Um, no thanks kOc. Swearing at an official should remain a red card offence with absolutely no recourse. I'd feel the same if a Tiger were guilty - Union must protect it's officials from such disrespect. Union is not kissball after all. Hartley didn't 'mess up', he called the referee an "effing cheat". Architect of his own demise and gets no sympathy from me whatsoever - he was warned by Barnes not two minutes earlier for goodness sake! I only hope he finally learns from it.
You might note he did not receive an entry level sanction - the panel dismissed his weak defence.
What stand were you in? I've always found the West Stand and North stand seating entirely comfortable - but then you might be much taller than me?
Whilst I might find Cockers OTT at times I do actually like that he feels passionate for his players. He might well face sanctions, and may very well deserve them, in future but he won't for saturday because when a player is taken off as a direct result of an incident for which a penalty was given he is actually entitled to seek clarification. He may have looked manic and even aggressive doing so to us but I think we have to accept that we none of us know what was actually said. The club certainly won't remove him whilst he keeps winning trophies. That said I am aware he might get himself involved in a unacceptable situation in future and deserve very strong sanction - I've watched him player and coach for 21 years after all - definite anger management issues.
The red card had a huge influence on the game but arguably no more than the loss of Flood. The supposition that Saints would have won without the card, rife in some quarters, is entirely risible. Hyoptheticals remain exactly that - Tigers might have won by fifty had Flood remained on the pitch (my supposition there is equally risible you see - it simply cannot be substantiated).
I'm quite annoyed that the Hartley thing has overshadowed what was actually a very good game and an excellent Tigers victory.
You might note he did not receive an entry level sanction - the panel dismissed his weak defence.
What stand were you in? I've always found the West Stand and North stand seating entirely comfortable - but then you might be much taller than me?
Whilst I might find Cockers OTT at times I do actually like that he feels passionate for his players. He might well face sanctions, and may very well deserve them, in future but he won't for saturday because when a player is taken off as a direct result of an incident for which a penalty was given he is actually entitled to seek clarification. He may have looked manic and even aggressive doing so to us but I think we have to accept that we none of us know what was actually said. The club certainly won't remove him whilst he keeps winning trophies. That said I am aware he might get himself involved in a unacceptable situation in future and deserve very strong sanction - I've watched him player and coach for 21 years after all - definite anger management issues.
The red card had a huge influence on the game but arguably no more than the loss of Flood. The supposition that Saints would have won without the card, rife in some quarters, is entirely risible. Hyoptheticals remain exactly that - Tigers might have won by fifty had Flood remained on the pitch (my supposition there is equally risible you see - it simply cannot be substantiated).
I'm quite annoyed that the Hartley thing has overshadowed what was actually a very good game and an excellent Tigers victory.
Comment