• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Aviva Premiership Final - Tigers vs Saints

Barnes is a cheat or at the very worst incompetent.
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.
 
Hartley's had bans for eye gouging, biting and should have had one for forearm dropping on McCaw. There are few offences left in rugby more extreme than these...

Actually, Hartley was banned for "contact with the eye area" not 'gouging'. It was found to be reckless, not with the intentional aim of damaging another player's eyes. As for the biting incident, that whole process was a joke as there were seen to be mitigating circumstances (such as why were Ferris' fingers in Hartley's mouth) and yet he still took the brunt of it.

Hartley has had his share of indiscretions, but has become something of a pantomime villain, mainly due to media hype. He is a pretty decent bloke off the pitch and has been an excellent leader since being given the captaincy at Saints. Players like Martin Johnson and Neil Back also had a long list of misdemeanors against their name but are regarded as heroes - a lot of how a player is perceived by the public now seems to be how the media portrays them. One of the drawbacks of the game having become more professional and high profile.
 
Taylo2, Your a fool, how is a man in the air supposed to stop, afterburners?? It was a good hard fair tackle or would you suggest a limit on how hard a player can tackle.
 
Hartley's had bans for eye gouging, biting and should have had one for forearm dropping on McCaw. There are few offences left in rugby more extreme than these...

The fact that all this has happened and most would say that he's grown up, that he's a good captain, that he was a decent shout to captain England etc., shows a lot of sympathy from most of the public. Hartley could not complain about not getting a second/third/fourth chance. And I don't necessarily think he's a thug like he used to be, because at least this offence wasn't a violent one, but he deserves the punishment because he messed up. It's that simple.

I dunno, Heaslip's kneeing in NZ and Tulagi on Ashton both had far more potential for damage. 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 then bizarrely it is Hartley's comparatively insignificant offense that causes some people to suddenly jump up with this 'worst offense imaginable, wouldn't let him in my clubhouse, totally unsporting, no place for it in the game ever' attitude, and even extending this odd snobbery to anyone that argues that what Hartley did comparatively was not that bad. And then even more weirdly, people go on projecting their views about 'society' and the 'yoof of today' onto what Hartley did.

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)
 
I dunno, Heaslip's kneeing in NZ and Tulagi on Ashton both had far more potential for damage. 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 then bizarrely it is Hartley's comparatively insignificant offense that causes some people to suddenly jump up with this 'worst offense imaginable, wouldn't let him in my clubhouse, totally unsporting, no place for it in the game ever' attitude, and even extending this odd snobbery to anyone that argues that what Hartley did comparatively was not that bad. And then even more weirdly, people go on projecting their views about 'society' and the 'yoof of today' onto what Hartley did.

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)

And who said they were a big fan of Bees Roux? (who plays in Italy not France btw)

And what an earth has Roux or Guildford's off field troubles got to do with not wanting and taking steps to prevent an attitude of disrespect and dissent to the referee to get into rugby.
 
I dunno, Heaslip's kneeing in NZ and Tulagi on Ashton both had far more potential for damage. 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 then bizarrely it is Hartley's comparatively insignificant offense that causes some people to suddenly jump up with this 'worst offense imaginable, wouldn't let him in my clubhouse, totally unsporting, no place for it in the game ever' attitude, and even extending this odd snobbery to anyone that argues that what Hartley did comparatively was not that bad. And then even more weirdly, people go on projecting their views about 'society' and the 'yoof of today' onto what Hartley did.

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)
Nobody is saying that those people are innocent or better than Hartley. We're not overreacting to this, the only reason we're still talking about this is because you keep presenting ridiculous arguments. All the offenses you listed are bad, but just because they're worse, doesn't make Hartley's any better, it was still an idiotic offense, and length aside, he deserves a banning. Also the Citing commision isn't a court, it can't ban players for murder and being Zac Guilford. I do agree with you that violence is worse than verbal abuse, but Hartley has been guilty of both.
 
Actually, Hartley was banned for "contact with the eye area" not 'gouging'.
"Contact with the eye area" is just the technical name for what's more popularly known as gouging. There's no distinction between contact with the eye area and gouging in the IRB's eyes. He was given 26 weeks, a top-end ban for gouging/contact with the eye area (top-end = 24+ weeks).

It was found to be reckless, not with the intentional aim of damaging another player's eyes.
I don't buy that making contact with the eye area twice in one match is just recklessness...

Hartley has had his share of indiscretions, but has become something of a pantomime villain, mainly due to media hype. He is a pretty decent bloke off the pitch and has been an excellent leader since being given the captaincy at Saints. Players like Martin Johnson and Neil Back also had a long list of misdemeanors against their name but are regarded as heroes - a lot of how a player is perceived by the public now seems to be how the media portrays them. One of the drawbacks of the game having become more professional and high profile.
Hartley has a bigger share of indiscretions than most do, and that's why he's got the reputation. It's nothing to do with the media - they're just latching onto the actions that he chose to do. The media wouldn't have anything to say about him if he chose not to act in this way.
 
I dunno, Heaslip's kneeing in NZ and Tulagi on Ashton both had far more potential for damage. 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).
What an English player does is of more consequence to English rugby/people/media than what an Aussie/NZer/etc. does.
Also, what an English player representing England does is of more consequence to the English rugby/people/media than what a, for example, Championship player does.

You have a lot more attention given to you when you represent a country and play in front of tens of thousands.
 
Has the report from the disciplinary been published yet?

There must have been evidence more conclusive than 'because Wayne says so' for an 11 week ban to be handed out.

I'm still waiting for the pdf


Here it is

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/TRF/hartley%20northamptonsaints%20judgment%20may13.ashx.pdf

Those people who think that Barnes, not Hartley was in the wrong, need to read this bit carefully!


[TEXTAREA]The Referee"s report stated:

“Following the award of a penalty out of a scrum, the Northampton hooker looked towards me and said: "You f***ing cheat".

Approximately two minutes before this incident, I had called the Player across and told him to think about the way he was speaking to me. I had done this as on at least two occasions as a scrum was setting he said: "As usual he's against us."

In addition, on two occasions, one at approximately 1.50 left in first half (2 minutes before half time) and one following a penalty at a scrum in Leicester half, the Northampton hooker had asked if he could speak to me. As I said prior to the match that I would speak to the captains if they required further
clarification following the taking of the penalty, I told the player I would speak to him in a moment. When I approached the captain he said: "I don't want to speak to you."[/TEXTAREA]

This reads very much as thought Hartley was acting like, at best a naughty child throwing a tantrum, at worst, an arrogant prick.

How anyone can thing this guy is captaincy material is beyond me.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
The evidence from Barnes is pretty damning, no sympathy for Dylan at all now.
 
Interesting to note that the panel said that Hartley changed his story slightly.

He first said he called Youngs a "f***ing cheat", but then he changed it slightly to that he claimed he said to Tonga'uiha that Youngs was a "f***ing cheat" after the video evidence showed Youngs on the floor and Hartley wasn't looking at him.
 
Referee's report said:
The referee said he was as certain as he could be that the phrase was as he had reported it and he was absolutely sure the words were directed at him. He said that if he had any doubt at all he would have given the benefit of that doubt to the Player. The referee was asked by Mr Duthie whether he could have been mistaken, and whether the Player might have been directing his comments at another player. The referee said that he was as certain as he could be that the words were spoken to him. He said that he was no more than five metres away and that there was nobody in between him and the Player.

I don't think the report is as definite as it could be. "as certain as he could be" is not the same as "absolutely sure" and this comes within the same passage! There is also a section stating that the extra video footage provided is at odds with Wayne Barnes' testimony.

There was never any doubt Hartley would be found guilty - the RFU can hardly be seen to undermine their top referee. There are plenty of discrepancies and the whole thing seems to boil down to one person's word against another. And in that case there was only ever going to be one winner, whether Hartley was actually guilty or not.



 
Just to say I really rate Barnes as a ref and hold him in the highest regard but regardless of if he's good or bad Hartley should never challenge any refs integrity and for such a pointless sin he's paying argubally the biggest price
 
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.

I'm not though, what happened to Hartley will probably happen in an important international game, people will kick up a fuss, and the rules will be relaxed. As soon as a national rugby union looks like they're gonna lose lots of money off a little bit of swearing, they'll kick up a fuss and the rules will be relaxed.
 
[TEXTAREA]The Referee"s report stated:

"Following the award of a penalty out of a scrum, the Northampton hooker looked towards me and said: "You f***ing cheat".

Approximately two minutes before this incident, I had called the Player across and told him to think about the way he was speaking to me. I had done this as on at least two occasions as a scrum was setting he said: "As usual he's against us."

In addition, on two occasions, one at approximately 1.50 left in first half (2 minutes before half time) and one following a penalty at a scrum in Leicester half, the Northampton hooker had asked if he could speak to me. As I said prior to the match that I would speak to the captains if they required further
clarification following the taking of the penalty, I told the player I would speak to him in a moment. When I approached the captain he said: "I don't want to speak to you."[/TEXTAREA]


Makes one wonder why Hartley, completely out of the blue, had this attitude towards Barnes reffing at the scrum!!!

And again there seems to me the weirdest attributions - how can Hartely say to Barnes, about Barnes, 'as usual he's at it again'....

And the don't want to speak to you bit was probably Hartley calming himself down and not saying something rash!
 
I'm not though, what happened to Hartley will probably happen in an important international game, people will kick up a fuss, and the rules will be relaxed. As soon as a national rugby union looks like they're gonna lose lots of money off a little bit of swearing, they'll kick up a fuss and the rules will be relaxed.
To be honest I've been at International matches, HEC matches and Rabo matches as well as lower league games for years and been close on the sideline for alot of Munster games I can say I've heard swearing and all that alot yes but never and I mean never to a ref. Yes sometimes you get the "whats that for" crap but never the issue of calling a ref an F-ing cheat. The swearing isn't the issue it was simply just adding on the issue of accusing a ref's integrity and putting his position in a vulnerable state. And if you do hang around places where this happens frequently then I'd say a) I agree with Smartcooky that your attitude stinks or b) your with a bad crowd and get out ASAP.

As you say how can Hartley say that well Hartley would know Barnes well as been a captain and Barnes been a ref in the league and Barnes had spoken to Hartley on numerous occasions. As in the whole debte that started in the kick directlty to touch. Barnes said the instruction enough times even saying it directly to Hartley as captain and what did Hartley do. Obviously tried to be smart and not instruct his player to listen.
 
I'm not though, what happened to Hartley will probably happen in an important international game, people will kick up a fuss, and the rules will be relaxed. As soon as a national rugby union looks like they're gonna lose lots of money off a little bit of swearing, they'll kick up a fuss and the rules will be relaxed.

If that happens. and we end up with the situation that football has, with players surrounding the referee, waving their hands in his face, screaming and swearing at him, then my almost 50 year association with Rugby Union will end.
 
If that happens. and we end up with the situation that football has, with players surrounding the referee, waving their hands in his face, screaming and swearing at him, then my almost 50 year association with Rugby Union will end.

yeah exactly! and yet, they also never get the ref to change their minds...

But I don't see that happening in Rugby. Not as long the respect, and humility towards everyone remains in the game. Hartley with his thuggish football ways can **** off and go try his luck at Wembley...
 
If that happens. and we end up with the situation that football has, with players surrounding the referee, waving their hands in his face, screaming and swearing at him, then my almost 50 year association with Rugby Union will end.

THis is absolutely mad! Every time I say something about ONE player swearing ONCE at a ref in a ONE OFF FINAL you immediately start mentioning football and loads of players surrounding the referee, almost making physical contact with him and screaming and swearing all the time.

Its not an issue where it is either one extreme or the other!!!
 
Top