Liam Williams Yellow Card

First topic message reminder :

This is what sickens rugby fans, inconsistency. Absolutely disgusted by this decision- if an unintentional collision with a player in the air is a red card, it's awful to see a player get a yellow card for what looked like an intentional shoulder charge on a player in the air a few weeks later.

This whole area plainly needs to be reviewed. Absolutely crazy that that can be a yellow and the Payne incident a red. There is too much variation in the punishment for this offence for it to be fair to players and spectators. If it's red, it's red fair enough- but then to see a much more serious incident only get yellow and probably no ban makes it clear there is no level playing field here and that needs to be sorted out ASAP.

TJ wrote:Notch - you are making Goode responsible for the fact he landed on his head.

So if your interpretation is accepted then a player in the air is responsible for how he falls if tackled illegally?  So a player would have to jump in such a way as to allow for someone tackling him illegally?  It makes no sense at all.

No that is not my interpretation and no I am not ascribing any responsibility to the tackled player. For the last time, let me explain this. And if you can't understand this please stop replying to my posts.

I'm just pointing out the fact that the offending player is responsible for the fact the player falls but is not necessarily responsible for the manner of that fall. I'm not saying the player who is jumping should do anything differently whatsoever, just pointing out that an innocuous challenge can result in a bad fall and a dangerous challenge can result in a safe fall due to factors which have nothing to do with the offending player.

As the the nature of the challenge doesn't necessarily have any correlation to the outcome of the challenge, judging by the outcome is entirely the wrong way to determine what the sanction will be and will only continue to lead to unfair decisions.

unless I'm mistaken you're not allowed to "jump into a tackle" per se, i.e. if you're in posession of the ball and then jump before contact with an opposition player that's an offence, punished by a penalty.

this is different to jumping to catch the ball (from a pass or a kick - as far as I know the laws don't distinguish), and being tackled while still in the air. This is an offence by the tackler.

I think you are correct Mad but will it be reffed?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:unless I'm mistaken you're not allowed to "jump into a tackle" per se, i.e. if you're in posession of the ball and then jump before contact with an opposition player that's an offence, punished by a penalty.

this is different to jumping to catch the ball (from a pass or a kick - as far as I know the laws don't distinguish), and being tackled while still in the air. This is an offence by the tackler.

Actually no, I looked it up a few weeks back. I was sure of it too, but there is no such rule.

you're right in that no such actual law exists in fact, but here's a discussion on the rugby refs forum

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-6934.html?s=303083a80c52e398f39308f1ab98fcee

seems that jumping into a tackle is considered "dangerous play" (or maybe "unsportmanlike").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0GUWcSJ-k

jumping over a tackle rather than into it, but is pinged.

as a rule, you're more vulnerable when in the air, so a player jumping into a tackle (in the sense he just leaves the ground a bit, rather than hurdling as in the above video) is likely to get smashed in any case, so there's no real advantage to it. So long as refs aren't (wrongly) pinging the defending team.

This was I think discussed when Hartley was pinged for tackling Faletau in the air in the 6N. Faletau jumped to take a pass which was on the high side and Hartley smashed him. Ref gave Wales the penalty.

Notch - I do understand your point however if your interpretation is used then the jumping player IS being made responsible for the manner of his fall.  Only two people are involved.  if no tackle in the air is made then he is safe.  If a tackle in the air is made then the tackled player IS responsible for the manner of the fall as he is the one who has committed the act of foul play.

Sure Payne is unlucky Goode landed on his head - but only one person is responsible for this fact - Payne. Payne created the conditions for this to happen by his foul play.

We can both see the situation and come to different answers. I believe the IRB, the refs and the majority of posters are right. You want the ref to guess at the players intent, to guess what would have happened if the jumping player had acted differently. You can only judge on what DID happen not what MIGHT have happened in different circumstances.

Your interpretation would led to far greater inconsistencies as you are asking the ref to make subjective judgements not objective ones.

for further clarification, here's law 10.4(i)

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

that seems quite clear to me. It's an offense to tackle a player who's jumping for the ball, but not to tackle one who's jumping when he already has the ball. Hence Hartley was correctly penalised by the letter of the law, as Faletau was jumping to catch the pass.

clivemcl wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:unless I'm mistaken you're not allowed to "jump into a tackle" per se, i.e. if you're in posession of the ball and then jump before contact with an opposition player that's an offence, punished by a penalty.

this is different to jumping to catch the ball (from a pass or a kick - as far as I know the laws don't distinguish), and being tackled while still in the air. This is an offence by the tackler.

Actually no, I looked it up a few weeks back. I was sure of it too, but there is no such rule.

There lies the problem, sides will pass the ball high, the receiver jumps to receive the ball, the tackler cannot tackle him until he grounds, by which time he is behind the tackler. All done very deliberately to get around a good aggressive rush defence such as Quins or Saints use.

The laws need redefining to protect the players jumping for the ball and in a lineout and anything else is fair game. If it doesn't happen, the laws will be abused to gain unfair advantage. Players could of course stand under the ball to catch it and therefore not be tackled in the air. I am old and ugly enough to remember that was how it used to be done. To call a "Mark" you had to be stationary and grounded.

It is at the ref discretion to deem a player jumping into a tackle dangerous, im sure i have seen Nigel Owens penalise Nalaga for dangerous play as his knee was near the tackler's head..

TJ wrote:Notch - I do understand your point however if your interpretation is used then the jumping player IS being made responsible for the manner of his fall.

Well he is- not in a bad way, but yeah if your feet leave the ground there is an element of risk that you take. He's not responsible for falling but when he leaves the ground there is the risk. The manner of the fall isn't an objective way of measuring the severity of the tackle. The manner of the fall is an objective measure of the severity of the collision, the tackle is just one part of the collision. It's not a matter of opinion, that is just a fact. Plain and simple.

The tackle is what should be judged as we have no way of separating the tackle from the collision. The player should be judged for his contribution to the collision not the outcome.

It's not so much that the defending player is responsible is that it's a complex thing with many factors contributing to the manner of the fall. The player who tackles the man in the air is always penalised, the point is that the fall doesn't give us the information needed to delineate between a yellow card and a red card. Only looking at intent can give us that information.

Well, Williams has been cited I see.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rabodirect-pro12-2013-14/rugby/story/222535.html

Just further proof the Payne incident didnt merit a red. Still havent come across such an incident where one party has seen red other than in Payne's case. Poor form.

GunsGerms wrote:Just further proof the Payne incident didnt merit a red. Still havent come across such an incident where one party has seen red other than in Payne's case. Poor form.

How? The citing commisioner deemed it worthy of more than a yellow, so has cited him. How the heck does this prove another case did not merit a red?

If anything, until the disciplinary hearing decides, it suggests that the ref was wrong to give Williams only a yellow.

We all pretty much agreed that the Payne one was harsh but not unreasonable. A dangerous bit of foul play can always receive a red card.

Why not just ban jumping to catch the ball? Whilst they are at it they could return the line-out laws to ban lifting and supporting jumpers.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Just further proof the Payne incident didnt merit a red. Still havent come across such an incident where one party has seen red other than in Payne's case. Poor form.

How? The citing commisioner deemed it worthy of more than a yellow, so has cited him. How the heck does this prove another case did not merit a red?

If anything, until the disciplinary hearing decides, it suggests that the ref was wrong to give Williams only a yellow.

The ref gave a yellow as have pretty much all refs for similar incidents. Clearly they are phasing in a new interpretation and Payne was the fall guy (excuse the pun but he did get flattened and land on his back too). Fairly ridiculous really.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Just further proof the Payne incident didnt merit a red. Still havent come across such an incident where one party has seen red other than in Payne's case. Poor form.

How? The citing commisioner deemed it worthy of more than a yellow, so has cited him. How the heck does this prove another case did not merit a red?

If anything, until the disciplinary hearing decides, it suggests that the ref was wrong to give Williams only a yellow.

The ref gave a yellow as have pretty much all refs for similar incidents. Clearly they are phasing in a new interpretation and Payne was the fall guy (excuse the pun but he did get flattened and land on his back too). Fairly ridiculous really.

Oh god not still going on about that nasty Goode hitting Payne in the face with his bum?

It's my fault, I resurrected the thread by pointing out that Liam williams had now been cited and will face a disciplinary hearing.

I wasn't sure what would happen with this. Obviously a Red card results in an automatic hearing but if it had been a case of 2 technical offences would there still be a possibility of a ban?

Also, judging from what others have said about the new directive I am not at all sure this would have been a Red. If they are judging on how the tackled player lands rather than the actions of the tackler then surely it is just a yellow?

Is this hearing to try to clarify things?

I dont know but so far he has just been cited. It doesn't necessarily mean he is going to get further sanctions.

It does seem odd to me he has been cited - presumably to get clarification. From what we know a yellow seems right. Dangerous play but lessor as he did not land on his head, neck or upper back.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Has anyone else noticed the current trend of jumping into the tackle, especially if you are about to get man and ball.

I am in complete agreement with protecting a player jumping to collect a high ball or in the lineout, but players are starting to abuse the law by jumping to receive passes or into tackles and the tackler is getting penalised for it.

The laws need refining to stop this from becoming a standard 3 points earner. Get into the opposition half, jump into a tackle, get hit in the air, pop at goal, 3 points.

It happened a couple of times over the weekend and last week where I seem to remember a player was carded for it.

Yep Rob Kearney got a ridiculous penalty versus NZ in the AI's when he did this,the law is stupid in this regard and I'm beginning to think jumping should be outlawed like it is in a tackle situation as players can't legally compete for the ball without putting themselves in a dangerous situation.

I would have thought that a player in the air could reasonably be considered to be "off their feet" and therefore out of the game already?

MrsP wrote:I wasn't sure what would happen with this. Obviously a Red card results in an automatic hearing but if it had been a case of 2 technical offences would there still be a possibility of a ban?

Also, judging from what others have said about the new directive I am not at all sure this would have been a Red. If they are judging on how the tackled player lands rather than the actions of the tackler then surely it is just a yellow?

Is this hearing to try to clarify things?

From the Pro12 site:

Liam Williams, the Scarlets full back, has been cited for an alleged dangerous tackle, contrary to Law 10.4 (e), following the RaboDirect PRO12 match against Cardiff Blues at the Millennium Stadium on Sunday 20 April 2014.

The tackle, in the 6th minute of the match resulted in the referee awarding a yellow card to the player, but the independent Citing Commissioner, following his review, deemed that the tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card and cited the player.

this clearly indicates that the citing is over this incident. He does of course also have to face a disciplinary hearing for getting two yellows in one game.

Yeah I saw that LT. It just seems contrary to the reported edict.

It's good, because there is no way this shouldn't have been a red card. I was incredibly annoyed that this wasn't a red card despite being much more reckless and intentional than the Payne incident and I expect he will cop a much harsher penalty for it.

I agree Notch but it doesn't fit with the recommendations.

I think we would all appreciate some clarity.

The clarity is there. You may not agree with it but its as clear as it can be.

If it is clear then why has he been cited?

The whole thing is as clear as mud.

I do not know why he has been cited. its perfectly clear - even more so followinbg the clarification given to refs by Joute last week as reported ( but not published - publishing the guidance would help)

1) tackle in the air is foul play - penalty
2) endanger the player - card
3) tackled player lands on his head / neck / upper back - red card

I really fail to comprehend why some of you find this so difficult

So if the takled player lands back on his feet - no card, if he loands on his lower body - yellow card, lands on his head/neck/ upper back - red card Perfectly cler, perfectly consistent

TJ wrote:It does seem odd to me he has been cited - presumably to get clarification.  From what we know a yellow seems right.  Dangerous play but lessor as he did not land on his head, neck or upper back.

But you said it was clear!!!

Notch wrote:It's good, because there is no way this shouldn't have been a red card. I was incredibly annoyed that this wasn't a red card despite being much more reckless and intentional than the Payne incident and I expect he will cop a much harsher penalty for it.

It was not a red card quite rightly because the tackled player landed on his backside not his head/neck or upper back. Goode did so its a red. clear, obvious and consitent

Well it would seem that the citing officer is one of those who don't see it quite that way TJ.

As I said earlier, the ref got this one wrong. Should have been a red.

Citing commissioner has said the same thing.

Therefore the Payne decision was valid in spite if all the anger earlier on this particular thread, and Williams should have been given red.

Only inconsistency was incorrect decision by ref during live play. Did they go to tmo?

Citing commissioner and citing panel are there to ensure consistency w irb laws and looks line they are doing so.

Why was this a red then according to the new edict?

The tackled player landed on his hip.

MrsP wrote:Well it would seem that the citing officer is one of those who don't see it quite that way TJ.

that the advice from Joel Joute

I think publishing the advice would help folk understand. Its clear, obvious, consistant with the laws and consistant with other foul play guidence

MrsP wrote:Why was this a red then according to the new edict?

The tackled player landed on his hip.

It isn't. thats why it was a yellow. i imagine as its a new bit of guidance they simply want to check

TJ, can you accept that is reasonable for some of us to not see things as quite that clear cut now that a the very least the citing officer seems confused too?

It is not just Ulster fans.

But some people can not accept that people could actually be interested in this in a non partisan way.

I find it somewhat odd.  I do wish the IRB would publish the guidance to the refs tho - otherwise we have to rely on third party reporting and this does lead to confusion.  I had to find data from all sorts of third party sources about this.

I think the whole area needs to be looked at from fresh. Since the "tackle in the air" became an automatic penalty players now jump to catch a ball to avoid being tackled - and also some lead with studs up which I think should also be dangerous play.

What the law and guidance now is is perfectly clear. Whether this needs to be changed is a matter for debate for sure

If he cites it and nothing comes from it...no probs, wasted a bit of time but no real impact. Doesn't cite it and it can never be reviewed again.

It's good that it's been cited from a neutral point of view as it was a very different event and we'll have two reviews on two instants to look at. Are Pro12 discipline panels still headed by the union involved? So might Mr Thomas be in it again?

I agree but to say that things are clear at the moment is just demonstrably not true.

MrsP wrote:I agree but to say that things are clear at the moment is just demonstrably not true.

Its clear to me.

1) was a "tackle in the air" made? - ( as defined in the laws) then its foul play- penalty
2) was the tackled player put in danger - thenits dangerous play- card of some colour
3) did the player land on his head, neck, upper back - red card

Nothing to do with intent or any other subjective judgement, simple clear, objective

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:It's good, because there is no way this shouldn't have been a red card. I was incredibly annoyed that this wasn't a red card despite being much more reckless and intentional than the Payne incident and I expect he will cop a much harsher penalty for it.

It was not a red card quite rightly because the tackled player landed on his backside not his head/neck or upper back.  Goode did so its a red.  clear, obvious and consitent

FFS, would you not just accept that people have different opinions and leave it. It's clear, it's also clear that people disagree for very valid reasons which have been explained to you. Over and over again. Ad infinitum. Just leave it already.

The fact that Williams was lucky Cuthbert landed well and wasn't in a very vulnerable position in the way he jumped doesn't change the action he took. Because thats what it comes down to once the tackle is made. If you're lucky he lands well and it's yellow. If you're unlucky he lands badly and it's red. Like tossing a coin once contact is made, and it's a poor show if serious foul play is allowed to go unpunished just because of a fairly random outcome.

Notch - the red for Payne and the yellow for Williams are clearly in line with the laws and the guidance issued.   As has been explained to you over and over again.  This is a matter of fact not opinion.  this is what you seem unwilling to accept.

Are the laws and guidance right?  Debatable. and you are perfectly OK to debate this but as the laws and guidence are now its very clear.  Landing on your head / neck / back is more dangerous than landing on your bum,  Intent, could have, might have have no bearing on it. Only the result as judged by how the tackled payer lands.  thats what the laws and guidence say.

You wnat the rules changed. fine - perfectly acceptable debating position. However saying Williams action WERE more dangerous is simply wrong in fact. they may have been POTENTIALy more dangerous but that is irrelevant to the ACTUAL danger

TJ wrote:

MrsP wrote:I agree but to say that things are clear at the moment is just demonstrably not true.

Its clear to me.

1) was a "tackle in the air" made? - ( as defined in the laws) then its foul play- penalty
2) was the tackled player put in danger - thenits dangerous play- card of some colour
3) did the player land on his head, neck, upper back - red card

Nothing to do with intent or any other subjective judgement, simple clear, objective

But yet you have suggested that anyone who does not see things your way is clearly wrong when it seems clear that many people are baffled by the different messages sent by the rugby world.

You seem to think that Ulster fans are blindly trying to justify Payne when actually there is a much broader question to be answered. Just you ridicule anyone suggesting that there is any confusion.

TJ wrote:=Are the laws and guidance right?  Debatable. and you are perfectly OK to debate this

F*cking finally!! Cheers for your permission, at last. Could have avoided several pages of you following me around refusing to engage with my arguments in the most objectionable manner possible given thats all I'm doing. All I've ever been doing is debating the laws. All you're doing is repeating the same thing and refusing to actually engage with the argument. It's a debate by the way. I'm not saying my opinion is fact. You seem to be unable to accept my opinion as opinion.

The entire point of the thread was to debate this given it's my opinion- which I have explained over and over again to you, so many times- that the laws are fundamentally wrong on this points. I haven't been stating what I believe are the facts. I know what the facts are.I don't need you to remind me. I don't want you to follow me around posting them over and over again unless you actually have something new to add. I'm stating why I strongly disagree with them. Thats the entire point.

This Entire Thread wrote:Notch; Here's why I disagree with the laws due to a, b and c...
TJ; Those aren't the laws. These are the laws.
Notch ;... I know I'm just saying, i disagree with them because x and in this case I think you can see we would get a fairer outcome with y and z etc. etc.
TJ; But those aren't the laws. These are the laws.
Notch; I know but I'm saying the laws are wrong in my opinion as...
TJ; But those aren't the laws. I don't see why you don't understand the laws. These are the laws.
Notch; I know what the laws are, my point is, I disagree with them for x, y and z reasons...
TJ; But the laws are...
Notch; I KNOW WHAT THE F*CKING LAWS ARE!!

TJ wrote:

MrsP wrote:I agree but to say that things are clear at the moment is just demonstrably not true.

Its clear to me.

1) was a "tackle in the air" made? - ( as defined in the laws) then its foul play- penalty
2) was the tackled player put in danger - thenits dangerous play- card of some colour
3) did the player land on his head, neck, upper back - red card

Nothing to do with intent or any other subjective judgement, simple clear, objective

1) It wasn't a tackle, but I think any contact can be deemed a foul.

2) The Player wasn't tackled, but, and according to the law, it can be argued that the actions of the offending player placed his opposition in danger.

3) When did that directive come out? Before or after the Payne/Goode incident?

After.

AFAIK

MrsP wrote:After.

AFAIK

Yes, I think it was. I know that a new directive was sent out after the citing commissions ruling, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that this was in the guidelines issued to ref's prior to that. If that's true then others can't use the new directive to argue Payne's actions merited a straight red.

Notch  why do you keep saying Goode landing on his upper back is less dangerous than Cuthbert landing on his bum - it simply is not so.  This is not open to interpretation it is not opinion- it is fact.

Notch - its you that have been objectionable to me insulting me on here several times and getting very heated.

If you had actually bothered to read my posts properly you would have seen I tiotally undersood that you want the laws changed