Ferris doesn't come off too well from this as his testimony was completely bogus - saying that the injury had been severe and that the bite had lasted several seconds, which was completely contradicted by his own team doctor. Hope this was laughed out of court.
Sounds like another example of someone trying to have a pop at Dylan because of his (undeserved) reputation. Who's the bad loser now eh?
HerbieSaint Ferris doesn't come off too well from this as his testimony was completely bogus - saying that the injury had been severe and that the bite had lasted several seconds, which was completely contradicted by his own team doctor. Hope this was laughed out of court.
Sounds like another example of someone trying to have a pop at Dylan because of his (undeserved) reputation. Who's the bad loser now eh?
Unfortunately Dylan, he has been banned for 8 weeks and Ferris hasn't. And it will yet more fuel to the trolls
Ferris is uniquely discredited by this report. Even his own doctor did not agree with him fully. But while I am personally gutted that an international flanker of his class resorts to a level of gamesmanship that I had hoped was beneath him - we have to see it for what it is and take steps.
Dylan sadly has to suck it up once again, but he can be rightly proud of his record and achievements. He comes out of this smelling of roses - no doubt captains ones in due course.
There is enough obfuscation and lawyer-speak here to make any action against Ferris highly unlikely. That is a shame; and that is where the true 'disrepute' lies. A panel can see a players claims as contradicted by the video evidence, see the dubious witness as having exerted Strong pressure in an inappropriate place, concluded that the alleged offender could not have extended to make a deliberate bite, and the net result is still a ban for the other player...
This decision, with one credible witness banned for weeks while another cannot even turn up in person is shameful. How you explain it to the aspiring 12 year olds is beyond me.
Saints have tried to play it straight for years now. Our 'family' club reputation is at stake, etc. We don't 'do' citing, etc, as if somehow harking back to the amateur era will shame others into not taking cheap shots to get penalties, cards or worse. Well, what has it got us?
I personally won't risk taking (non 'rugby') friends to the next Tigers game. It's gone too far. What can we expect this time? Broken jaws, hair pulled out by the roots, reprisal limbs breaks or more ligaments torn by dropped knees? It's a game, FFS.
Face it. The current approach is not working. It makes dirty teams play ever dirtier, and chancers even chancier. I gave a lot of thought to heavier weight legal teams etc, but it really wouldn't be enough. Although, yes, we should have the team in place to take the next punch throwing incident to court - the way we are going that is inevitable sooner rather than later.
We have the cash, so the only solution I can suggest is that we have 4 very high tech cameras on each target player for every game - 60 cameras if need be - and we gift wrap a little CD for each citing commissioner and official post game. And yes, unofficially at away or international gamesif need be. Maybe a dedicated one for managers' behaviour too. Action is taken or it goes on the web within 36 hours. No need with most teams, or most players, frankly, but we know who the risky ones are.
Or we could just bin IRB Reg 10.4 (l), allow rucking out and retaliation and the game to police itself again. The fear is that it will break professionals that we spend a lot of time building. But guess what, they're getting broken anyway - and to no avail.
Mr Ferris - hang your head in shame - and pray you never have to play in Franklins Gardens. You're a disgrace to your team, your province and the game.
I know you aren't allowed to tackle above the neck, but is it firstly acceptable to do what Ferris was attempting, trying to role a 16 stone (?) guy out of a ruck by twisting his neck and head?
Calum, rightly gets a hefty ban for rolling a player out of a ruck by twisting an arm and subsequently breaking it, is the fact that Dylan didn't allow his neck to be broken the reason Ferris doesn't get a ban?
This is more of a stitch up than the sails on the Mary Rose!
The more I think about this the more I am convinced the outcome should have read.
1. Player found to have been held on the floor and incapable of moving.
2. Hand holding said player allowed fingers to stray into players mouth.
3. Little nip applied to encourage the finger to be removed.
4.Grow up Ferris you big girls blouse!
This would have allowed sanctions against biting to remain - and to differentiate between defensive nip and offensive actions.
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
To my mind the only questionable outcome is the suspension - whether it should have been imposed at all and the length of it. Ferris' actions and evidence are largely irrelevant in the sense that it is accepted that Dylan bit his finger, so the only possible conclusions are whether this was a deliberate action or a self defense reaction. Since the panel states that no actions of self defense are acceptable, or justifiable, they pushed themselves into a corner where they had to find Dyl guilty of a deliberate act.
Their summary infers they considered the offence relatively minor under the circumstances and yet they handed out quite a severe suspension. They should have imposed a nominal suspension of say one match and warned him as to his future conduct.
Two recent citings and in both Committees are making things up because there is no guidance. In Dyl's case the only incriminating evidence was that self defence is not allowed. OK but given that there circumstances and the injury are almost @#$%& for tat. Case dismissed.
Tuilagi gets 4 weeks for an assault and Dyl gets 8 for self protection. The world of rugby continues in it's mad downward spiral.
The evidence of Ferris is discredited at every turn and Dylan gets a very sympathetic hearing and an acknowledgement, based on fact, that he could not have moved his head to bite said finger-it was finger to mouth not vice versa.
And yet they felt compelled to give Dylan a ban. It would seem this was to uphold the principle that self defence is no defence.
As a rugby fan with no team affiliation - I played years a go, support England and now coach minis at a community club, I have been following this and all the other citing threads with interest.
Ferris has been castigated for a) trying to rip Hartley's head off and b) bringing the alleged bite to the attention of the referee, and Hartley has been cast as the wronged innocent party.
Given that Hartley himself is guilty of crimes a) and b) listed above in a previous 'England' v 'Ireland' encounter, albeit at club level, Hatley is coming across as a bit of a sanctimonious pillock by complaining about his so called 'harsh' treatment. In truth he could well be complaining about the perceived injustice of the citing process because the guy who bit him in similar circumstances didn't get cited!
All that aside, for me the whole citing process is a joke!
Hartley gets a ban for something that could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and quite frankly should have been left on the pitch - the Irish Team Manager who brought it to the attention of the citing commissioner should be brought up 'before the beak' (the media anyone?) for wasting everyone's time, although it begs the question whether Hartley's previous against Ulster was at the heart of the complaint?
The ban Clark received was a political decision, because if intent to hurt had been found, then a five year ban would have been imposed, which in itself is ridiculous. However, looking at the video evidence it seemed pretty clear that Clark deliberately tried to intimidate Hawkins by bending his arm back and thereby inflicting pain - all this after the whistle had blown. Clark was well briefed before his hearing, but anyone who has ever played the game could see straight through his words and could see exactly what he was trying to do.
The citing process, together with the offences and sanctions need to be severely overhauled and injected with a healthy dose of rugby common sense ideally by a group of well respected coaches and ex players e.g. Mallinder, Cockerill, Barnes and Johnson. Just a thought.................
I assume the club will appeal this appalling attempt to mete out justice despite the clear facts pointing to 'the Player' doing the very least he could do to ensure offending digit stopped causing him some 'discomfort'.
CC was given the ban he probably deserved. DH has received rough justice.
Never has a citing decision been more about fitting the decision to ban the offender regardless of the facts than this.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2012 17:09 by Towsaint.
Given what it could have been, 8 weeks is a let-off.
Nobody is suggesting there wasn't a bite. We are only talking about severity and mitigating factors.
Just as you can't have players biting anything that comes within tasting distance, there should have been a balance struck that demonstrated that you cannot put hands about the face with impunity and immunity. Sadly, the committee did not go this far. It is left to we keyboard warriors to lampoon Ferris's honour and dignity.
Kentish exile i commend you for being the being the Only voice of reason on this preteen mickey shaking forum! Hartley one of the greatest thugs to play the game, has no grounds to slag of ferris, since it is very similar to the situation last year, where he tried to remove wannebergs head from his shoulders while squeezing his own forearm into wannebergs mouth. Then he goes crying to the ref about the injury he recieved while in the process of decapitation.
Secondly everyone here has been slandering ferris with talks off fishhooking! Absolute bollox, nobody fishhooks with their baby finger. Any talks off ferris being at fault are complete rubbish. Anyone still arguing this point is an idiot. It's his baby finger for feck sake. Grow up and admit yer player is a common thug. As regards to the inconsistencies with regards to ferris saying the wound was scabbed over and the doctor saying there was no blood. That is a highly likely scenario, scabs form as part of the healing process from trauma, this would still occur if the top layer of skin wasn't broken as the doctor looked at it immediately after it occurred. It most definitely blistered during the game and the blister would have ruptured whilst still playing.
Being a fully paid up member of the front row union with scars to prove it, I find the comments about the size of fingers are a side show , any finger in the mouth can provide leverage and as for strength in your pinky my rock climbing son in law can hang from the wall bars by his. Any fingers in or around the face are a danger. From my viewing of the video Hartley did not seem to move his head seeking a finger he stayed in one position over the ball . Ferris was actually cleared out by his own player. I find it hard to accept that the explanation that Ferris' finger may have inadvertantly entered Hartley's mouth was accepted but Hartley inadvertantly nipped it wasn't. As someone has pointed out lots of things seem to happen around Ferris and you begin to wonder why. If Ferris says he didn't know who bit him , who fingered Hartley. Overall the stories do not hang together,as for blaming the Irish manager all can not be laid at his ddor, the ref highlighted the incident so the CTO had to look at it.
The head was well used by Ireland on the day. In about the 8th minute Morgan broke from the base of the scrum and was met by his opposite number and thrown wrestling style by the head. Later Cole was grabbed by the irish hooker around the head as he tried to twist him out of a ruck.
While not condoning what Harley did , I feel he has been hard done by and that Ferris himself has been lucky to escape a citing, but then again England said at the WC they would not cite. I think refs will be watching Mr Ferris a little more closely and he want to feel himself lucky he his playing back row not front row.
I think my esteemed colleague of the front row union and I are in violent agreement with each other on this incident: that things just don't stack up.
However, I don't know exactly how the citing process works, for all I know the referee may well have said something to the citing commissioner, in which case the citing would still have occurred, but having read the full transcript where Ferris states in his testimony that "It was the Irish Team manager who made the complaint to the Citing Commissioner" suggests that it was as a result of said Team Manager that the citing commissioner looked at the incident. If this was the sole reason, then I restate: that the Irish Team Manager should be brought to book, especially given some of the other things that went on during the game. He should have told Ferris to "move on" and kept his mouth shut rather than coming across as a bad loser!
Additionally, having read the transcript again I am not sure that Mr Mallinder's assertion that Hartley "plays exemplary within the rules" stacks up giving the video evidence of the Saints vs Ulster game last year:
I haven't posted in ages, and have managed to resist joining in the Dylan and Calum saga....until now!
I've noticed this clip from the Ulster game being brought up on a number of forums, in some sort of attempt to justify Ferris' running straight to the ref despite his own (alleged) contribution to the incident - some kind of 'well Dylan can't complain, because he went straight to ref as well' etc (followed by outpourings of the usual Dylan-based bile people seem to get off on, obviously).
Well, if only people didn't gloss over the fact that Dylan, when quizzed on Sky straight after the game, completely shot the interviewer down (not literally, please don't cite him again!) by refusing to respond to any questions about the 'incident' with Wannenburg, then laughing it off and turning it into a non-issue. People still manage to overlook it even when the text is right there above the clip on Rugbydump!
What I would call a 'proper' rugby response. You dish it out, you take it back, life goes on. I will always remember the game against one of the French sides when Dylan took 3-4 punches at FG having been targeted all game and just stood there, hands by his side, shrugged his shoulders and walked off while the other guy got his red card. Dylan just can't do anything right by some folk.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2012 17:46 by FozzyDF.
Just to be clear. Ulster next year should be a side to measure yourself against - not least because they have Sarge and a few other graduates back. They will be very welcome at FG and I hope we do get to play them in the HC. Their fans are great and will be very welcome too. But yes, Fingers Ferris will get booed and have more touch line phone cameras on him home and away than you can shake a stick at.
A troll from the Ulster board is not representative of him or them in any way. It really makes me appreciate this board, frankly when you see how some others bury the good stuff so deep. And I'm sure Ferris himself would be gutted at the prospect of being seen as what Ulstermen call a 'clype' - something between a scab and a tell-tale. He has some previous now and with limited years left in that cartilage he needs Sarge to take him in hand, frankly, or he'll be sitting most of it out.
My guess is he never expected it to end up in the citing circus, but in the heat of the moment it was worth a punt. I thought we'd have heard by now if the appeal was made, and if only because I'd like to see Dylan again before the AP final, I hope they do so. But also because the 'we don't do citing' stance is nonsense now - sad but true. Managers from teams - and yes especially those who accuse Us of 'whinging' - need to know they'll reap what they sow.
Now can we please have a derby where we don't need the medics on standby?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2012 22:39 by Ugly.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing