman's sport!

Well said and welcome to the forum.

[Daveyboy]

Hear! Hear!

Wise words, Ray.

[Qbec]

Well said indeed Ray2418; a well balanced & thoughtful view on both incidents,I look forward to our visit to FG in the same way as I do when they visit WR because I not only enjoy the full on games but also the banter & jokes with the saint supporters during & after what ever the result at the the time.
I am sure that whatever the outcome of these incidents that will & should not change.

[Will S]

Just heard Hartley has been banned for 8 weeks. Rules him out of the rest of the season but not the England tour to SA.

[ellis9]

What happened to the minimum ban of 12 weeks?

Oh yes, that's right that would rule him out of SA tour! Makes sense now

What's the point in having the set time scales if they are not going to be stuck to?!

[movingtoleicester]

Funny how these bans always seem to end in time for internationals.

Stuff the club seems to be the message.

[Stupid]

There is no minimum 12 week ban - if you have read that it is lazy journalism. 12 weeks is the 'low end entry point' (I think that's the right phrase) for biting. That means that they start with 12 weeks for an incident of low severity, then adjust for good/bad record, conduct at the hearing, admission of guilt, showing remorse etc. Most players have the sense to confess all and behave politely at the hearing, so provided their crime was not particularly vicious or damaging the bans come in below the low end.

I will reserve judgement until I read the findings, but I suspect 8 weeks is hard on Dylan - imho it all depends on how the finger got in his mouth.

[voice of the crumbie]

it all depends on how the finger got in his mouth.

Could it be that he put it there?

[ellis9]

Does this help explain

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... play-in-SA

[thunderbirds]

8 weeks- reduced due to "mitigating" circumstances

[Will S]

With no TV evidence to support does this mean Hartley got banned just on Ferris saying so?

[silverfish]

It's not necessarily true that the only tv evidence available to the panel is the inconclusive footage we've seen. There were lots of cameras there - and there may be other relevant evidence. They release a report later in the week which will hopefully shed a bit of light on how they made their decision.

[DaveRave]

Was the mitigating circumstance that Hartley mistook the finger for a dummy?

[Bertos]

The Guardian are saying the reduction (from 12 to 8 weeks) was due to enough time having passed since Hartley's previous incidents:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ma ... ngland-ban

If Saints get into the Prem final, Hartley can play.