Sentences

[Bill W (2)]

Following Tigerbeat's request that we "cool it" and let due provess proceed I have refrained from posting.

However, I shall be very surprised if Hartley gets less than 12 weeks (more likely 6 months) and Clark less than 6 months (more likely 12).

But I am easily surprised!!

[sapajo]

Following Tigerbeat's request that we "cool it" and let due provess proceed I have refrained from posting.

However, I shall be very surprised if Hartley gets less than 12 weeks (more likely 6 months) and Clark less than 6 months (more likely 12).

But I am easily surprised!!

I am not surprised that you are easily surprised or am I ?

[Qbec]

Bill, if as you say you agreed to "Cool it" & let due process proceed why have you started this thread at all?

[Jeremy Anderson]

I am not surprised that Bill has posted

[Kinoulton]

Come on chaps, a forum is now defined as "a medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas."

So if Bill isn't allowed to comment on summat about rugby, then what are we all doing on here?

[fleabane]

Following the last couple of posts, I suggest we run a sweepstakes, the winner being the closest to the actual sentences, or dismissals of the Hartley and Clark citing.
The prize?
One month without being subjected to side comments on the forum.

[jgriffin]

Hartley case dismissed.
Clark dangerous play, 3 months.

[Kinoulton]

Hartley case dismissed.
Clark dangerous play, 3 months.

Blimey.

[g]

Clark 4 weeks, lenient I know but he doesn't play for Tigers.

Hartley 6 weeks, he won't be the first player banned with no evidence of wrong doing, Corry springs to mind. Again leniency will be shown because he is a SAINT.

[Kit]

Since Nigel Owens witnessed Ferris's finger having bite marks on it, I can't see Hartley's case being dismissed entirely, though maybe he'll get some mitigation for having been provoked (fingers in the mouth, for e.g.).

Re: Clark, when Ashton was up in front of Blackett for unsportsmanlike conduct (dragging Alex by his hair), he got four weeks. I can see a three month ban being the very least if he is found guilty with little mitigation - high profile game, whistle had gone, defenceless player, little to no provocation, some previous for foul play, led to serious injury. Might get something for appearing contrite/guilty plea if he does plead guilty.

[g]

Has Hartley definitely been identified as the culprit? I thought there were 3 or 4 players named who were around Ferris when the alleged biting took place and I thought nobody could definitely identify the culprit. Or is Hartley deemed as being the culprit on Ferris' say so?

[Kit]

I'm assuming he's been identified since he got cited and barred from playing until the hearing, which goes against the usual presumption of innocence in rugby. I believe Parling and Corbisiero were the other England players in the ruck, but Hartley's the one O'Callaghan (who had a clear view of the whole incident) confronts afterwards, and the one the RFU barred from speaking to the press post-game.

[Off Piste Tiger]

Not seen Hartley so i will guess 12 weeks if found guilty. Clark if found guilty should get 12 months .

[Bill W (2)]

So, we have Hartley 0 - 6 months

And Clark 1 - 12 months.

Both are members of the Elite England Squad.

Since peeing against a wall earns you exclusion from the band of brothers what will a sentence of more than 3 months earn?

(assuming that Randrew gets his way and Lancaster is appointed)

[Jeremy Anderson]

Hartley 3 months
Green 9 months