Stephen ferris's integrity

Ok I'm not interested in anything he said before the game or any thing Hartley has done previous or the undisputed fact that he did bite Ferris.

But after the published tribunal transcript how long will his reputation take to recover after blatantly telling porkies.

Now I like the player but will refs now listen to any complaints from him justified or not?

Knees I am not sure what you mean by porkies. Are you talking about his explanation on the "Judo" method?

He's done his level best to rile Hartley. Got a response which frankly most peopel would probably do the same when faced with a hand in the face applying pressure. abused hartley when he got some retaliation, cried about it to the ref then gave an account (ref porkies) at the citing tribunal which was not wholly accepted.

his integrity is in question.

Biltong, ok his stretching of the truth shall we say to make out his innocence and the amount by which he was bitten

What lies did he tell.

I have seen the word "porkies" used now three times and nobody has explained what lies he has told?

I thought it was fairly simple. Dylan Hartley sank his teeth into Ferris' flesh. Ferris brought this to the referee's attention. Hartley was cited and was banned from rugby for a couple of months for doing so.

What lies were told?

The accounts don't add up but I don't think Ferris' integrity is called into question- neither he nor Hartley will have an unbiased memory of events, so the truth will be somewhere in the middle of their testimonies, which funnily enough would be what the video evidence supports. I don't think they've deliberately misled the committee, but we all have selective memories that will paint ourselves in a better light and the adrenaline and distractions in a rugby match (not to mention the inevitable knocks to the head and post-match drinking) won't help either

Where his hand was placed, the amount of teeth marks and that they broke the skin.

But like I said I have no problem with Hartley getting a ban for biting its against the laws he got caught and banned as seen fit

broke the skin

Skin wasn't broken Cj, not according to the doctor

That was Knackered, and I think he was stating that this was an area of Ferris' account that did not match up with the other evidence

hence porkies bek!

hartley shouldn't be allowed on the field - dirty filthbag.

ferris shouldn't be allowed on the field - it's a man's sport.

Put it this way stag, you ref a probably the levell I now play. So imagine red player comes up swinging at blue player from a ruck and connects with a punch, blue player says I didnt do anything red player you card for a punch. Now after you find out that blue grabbed red by the love sacs and twisted, hence the punch.

Now blue gets away with a premeditated bit of foul play but now you know what hes like are you going to believe him in another game you ref and he's involved in some off the ball stuff?

But what is Ferris meant to have done other than say Hartley's bit broke the skin?

I'm not defending or accusing - just asking

I get what your saying but its not a matter of a ref believing him. If I see it I'll act on it.

At the top level no different - ref didnt card Hartley as he didnt see it.

I would be amazed if Ferris could accurately remember how many teeth marks there were.

I get what your saying it seems like a bit of an exaggeration and nothing like the analogy you gave. If Ferris had grabbed him by the balls then yes Id be agreeing, but fumbling over info about how many teeth marks and where his hand was I dont see as a big deal.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:But what is Ferris meant to have done other than say Hartley's bit broke the skin?

I'm not defending or accusing - just asking

Well, his clear-out sounds pretty dangerous (and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile) though I have no idea if it is legal. Any technique where the user has to explain that he wasn't actually trying to "twist off his head" is pretty dubious if you ask me and if someone approached my neck like that, they wouldn't get a bite but I can't promise that they wouldn't get a punch either

'I would be amazed if Ferris could accurately remember how many teeth marks there were.'

would you find it difficult to remember the difference between 3 and 4?

pleb!

gowershowerpower wrote:hence porkies bek!

hartley shouldn't be allowed on the field - dirty filthbag.

ferris shouldn't be allowed on the field - it's a man's sport.

It is a man's sport indeed. I wonder why the fake tan club for Wales are allowed to play then?

I do recall seeing some Irish players doing clear-outs using players heads and a twisting choke-grip during the Eng vs Ire match, pretty dangerous and unpleasant imo

Yeh, it seems to have become a regular thing in the sport nowadays, and I can't stand it. In fact, I remember Moore saying something along the lines of: 'player x has done well there, clearing out. Grab the neck and the rest of the body will follow'.

Personally, I think it's an incredibly dangerous technique of clearing out a ruck, and stupid at that. I play 7, and it has happened a few times to me, and it's a terribly awkward uncomfortable pain.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

gowershowerpower wrote:hence porkies bek!

hartley shouldn't be allowed on the field - dirty filthbag.

ferris shouldn't be allowed on the field - it's a man's sport.

It is a man's sport indeed. I wonder why the fake tan club for Wales are allowed to play then?

You mean the fake tan Grand Slam Club in Wales surely

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:But what is Ferris meant to have done other than say Hartley's bit broke the skin?

I'm not defending or accusing - just asking

Well, his clear-out sounds pretty dangerous (and the round the neck clear-out is something I've noticed from Ferris for awhile) though I have no idea if it is legal. Any technique where the user has to explain that he wasn't actually trying to "twist off his head" is pretty dubious if you ask me and if someone approached my neck like that, they wouldn't get a bite but I can't promise that they wouldn't get a punch either

Fair enough it's not pleasant - but no matter how bad his technique at clearing out it doesn't really equate to him telling porkies?

I mean did he say Hartley went for his finger deliberately and had done it a few times in the game and that Ferris is lucky not to loose a finger, and really lay it on thick?

Coz there seems to be an admittance that Hartley bit Ferris on the finger but some strong feeling against Ferris for the evidence he gave

bluestonevedder wrote:Yeh, it seems to have become a regular thing in the sport nowadays, and I can't stand it. In fact, I remember Moore saying something along the lines of: 'player x has done well there, clearing out. Grab the neck and the rest of the body will follow'.

Personally, I think it's an incredibly dangerous technique of clearing out a ruck, and stupid at that. I play 7, and it has happened a few times to me, and it's a terribly awkward uncomfortable pain.

Spot on. I have been saying this forever and said as much on a different thread today.

The irish keep going at players heads and necks then someone will get hurt and eventually we can all also expect some retaliation/self defence.

The fact that ferris doc and some posters have been so indignant about hartley's nibble which did not break the skin while at the same time refusing to attribute any blame at all to ferris has me absolutely astounded. Hartley was after all pinned under a bunch of bodies unable to move his arms.

FFS

Biting is against the rules, clearing out at the rucks is not.

Hartley was cited and banned because he committed an offence and Ferris wasn't because he didn't.

Any provocation from Ferris would have been taken into account when determining Hartley's punishment.

I don't really understand what the issue is?

Triangulartion, you dont bite players. That it one of the scummiest things you can do on a rugby field.

I would have more sympathy if a player got really angry and started shoving and pushing. Then when it calmed down the captain said that his team were not happy at breakdown tactics.

No instead England said nothing and Hartley used his teeth on another player. You cant dismiss it as "a nibble" - biting is one of the most thuggish things in rugby.

Hartley has rightfully received a ban, but can we take a look at changing the rules about handling the heading in the ruck area? Sure, you are not traveling with as much momentum as in a tackle, but I don't see how high tackles can be seen (rightly, if sometimes excessively) as an instant card but head-locking someone and twisting in a ruck is still legal. Any chance of amending that?

Triangulation wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Yeh, it seems to have become a regular thing in the sport nowadays, and I can't stand it. In fact, I remember Moore saying something along the lines of: 'player x has done well there, clearing out. Grab the neck and the rest of the body will follow'.

Personally, I think it's an incredibly dangerous technique of clearing out a ruck, and stupid at that. I play 7, and it has happened a few times to me, and it's a terribly awkward uncomfortable pain.

Spot on. I have been saying this forever and said as much on a different thread today.

The irish keep going at players heads and necks then someone will get hurt and eventually we can all also expect some retaliation/self defence.

The fact that ferris doc and some posters have been so indignant about hartley's nibble which did not break the skin while at the same time refusing to attribute any blame at all to ferris has me absolutely astounded. Hartley was after all pinned under a bunch of bodies unable to move his arms.

FFS

That happens quite frequently at rucks, so it's alright to bite someone if you're trapped in a ruck?

Considering that human bites can in fact be very dangerous as well.

biltongbek wrote:Considering that human bites can in fact be very dangerous as well.

This is true, if the bite does break the skin, it is very likely to get infected

ChequeredJersey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Considering that human bites can in fact be very dangerous as well.

This is true, if the bite does break the skin, it is very likely to get infected

Bite me!

ChequeredJersey wrote:Hartley has rightfully received a ban, but can we take a look at changing the rules about handling the heading in the ruck area?

That's a totally seperate debate.

biltongbek wrote:Considering that human bites can in fact be very dangerous as well.

Exactly, theres no telling where Hartleys been.

The issue is that ferris did not tell the truth when giving evidence, and while knowing what he had done at the time attempted to get a player sent off/cited

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPUrGCUYLt0

Saddle roll clear-out done properly, involving necks, not so good

roddersm wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Hartley has rightfully received a ban, but can we take a look at changing the rules about handling the heading in the ruck area?

That's a totally seperate debate.

True, but one that is prompted by looking at this incident and one that is important nonetheless

Lies - Words to the effect of:

"my hand was not in his face" Video shows otherwise

"the bite broke the skin" Irish doctor says otherwise.

" the bite lasted 3 -4 seconds" - again committee disagree, one bite, quick and simple as in get you f***in' finger out of my mouth.

"I did not put my finger in his mouth" Hartley's head did not move so how did it get there?

Just as bad, I got hold of his head and used it as a lever to move him off the ball. This is a player being bound into the ruck by a number of other players. He is saying that I should have been yellowed at least for dangerous play or at worst red carded for violent conduct.

Knackeredknees wrote:The issue is that ferris did not tell the truth when giving evidence, and while knowing what he had done at the time attempted to get a player sent off/cited

Knackered he brought it to the refs attention thats all. It was one of the most thuggish things a player could do and it was a red card offense.

Hartley has been found guilty of punching players, gouging their eyes and biting them. The man is a scumbag.

I'll say no more on this I think. I know I wont change your minds and you wont change mine.

Red I know we're going to differ on this and that's fair enough, I would have had no problems with Ferris going to the ref if Hartlry had moved his head to bite him, and would have supported a life ban, but after grabbing someone by the face/neck and putting a finger in there mouth while pulling then running to the ref is a little bit off. Then conpounded it by not telling the truth to the citing panel while playing the innocent victim is out of order.

Well I suppose at the end of the day both players walk away worse off, one is banned and the other shunned.

Knackeredknees wrote:Red I know we're going to differ on this and that's fair enough, I would have had no problems with Ferris going to the ref if Hartlry had moved his head to bite him, and would have supported a life ban, but after grabbing someone by the face/neck and putting a finger in there mouth while pulling then running to the ref is a little bit off. Then conpounded it by not telling the truth to the citing panel while playing the innocent victim is out of order.

I don't have a problem with Ferris complaining about the bite on-field - regardless of provocation it's still a bite, and deserved a decent ban. I am disappointed at how he slanted his testimony.

I had a pretty low opinion of Hartley before this, and that hasn't changed.

Knackeredknees wrote:Red I know we're going to differ on this and that's fair enough, I would have had no problems with Ferris going to the ref if Hartlry had moved his head to bite him, and would have supported a life ban, but after grabbing someone by the face/neck and putting a finger in there mouth while pulling then running to the ref is a little bit off. Then conpounded it by not telling the truth to the citing panel while playing the innocent victim is out of order.

+1

For goodness sake Red, i actually wont agree to accept this (lack of) reasoning -

Why is it that you and others are seemingly congenitally incapable of seeing a difference between

1. a player deliberately moving to bite a player without provocation or attack themselves -Vs-

a guy who cant move any other part of his body getting a hand in his face applying considerable pressure

OR

2. a nasty skin breaking bite -Vs-

a bite on the finger which doesnt break the skin

AND what is it with Ferris' conduct playing the victim in all this!?!?!?!

It is pathetic.

I'm surprised that Health & Safety don't demand that Hartley wears a muzzle. Ferris should also be wearing a big girl's blouse.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Lies - Words to the effect of:

"my hand was not in his face" Video shows otherwise

"the bite broke the skin" Irish doctor says otherwise.

" the bite lasted 3 -4 seconds" - again committee disagree, one bite, quick and simple as in get you f***in' finger out of my mouth.

"I did not put my finger in his mouth" Hartley's head did not move so how did it get there?

Just as bad, I got hold of his head and used it as a lever to move him off the ball. This is a player being bound into the ruck by a number of other players. He is saying that I should have been yellowed at least for dangerous play or at worst red carded for violent conduct.

All of these things you have listed as contrary to what Ferris says still have no discernible proof and is based on conjecture, things that the committee assumed possible or probable, but if you believe the decisions of the committee to be infallible, then here are a summary of their decisions:

Ferris received no ban so was not deemed guilty of any offence.

Dylan Hartley received a ban of 8 weeks after being found guilty of biting.

Case closed

Ferris didn't receive a ban because he wasn't cited, nor on trial. He appears to have lied though.

I just don't see where their is undeniable proof that he has lied

Read the report

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I'm surprised that Health & Safety don't demand that Hartley wears a muzzle. Ferris should also be wearing a big girl's blouse.

Knackeredknees wrote:Read the report

I have but still don't see any absolute proof that he lied, only 'possibles & probables' suggested by the committee, nothing concrete enough for character assassination.

I still don't think he lied, he has no motive and a fair bit to lose by lying. But that doesn't mean that he told the truth, just that his recollection of events is probably flawed as is Hartley's

Well Ferris said that scabs were produced but the doctor said the skin was unbroken. You can be mistaken by the number of indentations, or where your arm/hand was. But that was a pure exaggeration. Just like Hartley's cowpat about Ferris' little finger causing him pain by tugging on it.

ulster_on_the_up

1. They are not conjectures. The video shows exactly where Ferris' arm was, and also shows that Hartley's head did not move (so the finger must have been in or very near his mouth for him to bite). In fact the committee deemed it "probable to the requisite standard of proof that Ferris' hand was exerting strong pressure in the region of [Hartley's] mouth".

2. The committee's decisions being fallible cuts both ways.

3. Ferris hasn't been found guilty of anything because he wasn't charged with anything. No-one is suggesting he receives a ban for lying, even if he has lied (which I don't necessarily believe).

The ban simply comes down to committee not accepting that Hartley "had no alternative but to bite in order to defend himself". They accepted that there was provocation (not deliberate), and that in such a position someone would understandably defend themselves, but simply did not see it as a justifiable reaction in this case.