Liam Williams Yellow Card

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.

Intentional shoulder charge....what a load of bollox....

Yellow card deserved, red could have been given but would have been unfair, but deliberate shoulder charge...you must be pi$$ed...

Liam Williams is slowly but surely building a very bad reputation..
That was a disgrace and Blues arguably best player was clearly targetted, if that wasn't a red Payne should never have gotten a red.


They said intent shouldn't come into consideration but i fully disagree.

Any video anywhere for this, or iplayer at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-cKsphRkj4

No9 wrote:Intentional shoulder charge....what a load of bollox....

Yellow card deserved, red could have been given but would have been unfair, but deliberate shoulder charge...you must be pi$$ed...

He drops the shoulder into the players legs when he's in the air. He's leading with his shoulder. Maybe he tripped over his bootlaces?

Also, Notch, this was exactly what I was trying to address in previous threads - but everyone just diverted back to the right and wrongs of the specific incident with Payne.

The biggest problem is inconsistency, and the rule book is undoubtedly too vague if the same incident can be either a penalty, a yellow or a red with two week ban depending on which ref you get and what mood he is in...

Needs tightened up for sure - that is simply undeniable.

Like I said before, the official IRB video example attached to the cited law was of Enland v Argentina in the 2011 RWC - and it was only a penalty despite the tackling player actually going as far as to pull the aerial players leg!!!

If it wasn't so annoying you would laugh!

It's a joke to see that get a yellow and an incident with no intent get a red, thats for sure. 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  

If Payne getting red and 2 weeks is the correct decision, that is a straight red and 5/6 weeks.

Disagree... He didn't drop his shoulder into the tackler, which is a shoulder charge. It was a stupid play, and if he saw red I wouldn't have disagreed. But it wasn't a shoulder charge.... Just stupid rush of blood from Liam.

Well what do you call a tackle when a player leads with his shoulder then?

I just think deciding the colour of the card by how the player lands is a fupping farce. The difference between a yellow and a red is in the lap of the gods then. It's down to pure chance, not determined by the severity of the offence. There's a player committing a much worse offence and getting away with it because he's luckier in how the player lands.

There is an inconsistency. Personally I view both challenges as very similar and both deserving yellow. Payne's was more dangerous (in part because by raising his boot and knee into Williams, Cuthbert reduced the danger) - Williams had more chance to avoid.

It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

This.

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

That is exactly the point I'm highlighting, that is the most incredibly stupid part of it all. It's purely down to luck, not how severe the offence is. It's not about how dangerous the challenge is, or the intent, or the risk. It's about the outcome which the player committing the offence has zero control over. A player can get red for an accidental collision and a player can get yellow for a deliberate charge based purely on an outcome which is down to chance. Completely and utterly farcical way to judge an offence.

LondonTiger wrote:Payne's was more dangerous (in part because by raising his boot and knee into Williams, Cuthbert reduced the danger)

LT, that for me is like saying a punch is less dangerous because the player on the receiving end raises his arms to protect himself. Does that mean the player throwing the punch should be punished less? Surely the intent is the important thing?

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

Notch has already addressed this. Its stupid to administer punishment based on how they land. Next you will differentiate between a punch up in severity based on whether the player made clean contact with the other players face, or based on whether or not he drew blood, or if it was jab or a swing.

Its the action that should be penalized, not the resulting motion/effect.

Notch wrote:Well what do you call a tackle when a player leads with his shoulder then?

I just think deciding the colour of the card by how the player lands is a fupping farce. The difference between a yellow and a red is in the lap of the gods then. It's down to pure chance, not determined by the severity of the offence. There's a player committing a much worse offence and getting away with it because he's luckier in how the player lands.

Not only luck but also the player's ability to fall safely which has nothing to do with rugby, this is indeed a farce.

Play on:


Yellow too:


If you are taking into account how a player land why not take intent into account? This is a disgrace.

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

Spot on....

Cuthbert landed on his backside (hip)... Goode landed on his shoulder (neck) far far worse....

My last word on this, as this is turning back into Payne was innocent thread....

If they are reffin how a player land and how serious the injury is we will see more and more players exagerating the injury, wendyball style. Is that what everyone want?

Not the Payne was innocent thread. The If Payne was guilty, Williams is much, much more guilty thread.

Basically the thread to highlight the ludicrous inconsistency in how the severity of the punishment for these offences is determined. Neither Payne nor Williams had any control over how the players in question landed. That Williams was lucky enough that the player he charged didn't break his neck doesn't change the risk that he could have.

It is an appalling state of affairs when this is the way we judge these incidents. They should all be about risk and intent, not purely outcome. The fact that a much more serious incident gets a much less serious punishment based on luck just shows how desperately unfair and unbalanced the laws are in this area.

No9 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

Spot on....

Cuthbert landed on his backside (hip)... Goode landed on his shoulder (neck) far far worse....

My last word on this, as this is turning back into Payne was innocent thread....

YOU DONT GET TO BACKUP A POINT THAT HAS BEEN COUNTERED! YOU HAVE TO COUNTER THE COUNTER ARGUMENT! FED UP WITH YOU DUMBASSES! MAN UP AND DEBATE THIS!!!

Should be penalised the same way. I dont care about intent or how the player fall on the ground. Wether it is a red, yellow, orange or nothing, It is up to the ref to decide unless some IRB special comitee steps in and decide to clarify the law. Maybe some of you Dublin folks should pay them a visit and buy them a cappucino to find out

Alright clive, calm down ffs. Sort yourself out. Anyone who uses the phrase 'man up' about a debate on the internet needs a slap and as for the capital letters...

I mean, it's embarrassing, and you're just going to end up getting your posts removed.

The outcome indicates how dangerous it was.  In a tip tackle what part of the player hits the ground is crucial.  this is no different

The Payne one was worse because he cartwheeled the player in the air.  Williams did not.

Both could have been either yellow or red but to this neutral the Payne one is clearly more dangerous.  Williams even slows and ducks in what looks like an attempt to minimise the contact.  Payne ran full tilt into the man and cartwheeled him.

The ref and the TMO even discuss this - lands on his hip - yellow AS IT IS NOT AS DANGEROUS. Land on the head / neck - red as it is very dangerous

TJ wrote:The outcome indicates how dangerous it was.  In a tip tackle what part of the player hits the ground is crucial.  this is no different

The Payne one was worse because he cartwheeled the player in the air.  Williams did not.

Both could have been either yellow or red but to this neutral the Payne one is clearly more dangerous.  Williams even slows and ducks in what looks like an attempt to minimise the contact.  Payne ran full tilt into the man and cartwheeled him.

The ref and the TMO even discuss this - lands on his hip - yellow AS IT IS NOT AS DANGEROUS.  Land on the head / neck - red as it is very dangerous

Agree with that  

You can't take the outcome completely out of the equation as the action has a bearing on the outcome.

Slows and ducks.. thats a laugh. Firstly, if you're right about that that means he sees the player whereas Payne doesn't which automatically makes it much more serious because he has a chance to avoid the collision and Payne doesn't. Secondly, instead of trying to pull out he ducks as he's making the tackle and dropping his shoulder into Cuthberts legs which just makes the situation much more dangerous most times.

That the Payne incident had a worse outcome is purely down to chance. Whereas Williams sees the player and then goes for his legs. 9 times out of 10 what he does is more dangerous. Is chance the difference between a yellow and a red? Seems legit. Might as well roll a dice or toss a coin. It's not like a tip tackle where the player has control over how he lands. The way he lands is purely a matter of luck.

Notch wrote:Alright clive, calm down ffs. Sort yourself out. Anyone who uses the phrase 'man up' about a debate on the internet needs a slap and as for the capital letters...

I mean, it's embarrassing, and you're just going to end up getting your posts removed.

Just frustrated Notch, whats the point in countering someone point if somebody doesn't read your response but simply reposts the orginal comment and contributes nothing.

Surely mods should be interested in creating quality discussion not just pointless quotes.

Apologise for the 'man up' statement, that was childish, but Can I please encourage people to at least read the posts and argue against them fairly if they feel they are able to do so.

The forum will be all the better for it.

Also Notch, as moderator should you be using acronyms to get around the swear filter??

clivemcl wrote:Surely mods should be interested in creating quality discussion not just pointless quotes

Yeah which is why you can't be going around shouting at people like some mad eejit.

TJ wrote:
The Payne one was worse because he cartwheeled the player in the air.  Williams did not.

So he should have either avoided him, or speeded up? i mean, if he cartwhheled him the full 360, and he landed on his feet again, it would only have been a yellow!   

Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought. However you are missing the fundamental point here. The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.

How else do you judge how dangerous a tackle is? - you can only judge it on the outcome as anything else is too subjective.

So its really very clear and obvious. Touch a player in the air - penalty. Hit him hard enough so he lands awkwardly - yellow card. Hit him hard enough to turn him upside down so he lands on head / neck. Red.

Clear, consistent, objective judgement not subjective and obvious to a neutral

Clive - we have all read your point and rejected it and explained why on the other thread and on this on.  You don't understands the laws nor do you wish to listen to a clear explanation of what the laws are. There is no point in continually telling you why you are wrong. Do it once then drop it.

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

How else do you judge how dangerous a tackle is? - you can only judge it on the outcome as anything else is too subjective.  

So its really very clear and obvious.  Touch a player in the air - penalty.  Hit him hard enough so he lands awkwardly - yellow card.  Hit him hard enough to turn him upside down so he lands on head / neck.  Red.

Clear, consistent, objective judgement not subjective and obvious to a neutral

I'm not missing that point. That is the entire reason I started the thread. That i disagree with that is the entire point of this article.

The outcome is not subjective, the outcome is a matter of chance and is also determined by many factors that have nothing to do with the guilty player such as a the other players posture, momentum and elevation. It's completely the wrong way to judge these incidents. What is not subjective and can be judged is the offending players intent and risk.

I fully understand the law and you need to get that I fully and totally disagree with it and believe it needs to be changed as a matter of considerable urgency as it is leading to an unfair disparity of outcomes like the one I have highlighted here.

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

Goode never landed on his head though..

How do you judge intent, Notch? Surely that's very difficult.

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

How else do you judge how dangerous a tackle is? - you can only judge it on the outcome as anything else is too subjective.  

So its really very clear and obvious.  Touch a player in the air - penalty.  Hit him hard enough so he lands awkwardly - yellow card.  Hit him hard enough to turn him upside down so he lands on head / neck.  Red.

Clear, consistent, objective judgement not subjective and obvious to a neutral

I'm not missing that point. That is the entire reason I started the thread. That i disagree with that is the entire point of this article.

The outcome is not subjective, the outcome is a matter of chance. What is not subjective and can be judged is intent and risk. It's completely the wrong way to judge these incidents.

this is the point you miss. Did he land on his head or not? That is the OBJECTIVE standard by which the degree of danger is judged Intent is SUBJECTIVE

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

How else do you judge how dangerous a tackle is? - you can only judge it on the outcome as anything else is too subjective.  

So its really very clear and obvious.  Touch a player in the air - penalty.  Hit him hard enough so he lands awkwardly - yellow card.  Hit him hard enough to turn him upside down so he lands on head / neck.  Red.

Clear, consistent, objective judgement not subjective and obvious to a neutral

TJ, in what other aspects of the game is the severity of the punishment based on such detail? Like I said before, would a punch be dealt with more harshly if the victims nose got broke? No. Why because its black/white - you don't punch. Same in this instance - the rule is - you don't make contact in the air. If its red, fair enough, lets just always say its a red.

Here is why. The purpose of penalties/cards/bans is quite simply to discourage players from foul or reckless play.

So why should there be a differentiation when the goal is to stop it happening completely.

This is what leads to 'professional foul's where players are happy to accept a yellow in order to not concede a try for example.

What would be the point in telling players "heres the deal - this is what you simply MUST NOT EVER DO, but by the way, it also depends on how they land".

It has no bearing on the fact that the goal is to eradicate the action of tackling a player in the air.

If, for example, the IRB said 'contact in the air is red, full stop. You would eradicate it a lot quicker than currently, when a player can get away with a yellow, or a penalty or sometimes completely.

Maybe its the IRB who need to man up! Oops, I said it gain...  

clivemcl wrote:

No9 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

Spot on....

Cuthbert landed on his backside (hip)... Goode landed on his shoulder (neck) far far worse....

My last word on this, as this is turning back into Payne was innocent thread....

YOU DONT GET TO BACKUP A POINT THAT HAS BEEN COUNTERED! YOU HAVE TO COUNTER THE COUNTER ARGUMENT! FED UP WITH YOU DUMBASSES! MAN UP AND DEBATE THIS!!!

Not that I have to justify myself to you...however, have you ever considered that posts can progress quickly at times that a reply can be overtaken by another post....

Especially if someone is watching a game and not an Internet forum. You should try it someday, you may just understand the game a little more at the end...   

TJ wrote:this is the point you miss.  Did he land on his head or not?  That is the OBJECTIVE standard by which the degree of danger is judged  Intent is SUBJECTIVE

Aye, and it's completely wrong because that objective outcome has a LOT to do with factors the offending player has no control over whatsoever.

Goode was higher in the air than Cuthbert, hence at more risk. But Williams dropping his shoulder and the impact on Cuthbert being lower puts Cuthbert at more risk because there's more chance of him being cartwheeled than in the Payne incident. That Goode landed worse is down to the height of his jump, his momentum and other factors that have nothing to do with Payne.

But 9 times out of 10 what Williams did is much more dangerous and much riskier. So why is it a yellow card and a much less dangerous challenge a red based on factors which the offending player has zero influence over? Is that fair?

Of course it isn't fair. Once we start judging the action instead of the outcome we'll have a fair system because right now it's not the action which is being refereed its the outcome and the offending player doesn't influence the outcome enough to be judged by it.

Cyril wrote:How do you judge intent, Notch? Surely that's very difficult.

It's difficult but it's much, much fairer. And I don't have any problems with the ref giving out a yellow and flagging the incident for citing if it's a close call.

No9 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

No9 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It wasn't red because of how Cuthbert landed. If Cuthbert had landed like Goode did it would have been red.

Spot on....

Cuthbert landed on his backside (hip)... Goode landed on his shoulder (neck) far far worse....

My last word on this, as this is turning back into Payne was innocent thread....

YOU DONT GET TO BACKUP A POINT THAT HAS BEEN COUNTERED! YOU HAVE TO COUNTER THE COUNTER ARGUMENT! FED UP WITH YOU DUMBASSES! MAN UP AND DEBATE THIS!!!

Not that I have to justify myself to you...however, have you ever considered that posts can progress quickly at times that a reply can be overtaken by another post....

Especially if someone is watching a game and not an Internet forum. You should try it someday, you may just understand the game a little more at the end...   

I hadn't considered that, and i should have. Apologies No9.   

This inconsistency was brought back up the other week and then shouted down as a waste of everyone's time, so why is this one different?

So in the Leinster game, should Kirchner have been given a red? Because that is surely the worst outcome of the lot, the guy goes into a fit. How can it possibly be based on outcome? It is a complete farce.

The Saint wrote:This inconsistency was brought back up the other week and then shouted down as a waste of everyone's time, so why is this one different?

It's not. It remains a massive issue.

Not on the Payne was innocent(?) thread.

What incident are you referring to?

VinceWLB wrote:

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

Goode never landed on his head though..

Sorry - I should have said upper back if a player lands on his head, neck or upper back it is more dangerous than if he lands on his hip. That is the standard by which tip tackles are judged and its clear that in the Williams case the TMO and ref are using that standard to judge if its red or yellow.

NOtch - objective means it is not a matter of interpretation. ie a matter of fact. Did he land on his head, neck or upper back - objective standard. Everyone can see that Goode did land on his head, neck or upper back, In the Williams case everyone can see that the player tackled did not land on his hed, neck or upper back

Did he intend to do it - subjective as you are guessing as to his intention.

Notch wrote:

Cyril wrote:How do you judge intent, Notch? Surely that's very difficult.

It's difficult but it's much, much fairer. And I don't have any problems with the ref giving out a yellow and flagging the incident for citing if it's a close call.

I actually disagree Notch, I believe intent has to be completely out, in the same way as penalizing based on injury, or how they fall should be out of it.

They probably need to come out and say its red and always red.

Like I've said the purpose of all penalties/yellows/reds/bans is to eliminate these acts from the game.

We want to eradicate dangerous landing, so we have to strongly discourage contact in the air. They will find it harder to eradicate it, if the action of cantact in the air can be deemed as play-on/penalty/yellow/red depending on the ref.

Lets eliminate the dangter, lets send a message to the players. I'd like to see that from the IRB. Otherwise players may still be reckless and hopeful that they will get a yellow at worst. Evidence shows its rarely red. Not much of a deterrent.

Isn't that obvious now... If it wasn't a derby/judgement day, it probably would have been a straight red. There's a reluctance to show them in these games, except when you can red card one on each team I guess.

TJ wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:

TJ wrote:Notch - on another look the "slows and ducks" is not as obvious as I first thought.  However you are missing the fundamental point here.  The Payne tackle was more dangerous because Goode landed on his head.  

Goode never landed on his head though..

Sorry - I should have said upper back  if a player lands on his head, neck or upper back it is more dangerous than if he lands on his hip.  That is the standard by which tip tackles are judged and its clear that in the Williams case the TMO and ref are using that standard to judge if its red or yellow.

NOtch - objective means it is not a matter of interpretation. ie a matter of fact.  Did he land on his head, neck or upper back - objective standard.  Everyone can see that Goode did land on his head, neck or upper back,  In the Williams case everyone can see that the player tackled did not land on his hed, neck or upper back

Did he intend to do it - subjective as you are guessing as to his intention.

Are you even reading my posts?

Cuthbert is taller and a lot heavier than Goode which is why he felt more safely, should that be taken into account too?

It's ridiculous to decide the outcome of an action solely based on the result of it.

The Saint wrote:Isn't that obvious now... If it wasn't a derby/judgement day, it probably would have been a straight red. There's a reluctance to show them in these games, except when you can red card one on each team I guess.

No it's not obvious at all as I didn't read the thread- say what you're hinting at or don't.