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  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

Thats NOT what I've said and your inability to understand what I've said... is infuriating, as it's been explained to you so many times to no avail so there is no way I'm going to let you goad me into trying to explain this to you again. You need to stop trying to respond to my posts until you actually understand the points I've made. Because there can be no discourse without you understanding the most basic points I've made.

That is so far off what I've said the fact you think that is my argument is just frightening to me. Either drop the issue or reread my posts until you actually understand my point.

TJ.

Notch is NOT saying that landing on your head is less dangerous than landing on your backside.

He is saying that how the airborne player lands is not a fair way to decide the sanction on the pitch as there are many many more factors which influence that than the actions of the offending player.

You could see the most blatant taking out of the legs of a player only receive a YC while the slightest accidental contact sees a RC. That seems wrong to some of us.

Language Notch. Family friendly site.

Now you now what it was like on the other side of the ERC debate. It's fun discussing with TJ

Hammer, I have a new found respect for the other side of that debate   

Yes NOtch I am - you keep on repeating that the Williams challenge was more dangerous.

That was an order of magnitude worse than the Payne incident and now I suppose we'll get loads of people making out that it wasn't

but then to see a much more serious incident only get yellow

What Williams did today makes the Payne challenge pale into insignificance.

Repeatedly stating the Williams incident was more dangerous / serious

My God, you are so stupid man

although you did retract it you did start chucking insults around. I have not insulted you at all at any point.

TJ wrote:Notch - we both need to remember this

Again - We both need to let it lie.

No, I didn't say that. I said that Williams actions were more dangerous than Paynes, but other factors resulted in a more dangerous fall for Goode than Cuthbert. I said that the actions of the offending player are just one of the factors that determine how dangerous the fall will be.

You either get that- or you don't. I don't care which it is. I just need you to stop at this point because whether you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the point and misrepresenting my point of view you're really winding me up. So please, for the love of God, just leave it alone.

Notch wrote:No, I didn't say that. I said that Williams actions were more dangerous than Paynes, but other factors resulted in a more dangerous fall for Goode than Cuthbert. I said that the actions of the offending player are just one of the factors that determine how dangerous the fall will be.

You either get that- or you don't. I don't care which it is. I just need you to stop at this point because whether you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the point and misrepresenting my point of view you're really winding me up. So please, for the love of God, just leave it alone.

I am not misrepresenting you - I am pointing out the flaws, inconstancies and inaccuracies in what you say. Williams actions WERE NOT more dangerous. POTENTIALLY more dangerous - matter of opinion. MORE dangerous - simply not so and a matter of fact.. The only way to judge the ACTUAL danger is by what happened to the victim. POTENTIAL danger is amatter of opinion You either understand this or you do not.

end - I will drop it and I am sure you will come back for the final word.

I understand that just fine. It is you who cannot seem to understand the points I've made regarding the fact collisions are more complicated than that with the speed, momentum, weight and height of the jumper being crucial as to how vulnerable they are as opposed to being solely determined by the actions of the tackler. I have no need to restate them, I've already done so many times so why would you suddenly understand it now? Whats the point in getting the final word when that word won't be comprehended?

Go well.

Lets take an extreme scenario, imagine Payne is standing still and Goode jumps over Payne and falls badly on his head. Surely Payne can't receive a red for that?
It is way too simplistic to just give a sanction based on how badly the fall is, if that's what the laws state it needs to be changed asap.

Notch wrote:I understand that just fine. It is you who cannot seem to understand the points I've made regarding the fact collisions are more complicated than that with the speed, momentum, weight and height of the jumper being crucial as to how vulnerable they are. I have no need to restate them, I've already done so many times so why would you suddenly understand it now? Whats the point in getting the final word when that word won't be comprehended?

Go well.

Gosh darn it - I want another word     

Why have you kept on stating that Williams WAS more dangerous then if you understand he was not?  I accepted very early on that outcomes were down to luck as much as anything but that of the two incidents the Payne one WAs more dangerous thus more serious.

EDIT

TJ wrote: yes he is unlucky that it created a red card situation but its Paynes fault it did.

Arguing on the internet is often a frustrating exercise and mutual incomprehension leads to heated rows.  Nuance is lost and people mke assumptions about others views that are not warrented or actually supported by what they have posted and then refuse to see other than that false assumption.  Its a shame this has been that way All I have wanted you to do was accept that Payne was ACTULLY more dangerous from an objective viewpoint and that anything else was subjective.  You have continaully claimed otherwise it would appear - now you seem to accept it

The outcome was more dangerous. That is not the same as the action being more dangerous.

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:I understand that just fine. It is you who cannot seem to understand the points I've made regarding the fact collisions are more complicated than that with the speed, momentum, weight and height of the jumper being crucial as to how vulnerable they are. I have no need to restate them, I've already done so many times so why would you suddenly understand it now? Whats the point in getting the final word when that word won't be comprehended?

Go well.

Gosh darn it - I want another word     

Why have you kept on stating that Williams WAS more dangerous then if you understand he was not?  I accepted very early on that outcomes were down to luck as much as anything but that of the two incidents the Payne one WAs more dangerous thus more serious.

Arguing on the internet is often a frustrating exercise and mutual incomprehension leads to heated rows.  Nuance is lost and people mke assumptions about others views that are not warrented or actually supported by what they have posted and then refuse to see other than that false assumption.  Its a shame this has been that way All I have wanted you to do was accept that Payne was ACTULLY more dangerous from an objective viewpoint and that anything else was subjective.  You have continaully claimed otherwise it would appear - now you seem to accept it

We'll I'll preface this by saying this is the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. There is no way I'm continuing this debate with you. You had me responding in good faith and you missed every point I made so I'm not gonna do it! And you continue to misrepresent and misunderstand my view in this very post. And that is infuriating to me.

All I will say is.

1) The Payne-Goode collision was more dangerous than the Cuthbert-Williams collision
2) The danger in the first came from the vulnerable position Goode was in where he was higher in the air and travelling faster, as well as being quite small, he only needed a very slight contact with an upright player to upend him.
3) The danger is the second incident came pretty much exclusively from Williams actions. He took out the legs of the player. Fortunately Cuthbert wasn't as high in the air as Goode was, he was much less vulnerable, and the outcome was less serious- but that has nothing to with Williams.
4) I believe in assessing the actions of the player separately from the outcome of the collision as the collision depends on multiple factors that have nothing to do with the offending player. I don't believe Williams should get off just because Cuthbert was in a position where he was less likely to land badly. He should be judged for the danger posed by the initial contact.
5) Similarly I don't believe Payne should be punished so harshly for a situation when even the tiniest contact could lead to a nasty fall. He should only be judged for the part he was responsible for; the danger posed by the initial contact.

Thats it. Thats all I'm going to say.

MrsP wrote:The outcome was more dangerous. That is not the same as the action being more dangerous.

Exactly.

Notch - I have understood that right from the start. You however have completely failed to understand my points instead getting angry because I do not agree with you and completely failing to even attempt to understand what I havbe had to say. tht is also a huge change from your original posts

 

VinceWLB wrote:Lets take an extreme scenario, imagine Payne is standing still and Goode jumps over Payne and falls badly on his head. Surely Payne can't receive a red for that?
It is way too simplistic to just give a sanction based on how badly the fall is, if that's what the laws state it needs to be changed asap.

It that case Payne's actions wouldn't have been reckless so he wouldn't have been penalised (as long as he didn't move for Goode while he was in the air.

The key part of this determining whether an action is reckless or not. Once it is you are culpable for the results as much if it was deliberate. Off field a deliberate action would result in a larger ban than a reckless one but that's beyond a red.

I have no problem with any reckless or deliberate act resulting in a red card if a player ends up landing on their head/upper back.

Which is why the question here seems to me to be whether Payne's act was reckless or not. That's really questionable as far as I'm concerned and the definition of 'reckless' in this situation needs sorting.

It will also be interesting to see what the outcome of the Williams case is.

I think Williams will get a 2/3 game ban which over all is fair as he wasn't sent off for the tackle part but because of the accumalation of the two yellows and whilst the retaliation was not good I can hardly blame him.

Well, it's good that he has been cited for the tackle as hopefully it might help IRB get their act together with regards this type of incident. I don't think the second yellow was for punching, but holding on to the player.

He's a bit of a numpty.

Was the second yellow for retaliation or was it for hands in the ruck?

He's a young hot headed bit of a numpty I agree but thats part and parcel of who he is, if he can learn to control it and channel it he has the talent.

I thought it was for the retaliation.

MrsP wrote:Was the second yellow for retaliation or was it for hands in the ruck?

Don't think it was for retaliation, MrsP.

bedfordwelsh wrote:He's a young hot headed bit of a numpty I agree but thats part and parcel of who he is, if he can learn to control it and channel it he has the talent.

I thought it was for the retaliation.

Yep, he's a decent player, but he needs to grow up a bit. No bad thing being aggressive, so long as that aggression is channelled legally. Not much good getting himself a bad name, and one that ref's will be drawn too. He can turn it around though.

MrsP wrote:Was the second yellow for retaliation or was it for hands in the ruck?

Looking at it again. The ref's explains his card as Williams 'cynically slowed the ball down'.

That was what I thought Munchkin.

The blues player retaliated and got a straight red I think.

Easterby said that the second yellow was for retaliation, though I think it was for the offence at the ruck.

If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

Anything else is a farce

geoff998rugby wrote:If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

Anything else is a farce

But they're very different

geoff998rugby wrote:If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

The citing officer agrees with you.

Williams banned for two weeks then

LondonTiger wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

The citing officer agrees with you.

Not entirely. Payne missed pretty much three games since he got a red in the 8th minute of the game itself.

Williams was wrongly allowed to play that full game, and so should have got a further week ban to make up for the wrongly lenient call by the ref...

Surely Copeland should get a lengthier ban than Williams for raking his head ?

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Williams banned for two weeks then

is that for the red for two yellows ( he did get two yellows didn't he?) or for the one incident?

Aren't all red cards an automatic citing ? I'm assuming he's in trouble for the tackle rather than killing the ball.

Copeland should get a lengthy ban, really awful behaviour

the citing was specifically for the tackle as stated in the letter from the citing commissioner. someone posted it a couple of days ago on this thread i think.

Ta

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

Anything else is a farce

But they're very different

Why?

According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Ta again.

geoff998rugby wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:If Payne was a Red so should that have been.

Anything else is a farce

But they're very different

Why?

One was a reckless act that resulted in a player landing on their head/upper back.
The other was deliberate act that resulted in a player landing on their side.

Those are very different (I'm not saying one is worse than the other but they're very different).

Interesting, given this event it suggests any deliberate tackles in the air should be red and any reckless acts that result in a player landing on the head/upper back should be red. We shall see.

Actually having watched both what struck me was the similarity.

The big difference was the effect on the other player but Williams had no more control over the impact to the other player than Payne.
As noted the citing commission said it should have been a Red

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

Lots of passionate arguments about the consistency of officiating in rugby union, the fact is that tacking in the air can be anything from just a penalty to a sending off. Of more concern is that stamping on an opponents head now only warrents a one game ban!

clivemcl wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

If Paynes offence had occurred in the 90th minute it wouldn't have been.... c'est la vie. It was the refs mistake re Williams, the Payne decision was correct.

Yeah, I was angry because this was a yellow- if Paynes is a red, then this definitely had to be a red too. And the citing commission agrees!

He could have got a longer ban. Not just because of the offence, but because he's beginning to get a bit of a track record. But to be honest, given its a two week ban and there are only 2 weeks left of the season thats a moot point.

I assume that the ban will be postdated to start after this weekend, when he wouldn't be playing anyway.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

If Paynes offence had occurred in the 90th minute it wouldn't have been.... c'est la vie. It was the refs mistake re Williams, the Payne decision was correct.

Some rugby supporter.....   

Both men got 2 weeks. I think Copeland should have got longer but hey ho

lostinwales wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

If Paynes offence had occurred in the 90th minute it wouldn't have been.... c'est la vie. It was the refs mistake re Williams, the Payne decision was correct.

Some rugby supporter.....   

Why?

Players know the rules as do the officials. Transgress early in the game you get what you deserve. Payne got what he deserved & Williams, ultimately did. The Scarlets benefitted extra 'Williams game time' due to an officials error.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

If Paynes offence had occurred in the 90th minute it wouldn't have been.... c'est la vie. It was the refs mistake re Williams, the Payne decision was correct.

Some rugby supporter.....   

Why?

Players know the rules as do the officials. Transgress early in the game you get what you deserve. Payne got what he deserved & Williams, ultimately did. The Scarlets benefitted extra 'Williams game time' due to an officials error.

Why? it wasnt a 'serious' post just thinking that, unlike another well known game, usually a rugby game doesnt quite make it to 90 minutes unless there is a lot of stoppage time

lostinwales wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Don Alfonso wrote:According to Rugbydump,

"The independant Citing Commissioner has deemed that Williams' first half tackle was sufficiently dangerous to have warranted a red card, so he has been cited, under Law 10.4 (e): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground."

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/04/3687/liam-williams-and-robin-copeland-face-disciplinaries-after-double-red-card

APOLOGIES - see it's been covered.

Like I said before, its not good enough to give an equal ban to Payne after ruling it should have been a red. He should have gotten a further ban since he was wrongly allowed to play the remainder of the game.

Payne effectively was out for three games, Williams only two. Yet the IRB say they are both red card incidents...

If Paynes offence had occurred in the 90th minute it wouldn't have been.... c'est la vie. It was the refs mistake re Williams, the Payne decision was correct.

Some rugby supporter.....   

Why?

Players know the rules as do the officials. Transgress early in the game you get what you deserve. Payne got what he deserved & Williams, ultimately did. The Scarlets benefitted extra 'Williams game time' due to an officials error.

Why? it wasnt a 'serious' post just thinking that, unlike another well known game, usually a rugby game doesnt quite make it to 90 minutes unless there is a lot of stoppage time

Regardless of when it occurs in a game you don't want to go down to 10 men