But I wouldn't, because I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL PLAYER.
Its just silly and misleading to call it an attitude problem. Unfortunately for Hartley, he falls into the gap (that is sporting and societal wide) where his behavior is considered 'bad', but not bad enough to have a legitimate problem. And most people are happy enough to shoot people down in that position, despite ignoring or being wholly sympathetic to people who commit far worse offenses (and there are plenty in rugby).
And so you think that being a PROFESSIONAL PLAYER automatically gives that player the right to abuse the referee and call him a fecking cheat?
I dunno, Heaslip's kneeing in NZ and Tulagi on Ashton both had far more potential for damage.
Punishment/suspensions for foul play are not always about
"potential for damage", they never have been, and they never will be.
THen we look to the SH and all these NZ and Aus players are running around naked, beating people in public up and in AA and people seem to accept that they're ill, vunerable, victims etc. And then there is a murderer playing in France (Bees Roux).
And the relevance of this is?
And then bizarrely it is Hartley's comparatively insignificant offense
Calling the referee a "fecking cheat" is NOT in insignificant offence. Allowing it to go unpunished would set a terrible precedent.
Players who abuse match officials have to be stood on
VERY, VERY HARD!!! This is why a player who swears at an opponent gets penalised or told off, while a player who swears at a referee gets an early shower. Its also why a player who punches another player gets a few weeks off, while a player who punches a referee usually gets a lifetime ban.
This section, from he Disciplinary Ruling against Hartley, says it all for me (my emphasis)
[textarea]Swearing at a match official is offensive in its own right, but challenging a referee"s integrity by calling him a cheat exacerbates the offence. Referees have a very difficult job; some make mistakes; some have bad days when their officiating is poor. However, suggesting that the referee is a cheat, particularly in such an offensive manner – that is suggesting that the referee was making erroneous decisions for the benefit of one favoured side over another – represents an attack on an official"s integrity.
It undermines the core values of rugby. That is reprehensible and makes the offending more serious.
Such behaviour requires a significant sanction to mark the Game"s view that respect of match officials must never be undermined.[/textarea]
The level of condemnation for what Hartley did is completely disproportionate tbh, and its only exacerbated by these evasive value judgements that seem to suggest that anything other than a massive ban and punishment for Hartley will result in the average under 9's rugby match turning into a scene out of Kidulthood or Ill Manors (or animal kingdom for the SH posters)
Again, I find your whole attitude to this disgusting. Thank heavens you are in a very tiny minority. Our game would be in serious trouble if jackasses with opinions like yours had prevalency.
Barnes is a cheat or at the very worst incompetent.
Actually, he was excellent in this match, and certainly competent, and he dealt with Hartley the only way possible given that player's appalling attitude.
Where is Cockerills ban his touchline abuse of match officials whch was televised around the world showing the non rugby supporting majority a disgusting display of sportsmanship and evidence that it is he who is nothing more than a thug. I had too suffer verbal abuse from civilised people who asked why this man wasn't sent from the stands, these people also asked why opposition players clapped and had to be held back during a disciplinary decision. All I could come back with is that Leicester do not have any sporting morals and are favoured by the RFU.
The behaviour of the coach in the stand is not within the referee's purview. You should be directing that question to the RFU.
