Saints drop Hartley appeal

By Paul Higham  

Saints drop Hartley appeal

Related links

Teams

Players

Relegated Northampton have decided not to pursue their appeal against Dylan Hartley's 26-week ban for eye gouging against Wasps.

The hooker was found guilty by a three-man RFU disciplinary panel of illegally making contact with Wasps back-row forward James Haskell's eye, and the eye area of Wasps flanker Jonny O'Connor during a Guinness Premiership game on April 15.

An appeal was due to be heard in London this week but after Northampton withdrew their appeal Hartley will now sit out his six-month ban.

Hartley missed Northampton's Heineken Cup semi-final defeat and their final league game of the season against London Irish when The Saints were relegated despite a victory.

As his club adjusts to life in National League One, Hartley will be sat on the sidelines until his ban expires on 17th October in what is one of the longest bans handed out to a top-flight English player.

The uncapped 21-year-old was tipped to be included in Brian Ashton's squad for the summer tour to South Africa and an outside chance to make England's World Cup squad.

The New Zealand-born hooker's ban runs out three days before the World Cup final in Paris and he has no chance of being part of England's defence of the trophy.

"Contact with an opponent's eyes is a serious offence because of the vulnerability of the area and risk of permanent injury," said RFU disciplinary officer Jeff Blackett, who chaired Hartley's original hearing.

"It is often the result of an insidious act and is one of the most abhorred by rugby players.

"Serious offences such as these - colloquially known as gouging - carry substantial punishment to protect players, deter others and remove culprits from the game to ensure they learn the appropriate lesson.

"The offence against Haskell was at the top end entry point which carries a sanction of between 24 weeks and three years.

"We believe the appropriate entry point for this was 30 weeks, which we reduced to 26 after taking into account his good character, youth and inexperience.

"We upheld the citing for the offence against O'Connor, but adjudged that no further penalty was necessary."