Sorry, this story is unavailable
I agree with your first paragraph but the second is again speculation which while it may be possibly true it could be taken as making excuses for Hartley and inferring Ferris was also guilty.
As I said we simply don't know for sure. People are entitled to their opinions on it but as time goes by people seem to turn these opinions into what they think are facts
Posted 18:33 04th April 2012
@7ton I agree with you completely, this is why Hartley, 5 years after a justified ban is treated as pantomime villain for every innocuous bit of play he's involved in and Ferris is treated as a saint in every piece of questionable play he's involved in.
One note though, compare and contrast "the Player held Rob Hawkins┐ right arm under his own right arm pit and pulled the arm in the opposite direction to its natural bend." with"....grasp the Player around the head or neck and to roll the Player's body in an anti-clockwise direction" obviously the outcomes of each event were different but one might argue that the latter outcome might have been different as a result of Ferris being given a very strong incentive to release his grip.
Posted 15:29 04th April 2012
Exactly so we simply don't know and most of the posts here are just sheer speculation and some even slanderous. Trouble is people read them enough times and believe them to be facts and then in 3 or 5 years later spout them out to be facts.
All we really do know is that Hartley was found guilty and banned for 8 weeks. The TV replays were not that clear.
I don't see why the IRB couldn't put out a proper report on their website stating the details. I am not overconfident about newspaper reports and even if they are all similar they may all have had the same source
Posted 14:10 04th April 2012
Actually fascinating reading, Ferris appears to have denied putting his hand near Hartley's face, the committee disagreed saying that the evidence available suggests that his hand must have been around the area of Hartley's jaw and that Hartley was not in a position to have sought out the hand to bite it.
Seems that there was an attempt to introduce self-defence into the argument which was rejected on the basis that there were no rules to cover it and they didn't want to introduce a precedent (understandable in a confrontational sport).
Basis of decision seems to be that 1. Ferris action was not (or could not be proved to be) deliberate 2. Hartley should be used to being at the bottom of the ruck and therefore should not have felt sufficiently threatened to have felt the need to commit an act of foul play himself.
All seems a bit too grey to me.
Posted 12:36 04th April 2012
@7ton - "The independent disciplinary panel ruled Hartley's reaction to finding Ferris' finger inadvertently in or near his mouth was "not justifiable" and banned him until 14 May." Can't find the actual judgement anywhere, but this is the Guardian report of the report.
This specific quote is repeated verbatim in most papers suggesting its a direct quote from either the report or a press release.
Posted 12:12 04th April 2012
I have been away for a few days, but thank you for posting the tackle of Tipoki during the Maori-Lions game. It enforces my points excellently.
I think you are right: it could easily have ended in an injury as severe as O'Driscoll's. It was mere good fortune that it didn't. The referee's reaction reveals a lot about the way the game was being played at the time of the two incidents.
Posted 08:56 04th April 2012
jamesliveinhope You say "The reason Hartley didn't complain of a finger in his mouth was most likely as a result of the ref saying that he was going to send someone off."
Do you have any clear evidence that the finger was in the mouth when Hartley decided to bite it and that he didn't snap at it when it was outside of his mouth?
Posted 22:56 03rd April 2012
@liam - sorry, too tight to pay for my internet news but found the quote.
Not sure that Ferris had anything to be cleared, there was no citing, no referee's caution. Not that that stops many people using the vast array of Hartley's alleged mis-demeanors as evidence of wrongdoing. "However to do that would have been to rely on the anecdotal baggage surrounding the player and not on the facts before them."
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the bite didn't happen or wasn't deliberate and that's the reason for the ban. The reason Hartley didn't complain of a finger in his mouth was most likely as a result of the ref saying that he was going to send someone off.
Would say though, if someone was attempting a judo throw using my mouth, he'd need to find another method of pointing the way in future.
I have to say though, leaving aside the Ferris/Hartley incident (to give Ferris the benefit of the doubt as to how much intent there was in the location of his finger).
Surely there has to be some form of sanction against the player provoking the reaction. I remember Grewcock's sending off for the Lions and clear photographic evidence of Keven"probably the cleanest player in the world isn't he? "Mealamu's fishooking. Yet nothing done about that aspect of it.
Posted 12:19 03rd April 2012
Quotes in the times, you'll have to Google for the rest. "Ferris' finger was in or near Hartley's mouth as a consequence of his attempts to clear the England player from a ruck with a judo throw. The committee found it difficult to envisage a situation in which a bite would not ne an intentional action"
From the Sunday Times
Posted 17:15 02nd April 2012
@liam2me - got a link?
Posted 15:52 02nd April 2012
Written report clears Ferris (and embarrasses those who tried to vilify him) and shows Hartley got off lightly because he may be the England captain in the near future. Disgusting
Posted 23:24 01st April 2012
meanwhile back in the room - Austin Healey on ESPN last night mentioned an alleged fish-hook in relation to the Hartley incident and how 8 weeks is pretty harsh for what is, in effect, self-defence.
I know there's been a lot of speculation here as to how Ferris fingers cam to be in harms way but Healey seemed to be refeering to a specific allegation. Has anyone actually read or managed to get hold of the actual judgement, I can't find it but it would be nice to see a link.
Posted 21:08 31st March 2012
@justice_4_all on the lighter side as to reply to the All Black haters who hate losing to us so much, such as any1buttheABs and Pog Mahone would be a waste of time. So I couldnt resist having a dig at your reply to sandal which allows me to grin and await your reposte with anticipation. So here goes.
In reply to sandal you state, "Sandal spent 20 years in the UK up until- 2002 so he should be able to tell the difference between Scotland NI, Wales and England. Indeed, they are all members of a colonising country called the United Kingdom who tried to instill their superior belief of King and Country to us poor colonial savages who of course had no culture of our own and if perhaps we did then it was inferior to that of the Mother Country. Note the word Country not Countries. Please excuse me justice but I couldn't resist it. After all we all know how well you all stick together ! Hip hip toot toot raise our glasses and drink to the Queen and the Mother Country. Pip pip.
Posted 10:04 30th March 2012
You say: ""Sandal spent 20 years in the U.K. up until ~2002 so he should be able to tell the difference between Scotland, Wales, NI, and England.""
Jesus mate, are you keeping files on us all? Lol!
My point is that England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (not NI or Eire) have long acted in concert to look after each other's interests. It has gone on so long that they might even think it all right and proper. And I don't think the Irish, Welsh or Scots are quite the hypocrites that England are.
But I don't want to make an enemy of you. A couple of days ago I was thinking you and I should find something more important to argue about.
Fair call, to a degree. The ball had been cleared. But neither Umaga nor Mealamu was ball-watching. No whistle had blown and little time had elapsed. That is not to deny that what they did was wrong. Obviously it was.
As to your (rhetorical) question about the laws of the land; alas, you know that in practice they don't apply to the playing field in NZ or anywhere else. I might be wrong, but I recall that Paul O'Connell punched Keven Mealamu in a scrum in the following test. The sanction was a yellow card, not a jail term.
Posted 07:24 30th March 2012
You haven't answered me on the substance of my postings beyond saying that I was trying to occupy the moral high ground (as if that meant something). Further, you call me a mental defective and a hypocrit. Good points, Justice, and well made.
But with no evidence, you accuse Umaga and Mealamu of a deliberate, pre-planned conspiracy and a coordinated attempt to maim O'Driscoll. Do you want to tell us what motive the players could have had when playing against such second-rate opposition? And do you want to repeat your accusation in a public forum where you must put your name to it?
You attribute the changing of the tackle law to Umaga and Mealamu┐s action being "so vicious and unsportsmanlike that it changed world (sic) opinion", when in fact the law was changed for two purposes: a) to curb practices (clearouts and tackle techniques) that had got out of hand and b) to protect players against injury. You simply deny that on the 2005 tour the Lions had been taking out players beyond the ruck, as if a denial means it wasn't happening. And you deny that O'Driscoll had himself been part of a ruck when he was cleared out, I cannot imagine why, because I am sure everyone else remembers otherwise.
On your other posting, about the nature of the judicial processes in the British Isles, I have addressed that in a previous posting.
If you find my stance on hypocrisy in the British Isles to be evidence of hypocrisy in myself, so be it. I withdraw nothing, and you can feel free to continue thinking of me as prissy and tight-arsed. If you find my presence on these pages as disgusting as the existence of Umaga and Mealamu, then stay at home and pull the duvet over your head.
And while you're there, ask yourself if it was that unusual, or unexpected, that Hartley got the suspension he did.
Posted 05:49 30th March 2012
sandal - play the tape forwards, not backwards. The ball was long gone. Even the touch judge could be heard telling Umaga and Mealamu to put the player down. And it was just as illegal to drive a player into the ground head first then as it is now. It's common assault. Or don't NZ laws apply inside rugby stadia?
Posted 19:15 29th March 2012
@crunchfit - not sure that "style of play" really has much to do with the decision making process. Disciplinary Record however should do. Apart from the major lay-off for gouging 5 years ago, try as I might, can't seem to find any others. (look forward to being corrected).
Should add that his record doesn't seem to have been mentioned in mitigation adding more fuel to the argument that perhaps there was a degree of provocation or self-defence.
Posted 13:56 29th March 2012
I'd really like to know how this outcome was reached. Hartley's poor attitude and nasty style of play can be seen in the majority of matches he's played. The gouge may have been a while ago, but Hartley is still a dirty player.
Hartley should have gotten at least 12 weeks. Given his record and his style of play, I think he deserved more. 8 is certainly not enough, it's a joke.
I agree with others who consider this offense on par with gouging. I don't even understand why players resort to this. I have never even been tempted to try those things, it wouldn't feel right. Not to mention striking is more effective and more respectable and will generally be more lightly punished on and off the pitch.
Posted 11:45 29th March 2012
Justice-4-all "a deliberate, pre-planned conspiracy" ??
With respect I think you have gone a little too far here and didn't think you subcribed to conspiracy theories.
It was a bad incident which changed the laws (or the application of the laws).
I don't think they somehow conspired to injure him prior to the match or before the incident
Posted 10:52 29th March 2012
Why do they bother having minimum bans there if they never seem to use them? It seems that this ban has been times perfectly to allow Hartley to play in the Premiership finals (should NH make them) and the summer tour with England. So in effect he gets a nice 8 week rest after the six nations with very little actual punishment.
Would like to see the bans and punishment rulings made by an independent body of lawyers and judges or something like that, who have no affiliation to the countries involved. It seems to work for the Aussie Rules and RL in Australia. Maybe let the SH control the NH and vise versa? Workable?
Posted 10:47 29th March 2012