Hartley AGAIN

[fleabane]

Good grief, JG, you have changed from a really interesting debater into something else completely, and it's a shame.

[Cagey Tiger]

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.
What's done is done.
We expect a bunch testosterone fueled muscle bound blokes to smash the hell out of each other week after week and then throw a wobbly when they don't behave like little angels.
None of them should've done any of it but these things can happen sometimes.

I have noticed a common trait with the Cockers out brigade and the Hartley apologists. People who hold any differing views are portrayed as holding the extreme opposite (happy clapper, don't realise that rugby is a contact sport etc.) and therefore are stupid. This post is typical example. I don't know about anyone else but I find it insulting and condescending. There are a whole range of views on this topic, not just yours and the opposite view that you mock (which I have only seen expressed a few times out of the many on here).

[The Boy Dave]

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.
What's done is done.
We expect a bunch testosterone fueled muscle bound blokes to smash the hell out of each other week after week and then throw a wobbly when they don't behave like little angels.
None of them should've done any of it but these things can happen sometimes.




I have noticed a common trait with the Cockers out brigade and the Hartley apologists. People who hold any differing views are portrayed as holding the extreme opposite (happy clapper, don't realise that rugby is a contact sport etc.) and therefore are stupid. This post is typical example. I don't know about anyone else but I find it insulting and condescending. There are a whole range of views on this topic, not just yours and the opposite view that you mock (which I have only seen expressed a few times out of the many on here).

Well Cagey Tiger you are offended easily, that's all I can say to you!
I'm a Cockers in person but that has nothing to do with my view on each incident individually.
What I will say is the authorities can't really win, and the players can't really win either.
Players are expected to try and maim each other week in and week out with crowds baying for blood and mistakes will happen, when they make them they get slaughtered for it.
The authorities such as the RFU are expected to put out squeaky clean role models whilst putting a winning team together and also punish mistakes individually whilst setting a longer term example as a collective for the sport.
I can see the difficulty for both sides trying to satisfy the masses, I just think personally that both Hartley and Manu have been treated way beyond the limit of their crimes, for me incidents such as the Clark incident rank much higher and I don't believe Hartley or Manu deserve the level of incarceration they have received, but again I reiterate I know why they have, they have been punished as much for the image it sets as the crime itself, I don't agree with it but there you go.
What Hartley did wasn't really much lets be honest but it canno't be condoned and we don't want small incidents ignored to encourage moments to esculate into the type of incident that we saw Clark involved in a few years ago.
What Hartley did was little more than rub heads aggressively, but he has been made example again which I think is unfair, were he not an England player not much would have been reported in the media etc and it would have gone largely unnoticed.
Hartley is a very good player and one who wants to get into the oppositions face and win, teams need players like Hartley and I'm not sure anyone ever won the world cup being nice, he didn't get sent off doing what he did so I maintain I don't know what all the fuss is about.

[jgriffin]

I'm with Dave on this.
Please accept my humble apologies for trying out how far you can push some of the humourless on here. The answer is nowhere at all.
If you think that was threatening you are seriously deluded, but if you do happen to be passing at Marcos's match say hi please.
Toodle-pip.

[Cagey Tiger]

I don't really know what all the fuss is about.
What's done is done.
We expect a bunch testosterone fueled muscle bound blokes to smash the hell out of each other week after week and then throw a wobbly when they don't behave like little angels.
None of them should've done any of it but these things can happen sometimes.




I have noticed a common trait with the Cockers out brigade and the Hartley apologists. People who hold any differing views are portrayed as holding the extreme opposite (happy clapper, don't realise that rugby is a contact sport etc.) and therefore are stupid. This post is typical example. I don't know about anyone else but I find it insulting and condescending. There are a whole range of views on this topic, not just yours and the opposite view that you mock (which I have only seen expressed a few times out of the many on here).

Well Cagey Tiger you are offended easily, that's all I can say to you!
I'm a Cockers in person but that has nothing to do with my view on each incident individually.
What I will say is the authorities can't really win, and the players can't really win either.
Players are expected to try and maim each other week in and week out with crowds baying for blood and mistakes will happen, when they make them they get slaughtered for it.
The authorities such as the RFU are expected to put out sqeaky clean role models whilst putting a winning team together and also punish mistakes individually whilst setting a longer term example as a collective for the sport.
I can see the difficulty for both sides trying to satisfy the masses, I just think personally that both Hartley and Manu have been treated way beyond the limit of their crimes, for me incidents such as the Clark incident rank much higher and I don't believe Hartley or Manu deserve the level of incarceration they have received, but again I reiterate I know why they have, they have been punished as much for the image it sets as the crime itself, I don't agree with it but there you go.
What Hartley did wasn't really much lets be honest but it canno't be condoned and we don't want small incidents ignored to encourage moments to esculate into the type of incident that we saw Clark involved in a few years ago.
What Hartley did was little more than rub heads aggressively, but he has been made example again which I think is unfair, were he not an England player not much would have been reported in the media etc and it would have gone largely unnoticed.
Hartley is a very good player and one who wants to get into the oppositions face and win, teams need players like Hartley and I'm not sure anyone ever won the world cup being nice, he didn't get sent off doing what he did so I maintain I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Hi Dave, I generally agree with what you have said in this post. Maybe I am easily offended. I have certainly got fed up with the polarisation of opinions that I feel the doom mongers have been attempting to portray.

Agreed that this time Hartley didn't do much, but with his track record (second to none in world rugby?) and the fact that it was something he did "deliberately" as opposed to losing his cool and lashing out in the heat of the moment (as with Matt Smith), he was always on very, very thin ice.

From memory, most of the people doing the slaughtering for this latest incident are people like Matt (the pratt) Dawson taking the Sunsational point of view. Hartley just happened to be the latest person to fall into their line of OTT fire. Again, from memory, most people on this thread have followed the topic title - Hartley AGAIN. It is the repeated, violent offending that many, myself included are fed up with. Straw and camel's back etc.

Manu I do feel a bit sorry for. Thumping Ashton was an overreaction to provocation (although I personally feel that Ashton got his comeuppance as he was/is a serial cheap shot merchant). Jumping in the harbour and the bunny ears was just youthful high spirits, even if potentially dangerous (harbour) or not the right time or place (both). Yes, the taxi incident is much more serious but I cannot believe those people who lump all 4 incidents together to try and make a case for their over exaggerated recriminations.

All in all, we are not very far apart in our views

[The Boy Dave]

All in all, we are not very far apart in our views

I agree and it's not easy to read or write views in the manner they are meant although I understood straight away jgriffins tongue in cheek comment.
I think rugby is in danger of alienating it's best people with this image issue as often the best players and coaches can be controversial due to their big involvement and desire to win.
I will certainly miss watching both Manu and Hartley playing for England, both victims of their own honesty and unwillingness to shy away from a challenge IMO.

[4071]

I have noticed a common trait with the Cockers out brigade and the Hartley apologists.

I have too. They disagree with views that you hold.

That's actually the ONLY common trait.

However, rather than engage with their points, what you are doing is lumping together all people who disagree with you - regardless of any other common ground they may or may not share - and allocating them as people a negative character trait. This allows you to attack the characters of your opponents rather than their arguments.

Classic ad hominem.

Pretty transparent, though.


EDIT: Similar to the strange move that jgriffin tried in his earlier post, in which he demanded that the Doom mongers respond to his points on this issue, even though the people he classes as doom mongers do not necessarily share a common ground on any given subject.

[mol2]

From and Englabd point of view, I one am relieved Hartley has been banned.

He is a liability on the pitch, as we saw against us at Twickenham he cannot control himself under pressure. Yellow card or red card - it could have costed England dear and I don't see him as being that outstanding a player to merit the risk.

Is he better than Youngs? Possibly a stronger scrummager but it's marginal and nowhere near in the loose.
Is he much better than Webber? Not hugely.
Might be just the opportunity for the likes of Cowan-Dickie to gain experience for the future.

[L Smith]

My argument for the Manu situation is that he made a mistake, admitted to it and was punished to the tune of missing a home World cup, not to mention the long term financial implications of missing it.

My natural instinct is to be less gracious with Dylan but I feel that this would be quite hypocritical so I guess I'll just leave him alone to serve his punishment without being too judgmental.

[Bill W (2)]

My argument for the Manu situation is that he made a mistake, admitted to it and was punished to the tune of missing a home World cup, not to mention the long term financial implications of missing it.

My natural instinct is to be less gracious with Dylan but I feel that this would be quite hypocritical so I guess I'll just leave him alone to serve his punishment without being too judgmental.

Without being judgemental Manu committed on (off field) indescretion which the judicial authorities punished him for. Of itself this punishment did not rule him out of the world cup (There was no custodial sentence). Lancaster ruled otherwise.

Hartley committed an on field offence which the RFU punished with a sentence that essentially ruled him out of the World Cup. Lancaster went along with this.

I might question why Lancaster agonised over the Hartley decision whislt condemning Manu immediately before even hearing the detail.

[drc_007]

I do wonder if Manu's injury had already effectively ruled him out of the world cup and Lancaster simply used his misdemeanour as a way of being seen to lay down the law.

[drc_007]

The Daily Mail, which appears to the mouthpiece for the RFU is reporting Hartley may never play for England again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... aster.html

[APM16]

Hartley's international career is finished
Time for us all to move on
at least until the Saints Game assuming no French team want to sign him


Au revoir Dylan !:
you won't be missed

[Cagey Tiger]

I have noticed a common trait with the Cockers out brigade and the Hartley apologists.

I have too. They disagree with views that you hold.

That's actually the ONLY common trait.

However, rather than engage with their points, what you are doing is lumping together all people who disagree with you - regardless of any other common ground they may or may not share - and allocating them as people a negative character trait. This allows you to attack the characters of your opponents rather than their arguments.

Classic ad hominem.

Pretty transparent, though.


EDIT: Similar to the strange move that jgriffin tried in his earlier post, in which he demanded that the Doom mongers respond to his points on this issue, even though the people he classes as doom mongers do not necessarily share a common ground on any given subject.

Firstly, I do apologise for my poor wording as I should have said that the common trait was with some (not all) of the Cockers out brigade and Hartley apologists. For those I wrongly tarred with this brush, I am sorry.

It's probably due to my wording but you've got it the wrong way round 4071. As I have said numerous times, we are all entitled to our opinions and I have no problems with people holding different views to me and saying so. It is not the views that I have problem with, it is the way that sometimes a reply to a post is partly or entirely a personal swipe at the original poster. The lack of my addressing their points is because they are immaterial to the point that I am (obviously poorly) trying to get across. It is the personal swipe that I am addressing as being, I feel, unsuitable for the forum. So not ad hominem at all (had to look that one up ). I try to avoid my complaint (about someone taking a personal swipe) from becoming a personal swipe in itself. Not easy, and where it has, like here, I hold my hand up. Hopefully I have cleared things up.

[4071]

From and Englabd point of view, I one am relieved Hartley has been banned.

He is a liability on the pitch, as we saw against us at Twickenham he cannot control himself under pressure. Yellow card or red card - it could have costed England dear and I don't see him as being that outstanding a player to merit the risk.

Is he better than Youngs? Possibly a stronger scrummager but it's marginal and nowhere near in the loose.
Is he much better than Webber? Not hugely.
Might be just the opportunity for the likes of Cowan-Dickie to gain experience for the future.

Trouble is that the hookers behind the two front-runners are either untested or out of form. At his best, Webber is a very useful player. But he's a long way short of his best form right now, and no replacement for Hartley. George may well be, but he's yet to play for England. He is the form selection, and if international experience were no prerequisite then he'd be vying with Youngs for the starting shirt regardless of Hartley's ban. But come the WC international experience is always given more weight when considering players.

It's a worry that two of George, Webber and Cowan-Dickie (whose throwing terrifies me) will be in the WC squad, and one will be in the first choice match-day squad.

I really hope George makes the step up and that Webber recovers some form. It's probably a case of flying pigs if I were to hope that Cowan-Dickie's throwing suddenly becomes adequate.

Hartley is a loss to England - his set-piece play is solid and he's very experienced, which is what you need from a hooker. He can be replaced, but his back-ups have their own risks as well.