He makes a concious move of the head to strike an opponents head. How is it any different from Bai's intentional strike to the head that got him sent off against Wasps. He has purposely walked towards George and extended his head with the intention of impact to the opponents head.
What people see it in isn't really relevant, its what the rules state.
It states you cannot strike with the head and he does, he makes a concious effort to do so. I've watched it over an over (thanks TiVO) - there really is no doubt in what he did (and his face during the TMO review said it all.
Besides, TY is the better player anyway (would say that wouldn't I )
northerntiger wrote:I agree, it wasn't much, but it was from a man who has much previous, it was deliberate and it wasn't heat of the moment, it was just after Sarries had scored a try. If George hadn't shown some restraint, it probably would have led the ref to take action. Did he TMO it during the game- I can't remember?
GS wrote:I remember an incident between Marcos and Marler during a Quins game. All Marcos did was lean on Marler, during the verbal interchange, with his head. Seriously not a head butt but the decision was that there was head contact and he was banned.
G.K wrote:
Jamie George was on the same pitch at the same time, not only that but he was where Hartley wanted to go, that's hardly Hartley's fault is it?
Simply beggars belief
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
G.K wrote:
Jamie George was on the same pitch at the same time, not only that but he was where Hartley wanted to go, that's hardly Hartley's fault is it?
Simply beggars belief
Correct - why did the ref allow Jamie George to get within range of Hartley's head?
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Quite simply, Hartley is a liability and continues to not learn from his previous experiences. How many chances should he be given? Have a read of this from 15 months ago. Hartley says a lot of things but, in the end, he reverts to type and the thug reappears.
Don't get me wrong I think Hartley is a liability and set piece aside not even that good..
That said there really was nothing in that and whilst it was him acting like a <insert your favourite profanity>, it was handbags as far as I am concerned and really nothing that needs to be taken any further..
I understand historical offense being used in determining the length of a ban but really a lengthy ban for basically a shove..??
If it was a Tigers player this place would be in meltdown over that.
There's no point arguing with each other and surmising what will or won't happen, one things for sure the case will either get thrown out or DH will get a trivial ban meaning he still features in Bomber's plans for the RWC.
Bomber has made it perfectly clear that DH will remain in the side regardless of what he does.
Coops wrote:Bomber has made it perfectly clear that DH will remain in the side regardless of what he does.
This sadly is the reality, when it comes to Hartley's misdeameanours Lancaster permits anything he does on the pitch, and in doing so has shown himself to be a rank hypocrite!
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
covrich wrote:That said there really was nothing in that and whilst it was him acting like a <insert your favourite profanity>, it was handbags as far as I am concerned and really nothing that needs to be taken any further..
It wasn't simply handbags. Northampton had scored a try and, rather than just heading back to his own half in preparation for the restart after the conversion attempt, the Saints captain decided to stick his face in that of his opposite number. He could have walked around George, led by example or behaved like a professional but no, Hartley just had to make contact head to head.
When is this moron going to get it into his thick skull that he is in the spotlight every time he plays due to his appalling disciplinary record? Australia and Wales are amongst the best when it comes to winding up the opposition. The last thing we want is to be playing these teams in the World Cup with only 14 men.
The incident itself is pretty minor, however, thats not how things work. Even accidental headbutts can get you a ban. The guy is a liability on the pitch, how England (and Saints) can risk playing him is beyond me.
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
Which knuckle will Lancaster slap him over this time? Indeed has he got any knuckles left? Isn't it about time that this little boy was confined to the nursery where he belongs.
)
