[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

All eyes on Lancaster TO DO ...................................................... Nothing.

 

[yaboyjj]

All eyes on Lancaster TO DO ...................................................... Nothing.

He can't play until the 21st of September, ie. misses the first game of the world cup.
He's a gonner.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

He can't play until the 21st of September, ie. misses the first game of the world cup.
He's a gonner.

He's one of the lads though.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

He's one of the lads though.

Considering his previous comments on Hartley, the fact Hartley is not as good as he was and Lancasters reaction to Tuilagi, I'd be suprised if he didn't respond here.

 

[yaboyjj]

Considering his previous comments on Hartley, the fact Hartley is not as good as he was and Lancasters reaction to Tuilagi, I'd be suprised if he didn't respond here.

bbbbbbuut he's a leader in the squad, fffffifty caps, eeeexperience...

I think to miss the warm up matches is pretty significant, he would essentially be going into the second match having played next to no rugby for the best part of three months- I don't think he'll make it.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Considering his previous comments on Hartley, the fact Hartley is not as good as he was and Lancasters reaction to Tuilagi, I'd be suprised if he didn't respond here.

Jan 25th 2015
But Lancaster was adamant: "I'm not going to sit here and say that another yellow card would be the final straw.

"We'll deal with each situation with any player as it unfolds. Everything's got to have context really, so there's no definitive rule on it."

To me sounds like he will not do anything to Hartley.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Surely he's GOT to get dropped?
Otherwise Lancaster is even more of a hypocrite than he's shown himself to be WRT Hartley in the past.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

But Lancaster is a hypocrite.

 

[goodNumber10]

4 weeks for that is a joke, it shouldn't even have been a citing.

 

[Wendigo7]

Just drop the man. He's more aggro than Cipriani or Manu FFS.

Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man.

Come on down LCD!!!!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Does that mean Lancaster can fill his stop on the squad and then accept Hartley back as an extra player when his ban ceases?

 

[yaboyjj]

Does that mean Lancaster can fill his stop on the squad and then accept Hartley back as an extra player when his ban ceases?

He could still be selected for the 31 man squad, just not play in the first game.

 

[Patchey]

4 weeks for that is a joke, it shouldn't even have been a citing.

Amen

 

[j'nuh]

4 weeks for that is a joke, it shouldn't even have been a citing.

Hartley pleaded guilty to striking an opponent with the head, which carries a 4-week minimum ban. You can get up to a 50% reduction for a guilty plea and provocation. He pleaded guilty, but there was little provocation. So I guess he received the lowest ban, got a slight reduction for a guilty plea, but then got it added back on for his past record.

It leaves him with nearly no scope for an appeal. Assuming he got the lowest sentence possible, then the only ways he can reduce his ban is by:
1. Arguing that his past record isn't that bad (lol)
2. Arguing he didn't get enough of a reduction for his guilty plea

Either way, he's looking at removing maybe a week from his ban. Whilst we are all saying how bad this is for him, tbh I think this is the best outcome he could have hoped for. Depends on how Lancaster will react now. A couple of weeks longer on that ban (if he hadn't pleaded guilty) and Lancaster would have had absolutely no choice.

 

[ncurd]

Hartley pleaded guilty to striking an opponent with the head, which carries a 4-week minimum ban. You can get up to a 50% reduction for a guilty plea and provocation. He pleaded guilty, but there was little provocation. So I guess he received the lowest ban, got a slight reduction for a guilty plea, but then got it added back on for his past record.

It leaves him with nearly no scope for an appeal. Assuming he got the lowest sentence possible, then the only ways he can reduce his ban is by:
1. Arguing that his past record isn't that bad (lol)
2. Arguing he didn't get enough of a reduction for his guilty plea

Either way, he's looking at removing maybe a week from his ban. Whilst we are all saying how bad this is for him, tbh I think this is the best outcome he could have hoped for. Depends on how Lancaster will react now. A couple of weeks longer on that ban (if he hadn't pleaded guilty) and Lancaster would have had absolutely no choice.

Yup considering he plead guilty there wasn't a whole lot more the committee could do they gave him the minimum band meaning it must be a low offence as his past actions had many calling for a longer ban just because of it. So in reality he's probably bloody lucky...relatively.

This has probably cost him the world cup though first game back would be Wales and second Australia and he's not a key player to the plan like Tualangi was (who did far worse). However without being able to play any warm up games or Fiji you just can't throw a player into that cauldron and hope he comes off better. I think Lancaster has no choice because of that although he'll cite disciplinary record whether he means it or not.

 

[Peat]

bbbbbbuut he's a leader in the squad, fffffifty caps, eeeexperience...

I think to miss the warm up matches is pretty significant, he would essentially be going into the second match having played next to no rugby for the best part of three months- I don't think he'll make it.

Woodward took Richard Hill despite knowing he'll only him for the quarter-final onwards. Not playing until the second game is nothing for a coach that wants a player.

 

[ncurd]

Yeah but Richard Hill was considerably more important to the team than Hartley.

 

[Patchey]

Yeah but Richard Hill was considerably more important to the team than Hartley.

Well A) That shouldn't matter and B) If it does matter I'd think playing the only one of our two experienced hookers that can throw straight is quite important.

 

[Peat]

The point was the logic, not the exact comparison. Proceeding down the logic path of "What will Lancaster do", when you get to the question "Would he take a player along despite him not having played for three months", then the correct answer is "Yes if sufficiently important".

Is Hartley that important? I don't know, but there's a lot of arguments towards yes in this particular case.

 

[Tony Manx]

Hartley pleaded guilty to striking an opponent with the head, which carries a 4-week minimum ban. You can get up to a 50% reduction for a guilty plea and provocation. He pleaded guilty, but there was little provocation. So I guess he received the lowest ban, got a slight reduction for a guilty plea, but then got it added back on for his past record.

It leaves him with nearly no scope for an appeal. Assuming he got the lowest sentence possible, then the only ways he can reduce his ban is by:
1. Arguing that his past record isn't that bad (lol)
2. Arguing he didn't get enough of a reduction for his guilty plea

Either way, he's looking at removing maybe a week from his ban. Whilst we are all saying how bad this is for him, tbh I think this is the best outcome he could have hoped for. Depends on how Lancaster will react now. A couple of weeks longer on that ban (if he hadn't pleaded guilty) and Lancaster would have had absolutely no choice.

Dare I suggest that a deal was done with Hartley where he was told it would be 4 weeks (and his RWC place was safe?) if he pleaded guilty!

Why else would he have pleaded guilty when he probably had nothing more to lose by being found guilty anyway?

I reckon, had it not been a deal, he would have been advised "you may win but chances are no better than even and if you lose it could be 8/10 weeks based on your record"!