Will Dylan Hartley ever learn?

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Don't you think your'e being a bit OTT here?

And comparing Hartley with McCaw, a player who in 327 matches (148 of which were tests) in a career spanning 15 years, was never red carded, never cited or appeared before the judiciary, is just disingenuous as well as bloody well insulting.



Six weeks is a joke regardless of what you have posted. Hartley used an intentional swinging arm and struck an opponent in the head with it. That is Top End by any definition.

[TEXTAREA]10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 8+ weeks

[/TEXTAREA]
Aggravation and mitigation are only guidelines, not hard and fast regulations. I have seen plenty of cases where no mitigation was allowed for an early guilty plea when the player is a known recidivist offender. Case in point, Troy Flavell charged with stamping on an opponent

[TEXTAREA]10.4(b) Stamping/Trampling on an Opponent
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 9+ weeks[/TEXTAREA]

He was charged Top End. Five weeks were added on for his previously poor disciplinary record, and despite claiming remorse and making an early guilty plea, he got NO mitigation. He was suspended 14 for weeks. That was a NZ judiciary for a domestic match and the suspension ruled him out of contention for selection for the All Blacks (IIRC he missed two tests).

You obviously don't watch or play much rugby.

If it didn't connect with the head (SOB was on his way down) it's not even a penalty as the swinging arm wraps around the player.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I doubt many England fans are pleased nonetheless

Well there are plenty of others who carry more, run further, run faster, complete more tackles and get carded less often.

But maybe his real value comes away from the cameras. At Saints his people skills were reputedly very good; EJ, in his own unique way, is a people manager, who maybe values this aspect of the role highly. The 80 mins we see on a Saturday is the product of a squad training and living together for days on end. That's a lot of dynamics that need managing. Dylan Hartley, the Mike Brearley of rugby?

 

[brokenoses]

A longer ban would have been a good chance for George, Taylor and LCD to really step up and elevate competition for the jersey. At the moment England have a hooker blockage in the form of Dylan Hartley. I would like to think Eddie Jones is ruthless enough to not have favourites and pick purely on merit, so I suppose he is looking at leadership. If another stand-out leader emerges then I fancy we will see somebody else in the 2 shirt. There aren't many potential Captains in the squad really. Launchbury and Robshaw are too nice, Itoje and Binny are (arguably) too young/inexperienced and Farrell can annoy ref's.

 

[corny]

It wasn't a top end offence though if taken in isolation. 5 weeks is about right for the sanction. We can argue about the extra added on for poor record of course but ban finishing just in time to play international rugby is not an unusual occurrence.

Northampton the real losers. I know he's a long serving player there but they should cut him loose. He's not interested in helping the team anymore. I've listened to Woods and Mallinder post Leinster and one can read between the lines.....chap thinks he's walking on water given the England exploits. Too good for Saints type of thing.

I wouldn't mind but Englands success happens with or without him and his 'leadership' in my book.

 

[Peat]

Clearly the ERC doesn't agree its intentional. I'll say it again - standard ban.

Well there are plenty of others who carry more, run further, run faster, complete more tackles and get carded less often.

But maybe his real value comes away from the cameras. At Saints his people skills were reputedly very good; EJ, in his own unique way, is a people manager, who maybe values this aspect of the role highly. The 80 mins we see on a Saturday is the product of a squad training and living together for days on end. That's a lot of dynamics that need managing. Dylan Hartley, the Mike Brearley of rugby?

I'd agree that's probably the big thing about Hartley, the whole leadership gig, but as seen with Saints its not the difference between success and failure. As and when he gets moved on, I doubt we'll be weeping salt tears once the consequences are seen.

 

[McTallshort]

Don't you think your'e being a bit OTT here?

And comparing Hartley with McCaw, a player who in 327 matches (148 of which were tests) in a career spanning 15 years, was never red carded, never cited or appeared before the judiciary, is just disingenuous as well as bloody well insulting.



Six weeks is a joke regardless of what you have posted. Hartley used an intentional swinging arm and struck an opponent in the head with it. That is Top End by any definition.

[TEXTAREA]10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 8+ weeks

[/TEXTAREA]
Aggravation and mitigation are only guidelines, not hard and fast regulations. I have seen plenty of cases where no mitigation was allowed for an early guilty plea when the player is a known recidivist offender. Case in point, Troy Flavell charged with stamping on an opponent

[TEXTAREA]10.4(b) Stamping/Trampling on an Opponent
LE – 2 weeks
MR – 5 weeks
TE – 9+ weeks[/TEXTAREA]

He was charged Top End. Five weeks were added on for his previously poor disciplinary record, and despite claiming remorse and making an early guilty plea, he got NO mitigation. He was suspended 14 for weeks. That was a NZ judiciary for a domestic match and the suspension ruled him out of contention for selection for the All Blacks (IIRC he missed two tests).

Oh no your insulted how will I ever sleep

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

You obviously don't watch or play much rugby.

If it didn't connect with the head (SOB was on his way down) it's not even a penalty as the swinging arm wraps around the player.

Well no, it was a forearm to the neck or back, both probably at least yellow card offences.

 

[munstermuffin]

You obviously don't watch or play much rugby.

If it didn't connect with the head (SOB was on his way down) it's not even a penalty as the swinging arm wraps around the player.

As Alpha said it would probably still be yellow.

A kind of similar example in Tuilagi vs Munster. Being honest I wasn't sure it was yellow but here was scenarios.
Hit where he did - Yellow
Few inches lower would probably be red as it would've got Billy Hollands head.
If Billy was up a few inches it would've been a super clean out.

I'm not saying Hartley didn't deserve red as I think based on history his intent was malicious.
But in a case like Tuilagi example. He had no malice but is judged on basically the outcome.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

As Alpha said it would probably still be yellow.

A kind of similar example in Tuilagi vs Munster. Being honest I wasn't sure it was yellow but here was scenarios.
Hit where he did - Yellow
Few inches lower would probably be red as it would've got Billy Hollands head.
If Billy was up a few inches it would've been a super clean out.

I'm not saying Hartley didn't deserve red as I think based on history his intent was malicious.
But in a case like Tuilagi example. He had no malice but is judged on basically the outcome.

No malice? Don't believe that for a second.

 

[j'nuh]

Six weeks is a joke regardless of what you have posted. Hartley used an intentional swinging arm and struck an opponent in the head with it. That is Top End by any definition.

I think your choice of words, whilst probably correct, makes it sound worse than it actually was. He did intentionally swing his arm which did connect with SOB's head. But I don't think he was intentionally swinging for SOB's head. It looks to me as if Hartley was intending to strike the body with a swinging arm but accidentally got the head because SOB was falling at the time. I'm not totally convinced that I'm right about this, maybe it was intentionally striking the head, but I certainly don't think it's obviously a case of Hartley attempting to strike the head.

Aggravation and mitigation are only guidelines, not hard and fast regulations. I have seen plenty of cases where no mitigation was allowed for an early guilty plea when the player is a known recidivist offender.

He was charged Top End. Five weeks were added on for his previously poor disciplinary record, and despite claiming remorse and making an early guilty plea, he got NO mitigation. He was suspended 14 for weeks. That was a NZ judiciary for a domestic match and the suspension ruled him out of contention for selection for the All Blacks (IIRC he missed two tests).

I mean, yes, but I would argue that all cases should have some kind of small reduction because of a guilty plea. (Excluding one-week bans, where it's impossible to reduce the sentence.) Incentivising guilty pleas stops players automatically challenging decisions. (If there's no penalty associated with challenging a decision, what does a player have to lose from doing it?)

Andrew Hore, in a nearly identical case (but much more clearly deliberately aimed at the head) had his high-end sentence reduced from 8 weeks to 5 because of guilt/remorse. Tuilagi had a 10-week sentence reduced to 5 for punching Ashton, on account of his guilt plea and "inexperience". Andy Hazell repeatedly punched and kneed someone in the face, got 16 weeks, increased by 2 for past conduct then 4 taken off for remorse and guilty plea. Like... one-week off for Hartley's plea is hardly egregious when it seems standard that guilty pleas reduce sentences by substantially longer.

 

[smartcooky]

You obviously don't watch or play much rugby.

If it didn't connect with the head (SOB was on his way down) it's not even a penalty as the swinging arm wraps around the player.

Rubbish! You do not need to use a violent swinging arm to wrap in a tackle. If you do, and this a part of your standard tacking technique, then you are heading for a world of trouble with referees and disciplinary officials.

I think your choice of words, whilst probably correct, makes it sound worse than it actually was. He did intentionally swing his arm which did connect with SOB's head. But I don't think he was intentionally swinging for SOB's head. It looks to me as if Hartley was intending to strike the body with a swinging arm but accidentally got the head because SOB was falling at the time. I'm not totally convinced that I'm right about this, maybe it was intentionally striking the head, but I certainly don't think it's obviously a case of Hartley attempting to strike the head.

The question is, why was he using a swinging arm in the first place? There is categorically NO merit in doing what he did. If he was lining up the player for a swinging forearm to his opponent's kidney area then the only reason he could be doing that is to intentionally injure his opponent, and that action is still striking according to the Laws. Swinging your arms to strike a player is absolutely no part of making a tackle.

Just bloody well watch this...

I find it impossible to believe that his intention here was to clean out or tackle. He was trying to injure his opponent. Pure and simple.

I mean, yes, but I would argue that all cases should have some kind of small reduction because of a guilty plea. (Excluding one-week bans, where it's impossible to reduce the sentence.) Incentivising guilty pleas stops players automatically challenging decisions. (If there's no penalty associated with challenging a decision, what does a player have to lose from doing it?)

Andrew Hore, in a nearly identical case (but much more clearly deliberately aimed at the head) had his high-end sentence reduced from 8 weeks to 5 because of guilt/remorse. Tuilagi had a 10-week sentence reduced to 5 for punching Ashton, on account of his guilt plea and "inexperience". Andy Hazell repeatedly punched and kneed someone in the face, got 16 weeks, increased by 2 for past conduct then 4 taken off for remorse and guilty plea. Like... one-week off for Hartley's plea is hardly egregious when it seems standard that guilty pleas reduce sentences by substantially longer.

Fair enough, but we are talking about Hartley here who has now had, count 'em, SEVEN appearances in front of the judiciary in nine years (SIX of them in the last four years) . Do you not think that someone who as appeared so often before the courts charged with such violent offences as biting, punching and head butting, should at some point lose their right to lenience for being polite and remorseful, particularly when they have a proven track record of going right back out onto the field and doing it again. A what point does the judiciary say enough is enough?

IMO, its high time WR introduced a three-strikes-and-you're-out regulation... three Citings resulting in guilty verdicts and suspension should get you 12 months out of the game.

 

[munstermuffin]

No malice? Don't believe that for a second.

Who Tuilagi?

I said Hartley had malice. Tuilagi had aggression but I don't believe he went for cheap shot

 

[j'nuh]

The question is, why was he using a swinging arm in the first place? There is categorically NO merit in doing what he did. If he was lining up the player for a swinging forearm to his opponent's kidney area then the only reason he could be doing that is to intentionally injure his opponent, and that action is still striking according to the Laws. Swinging your arms to strike a player is absolutely no part of making a tackle.

Just bloody well watch this...

I find it impossible to believe that his intention here was to clean out or tackle. He was trying to injure his opponent. Pure and simple.

Please read again, I am actually agreeing with you on all of these counts. I think he is illegally swinging his arm, he is doing it intentionally and that he does strike the head. Regardless of whether it is aimed at the head, it deserves some kind of punishment.

But I do not think he's trying to swing for SOB's head. He swings for a body shot - which is still illegal, but a much lesser offence - but accidentally connects with the head. See 22s in, keeping in mind it is in slow motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kvJy7dg9U&t=22s

Now suppose it was just a body shot, what would we be looking at? A yellow card and no ban arguably? Maybe a week or two? The question is - how much do you punish Hartley for the recklessness that led to his arm connecting with SOB's head? tbh, I'm okay with mid-end for this, where high-end is reserved for intentional or repeatedly smacking someone in the face.

Fair enough, but we are talking about Hartley here who has now had, count 'em, SEVEN appearances in front of the judiciary in nine years (SIX of them in the last four years) . Do you not think that someone who as appeared so often before the courts charged with such violent offences as biting, punching and head butting, should at some point lose their right to lenience for being polite and remorseful, particularly when they have a proven track record of going right back out onto the field and doing it again. A what point does the judiciary say enough is enough?

IMO, its high time WR introduced a three-strikes-and-you're-out regulation... three Citings resulting in guilty verdicts and suspension should get you 12 months out of the game.

I mean, yeah possibly. I'm with you that punishments in general need reviewing, some sentences are too harsh, but more commonly, some are far too lenient. Guilty pleas cutting your sentence in half is ridiculous. My own personal pet bug: players serving half their punishment during breaks in the season, or through minor tournaments that they weren't going to be playing in anyway. There are improvements to be made.

re: guilty pleas, even for repeat offenders, I'd rather keep the guilty plea incentive. The point of it is that people who know they are guilty will take the plea and reduce their sentence, leaving only those with strong cases contesting their punishments. If you take the incentive away, people who are guilty and know themselves to be may contest their punishment aiming to get off on a technicality.

 

[anderton46]

I think with anyone like Hartleys record much much more severe consequences should occur. Minimum 12 weeks ban + whatever is normally fair.

You can't try and blind people and hand out brain damage from blows to the head and then get the same ban as someone who has done nothing beforehand.

 

[Which Tyler]

I agree with increasing bans for repeated acts of thuggery; and I'd suggest that it needs to be codified as well - not in a "3-strikes and you're out" way; we'll leave that to the American judicial system.
Let's say you get the first 3 offences for foul play at normal rate; then a 50% increase for each subsequent (so 150% for the 4th; 200% for the 5th etc).

 

[Which Tyler]

Incidentally, we now have another entry for the "how the hell is that not a life ban?" club; joinign such distinguished peers as Calum Clark (32W), Duncan McRae (7), Kevin Mealamu (0) & Julien Dupuy (23W):

Yellow carded at the time (gee, thanks for the support TJs); and 3 years now

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/sickening-inexplicable-moment-rugby-player-12323857

<iframe src='//players.brightcove.net/4221396001/V19oeQPdg_default/index.html?videoId=5249041161001&applicationId=WALESONLINE%20Embed%20Offsite' allowfullscreen frameborder=0 width='640px' height='360px'></iframe>
Ref did indeed suffer whiplash, though I've no idea the severity

 

[smartcooky]

Now suppose it was just a body shot, what would we be looking at? A yellow card and no ban arguably? Maybe a week or two? The question is - how much do you punish Hartley for the recklessness that led to his arm connecting with SOB's head? tbh, I'm okay with mid-end for this, where high-end is reserved for intentional or repeatedly smacking someone in the face.

This is similar to punching, and should be treated as such

Take a swing and miss, you can be penalised - 10.4 (m) "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship"

A swing and contact with the body could get you a yellow card, or even a red card if it was serious enough (a kidney punch or a punch in the gonads.

A swing and contact with the head is pretty certain to you an early shower.

The point is, if you take a swing at a player with a stiff arm or a punching action, intending it as a body blow, but the player slips and you clatter him in the head, itis not a excuse. You have only yourself to blame for the walk you will be taking to the showers, and the few weeks you'll spend watching the game rather than playing it.

I agree with increasing bans for repeated acts of thuggery; and I'd suggest that it needs to be codified as well - not in a "3-strikes and you're out" way; we'll leave that to the American judicial system.
Let's say you get the first 3 offences for foul play at normal rate; then a 50% increase for each subsequent (so 150% for the 4th; 200% for the 5th etc).

Yep,I like that. Its better than the the three strikes idea.

 

[McTallshort]

Love the word Thuggery. Always describes nasty chavs kicking a prone target on the floor or a nasty bloke smacking someone smaller than him in a road rage incident not a bit of biff on a rugby pitch FFS.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

It doesn't matter matter what he was trying to do.
What he did was throw a swinging clothesline and connected with a guys head.
That is what he should be punished for.

 

[Which Tyler]

Love the word Thuggery. Always describes nasty chavs kicking a prone target on the floor or a nasty bloke smacking someone smaller than him in a road rage incident not a bit of biff on a rugby pitch FFS.

"Thuggery" is a touch hyperbolic for the latest Hartley incident; which I'd describe more as "a rugby incident". However, that specific individual also has history for gouging, biting and headbutting - all of which are rightly described as "thuggery"