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.

clivemcl wrote:

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.   

No problem....   

Notch - outcomes are used all the time to judge degree of danger. Take the tip tackle judged for colour of card on the outcome. Or punching. Swing a punch and miss you rarely get red. Swing a punch and knock him out - red.

Notch wrote:

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.

Well my first comment mentioned the 'inconsistency' which refers to the actual ruling. The thread where this discussion took place was regarding the Payne/Goode incident.

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.

TJ wrote:Notch - outcomes are used all the time to judge degree of danger.  Take the tip tackle judged for colour of card on the outcome.  Or punching.  Swing a punch and miss you rarely get red.  Swing a punch and knock him out - red.

Jesus, I swear to god it's like you really aren't reading my posts. Can I make this argument any simpler for you?

1) When you tip tackle someone you are in control of how they land. You are responsible for that.
2) When you punch someone, you are in control of the outcome. If you miss or not it's entirely down to you.
3) When you collide with someone in the air, you are not in control of the outcome. You may not even be the main factor that contributes to that outcome. Therefore 3) is different to 1) and 2) and judging the incident solely by the outcome is unfair. You may commit a much, much more dangerous offence and the outcome isn't that serious because of other factors. The outcome is one factor, but it should be judged by several different criteria otherwise we are going to keep getting unfair discrepancies like this one.

The Saint wrote:

Notch wrote:

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.

Well my first comment mentioned the 'inconsistency' which refers to the actual ruling. The thread where this discussion took place was regarding the Payne/Goode incident.

I still have no idea what you are talking about, but whatever. Thats fine.

clivemcl wrote: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.

.

 

Its not just depending on the ref.  Its also judged on how dangerous it is and that is judged on how the player lands.  The Payne one was more dangerous because of the way the player lands

Guys - you have had this explained to you very clearly.  Its obvious both these incidents - ( Payne / Williams) were judged on the objective criteria of did the player land on his head, neck or upper back.  In the Payne incident Goode did - hence the red.  In the Williams one he did not hence yellow.  YOu can hear the ref and TMO discussing this.

Notch - calm down.  I understand your point.  I disagree and have explained why.

What would help is if the IRB would publish more clearly the guidence given to refs.

TJ wrote:Notch - calm down.  I understand your point.  I disagree and have explained why.

No you haven't! All you've done is repeat the same point over and over again without engaging with the debate.

Ok - now please just calm down and try to understand. The explanation I have given is the only possible one I have to why I disagree

In the Payne incident the tackled player landed on his "head, neck or upper back".  This warrents red as it is very dangerous.
 In the Williams one the tackled player lands on his hip - thus it is less dangerous thus its a yellow.

You can hear in the Wiliams one the REf and TMO discussing this

this is the refs being entirely consistent and judging dangerous play on objective criteria.

You seem to want the refs to guess what the intent was.  that way you get a much more inconsistant decision making process as you are asking the refs to make a subjective judgement not an objective one

clivemcl wrote:

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.

Whether it's stupid or not, that is what it is based on. And yes, if you swing for someone and hit someone in the face you'll tend to be more heavily penalised than if you caught their arm or chest.

And Notch, yes there is an element of luck in it. But if your act may result in someone hitting their head hard then you need to be extra careful because if they do you will be crucified.

In the end he did get red for a second yellow following a technical offence in the second half. I only watched the second half and at the time I thought that the second card was very harsh indeed but after watching the clip of the tackle in the air, it probably makes sense.

Very poor ref overall same time as Liam was red carded, Melon got away with a stamp well away from the ball but the Cardiff 8 also got red for kicking Liam in the head!

Will Liam Williams get a ban for two yellows or is the sending off deemed enough of a punishment?

TJ wrote:Ok - now please just calm down and try to understand.  The explanation I have given is the only possible one I have to why I disagree

In the Payne incident the tackled player landed on his "head, neck or upper back".  This warrents red as it is very dangerous.
 In the Williams one the tackled player lands on his hip - thus it is less dangerous thus its a yellow.

I understand that- I've also demonstrated why it's a farcical way of doing things through logic and it's this which you are unable/unwilling to respond to. The point is that argument has been torn to shreds before you started so just repeating it doesn't get any more credible. Defend your position with logic and reasonable debate if you can.

HammerofThunor wrote:And Notch, yes there is an element of luck in it. But if your act may result in someone hitting their head hard then you need to be extra careful because if they do you will be crucified.

And now we have a system where you can get off for a much more severe action because they don't hit their head. Even though they could have easily and the player has no control over that once contact is made. You should be crucified for the action which introduces the risk it may happen not acquitted for it not happening. That is why the way the law is is completely and utterly wrong right now. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.

What Williams did today makes the Payne challenge pale into insignificance. People just want to see fair and consistent outcomes when the stakes are so high.

Ignoring the couple of idiots having a fit, this thread does make an interesting point. If a player goes in with rotten intent but the victim is lucky in the way he lands, I don't see why it should have any bearing. It's unfortunate that you can't look inside a player's head to discern the exact motive. But in this instance the most damning feature, for me, is that Liam didn't even try to challenge for the ball. He ran in a straight line and didn't stop until he was tangled in Cuthbert's legs. I'd have been tempted to whip out a red purely to get the message through to players: you don't get to be reckless without suffering the consequences... start bloody thinking before you act

If Easterby and co. don't take Williams aside and have a serious word at the very least then they're carp coaches. He needs to wind himself in or f*ck off to another club. These brainless moments can't be allowed to continue.

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:Ok - now please just calm down and try to understand.  The explanation I have given is the only possible one I have to why I disagree

In the Payne incident the tackled player landed on his "head, neck or upper back".  This warrents red as it is very dangerous.
 In the Williams one the tackled player lands on his hip - thus it is less dangerous thus its a yellow.

I understand that- I've also demonstrated why it's a farcical way of doing things through logic and it's this which you are unable/unwilling to respond to. The point is that argument has been torn to shreds before you started so just repeating it doesn't get any more credible. Defend your position with logic and reasonable debate if you can.

Notch - no what you have demonstrated is an inability to understand what objective and subjective mean. My argument has not been torn to shreds. Yours has. Your partiality does not allow you to understand this. Nothing at all logical about your posting at all. Its all about emotion. You are looking for a way to exhonerate the player you are a fan of. You are not attempting to understand the reasons for the decision. You have also changed your stance from "the ref is wrong" to "the laws are wrong" once you have had the laws and the reasons for the decision explained to you. YOu are in a very noisy minority on here who seem unable to understand the critical difference between these two incidents. Most of us both understand it and agree with it.

What I have described is why the two are different and why the Payne one was more dangerous. What you have done is as for the refs to guess what was in the players mind. I guess once you have calmed down and actuallyuse a bit of logicv you might come to understand why decision making on objective criteria is better than that on subjective criteria

The only difference I see is that Williams' is a clear penalty and Payne's was questionable. Once both have been deemed as foul play Payne's is worse because of it's effect on Goode (not injury but landing). Once Payne's has been deemed reckless play it is immediately worse.

Now we can have discussion over what should be considered reckless but that doesn't have any baring on cards IMO.

So you have, is it foul play or not?

1) deliberate foul play? Definitely yes
2) reckless but unintentional? Yes
3) accidental? No

Once it's been determined as foul play, further sanction is determined by the outcome (again not injury). And in this case the outcome was not as bad as Payne's but it was clearly foul play.

That's the way it's supposed to be now. Whether it 'should' be or not is a good question.

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And Notch, yes there is an element of luck in it. But if your act may result in someone hitting their head hard then you need to be extra careful because if they do you will be crucified.

And now we have a system where you can get off for a much more severe action because they don't hit their head. Even though they could have easily and the player has no control over that once contact is made. You should be crucified for the action which introduces the risk it may happen not acquitted for it not happening. That is why the way the law is is completely and utterly wrong right now. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.

What Williams did today makes the Payne challenge pale into insignificance. People just want to see fair and consistent outcomes when the stakes are so high.

again you show your lack of understanding.  The Payne one was more dangerous than the Williams one.  this is a simple fact.  Payne thru foul play caused a player to hit his head.  Williams thru foul play did not cause a player to hit his head. Once you understand this then you will see that it is actually totally fair and consistent. Your failure to understand that the Payne one was ACTUALLY more dangerous ( not potentially) leads you to the erroneous conclusion. argue logically from a false premise you will end up with a fallacious answer

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:And Notch, yes there is an element of luck in it. But if your act may result in someone hitting their head hard then you need to be extra careful because if they do you will be crucified.

And now we have a system where you can get off for a much more severe action because they don't hit their head. Even though they could have easily and the player has no control over that once contact is made. You should be crucified for the action which introduces the risk it may happen not acquitted for it not happening. That is why the way the law is is completely and utterly wrong right now. It's a ludicrous state of affairs.

What Williams did today makes the Payne challenge pale into insignificance. People just want to see fair and consistent outcomes when the stakes are so high.

again you show your lack of understanding.  The Payne one was more dangerous than the Williams one.  this is a simple fact.  Payne thru foul play caused a player to hit his head.  Williams thru foul play did not cause a player to hit his head

No mate, quite the opposite. This is demonstrating YOUR lack of understanding. The Payne incident was more dangerous but due to factors that had nothing to with Payne or his challenge, and my argument is those factors should NOT be part of the decision of his punishment. The player should be judged only for what he is responsible for. Payne is no more responsible for Goode landing badly than Williams is for Cuthbert landing safely. Both of those have more to do with the players jump and body posture than the nature of the contact. There is a lot more danger in what Williams did as compared to Payne but Cuthbert was in a less vulnerable position. That does not make what he did any less serious to me.

You are essentially advocating the player should be judged for factors which have nothing to do with the action, which is going to lead to unfair and inconsistent punishments as it has done in both of the incidents we are discussing. As right now the difference between yellow and red is a lottery. You simply can't lay the blame entirely for how a player lands on the player making the challenge. It's qualitatively different to a tip tackle in this respect.

Good grief you can't say that a tackle in the air is more dangerous than another because of how they fall. If its illegal, its illegal. Full stop.

Its a problem with even our judicial system. Too many think these sanctions exist as a repayment for their wrongdoing! NOT TRUE. These things exist because the hope is, players don't want yellows or reds and so will avoid doing illegal things.

If you want players to stop breaking the rules, you have to just say contact in the air equals red and stop considering any other lottery like probable scenarios.

clivemcl wrote:Good grief you can't say that a tackle in the air is more dangerous than another because of how they fall. If its illegal, its illegal. Full stop.

Complete nonsense, of course you can. That's why we have several level of sanction.

Its a problem with even our judicial system. Too many think these sanctions exist as a repayment for their wrongdoing! NOT TRUE. These things exist because the hope is, players don't want yellows or reds and so will avoid doing illegal things.

Actually it's a bit of both and they're fairly intertwined.

If you want players to stop breaking the rules, you have to just say contact in the air equals red and stop considering any other lottery like probable scenarios.

Or they could do what they did with tip tackles and clearly dictate the various levels.

Tip tackles can be judged by how the player lands in terms of severity whereas tackling a player in the air absolutely can't be judged that way- at least not fairly. Thats the major difference.

We do need a criteria set down, but it has to be based on risk not outcome.

I suspect the biggest difference between the tip tackle and this is that the "offending" player has some control over the way the player comes down so it is reasonable to allow that to dictate the sanction.

In the case of contact with a player in the air, the "offending" player has absolutely no control over what happens. So, and accidental contact can result in a horrible landing and a very deliberate contact could cause a much less dangerous landing.

Is it not ridiculous that accidental contact is punished more severely than deliberate contact just because of what happens aftrewards?

MrsP wrote:I suspect the biggest difference between the tip tackle and this is that the "offending" player has some control over the way the player comes down so it is reasonable to allow that to dictate the sanction.

In the case of contact with a player in the air, the "offending" player has absolutely no control over what happens. So, and accidental contact can result in a horrible landing and a very deliberate contact could cause a much less dangerous landing.

Is it not ridiculous that accidental contact is punished more severely than deliberate contact just because of what happens aftrewards?

Thankyou!

So the Justice 4 Payne crusade is now attempting to exonerate their man by saying that the IRB's directives on how to punish the outcome of a dangerous (or potentially dangerous) challenge on a player in the air should be repealed.

The tough stance to be taken on the outcome of such challenges is addressing player welfare and safety. People need to realise this before advocating a change in interpretation of the current guidelines issued to officials.

I would not want the current guidelines on cards to be changed because they are there to protect players.

Notch wrote:Tip tackles can be judged by how the player lands in terms of severity whereas tackling a player in the air absolutely can't be judged that way- at least not fairly. Thats the major difference.

We do need a criteria set down, but it has to be based on risk not outcome.

Exactly, imagine if it was Cuthbert instead of lightweight Goode he wouldn't have felt this badly and Payne would have received a different sanction for doing exactly the same thing.

The Williams incident is very similar to the Hogg one, both guilty of intent, only Hogg was red carded by Garces.

Did Biggar land on his noggin? His neck? His upper back? Nope, in fact he landed on his front without his head touching the ground.

Very inconsistent.

I think the IRB have changed things by applying their Tip Tackle directive to a different situation.

I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse me of not being concerned with player safety Hound.

The other difference between the 2 situations is that in a Tip Tackle it is the offending player who places the other player in a potentially dangerous position by lifting him. In the incidents we are discussing here it is the other player who makes himself airborne.

Notch wrote:

MrsP wrote:I suspect the biggest difference between the tip tackle and this is that the "offending" player has some control over the way the player comes down so it is reasonable to allow that to dictate the sanction.

In the case of contact with a player in the air, the "offending" player has absolutely no control over what happens. So, and accidental contact can result in a horrible landing and a very deliberate contact could cause a much less dangerous landing.

Is it not ridiculous that accidental contact is punished more severely than deliberate contact just because of what happens aftrewards?

Thankyou!

I don't know anymore. I mean couldn't this, always be claimed as 'accidental'. No player says, 'I'm totally going to nail him before he lands!' when they know fine rightly what the punishments are.

Despite the fact Williams was more intentional than Payne I still would argue that Williams just got it wrong as opposed to knowingly intending to do something illegal.

In fairness, its a fine margin. The best time to hit the man is the very split second one toe returns to the ground. And isn't that what we all want to see from our team? Huge hits!

You have to send a message of 'unless you are 100% sure, its not worth the risk'.

Therefore reds no matter what the intent or landing position is.

You will reduce the incidents by a huge proportion almost immediately. Trust me.

Any example made of Payne two weeks ago has now been muddied by refs showing that its not such a big deal as long as they don't land badly. No real strong deterrent.

Hound of Harrow wrote:So the Justice 4 Payne crusade is now attempting to exonerate their man by saying that the IRB's directives on how to punish the outcome of a dangerous (or potentially dangerous) challenge on a player in the air should be repealed.

I think you'll find this Ulster player is doing the opposite.   

"I think you'll find this Ulster player is doing the opposite. "

Didn't realise you been capped Clive!

No MrsP, I'm absolutely not saying that you are not concerned with player welfare. I know you are - passionately.

I understand that this thread is about whether the current guidelines on what card is issued in these circumstances should be reviewed.

Imo trying to protect players from potentially serious injury, whilst trying to preserve the physical aspect of the game, is important.

Had Ulster won the match would we be having this discussion, interesting as it is.

I have no idea if we would or not Hound and I don't really know how that is relevant?

I am pretty sure we would be having this discussion no matter which teams had been involved although I will accept that certain posters might be on the other side of the fence if it were so.

I think some of us would be discussing it in the same terms no matter which teams were involved.

Munchkin wrote:The Williams incident is very similar to the Hogg one, both guilty of intent, only Hogg was red carded by Garces.

Did Biggar land on his noggin? His neck? His upper back? Nope, in fact he landed on his front without his head touching the ground.

Very inconsistent.

Not really. Did Hogg deliberately put his shoulder into Biggar's jaw? I don't think so. If he had caught him in the chest it would have been penalty/yellow card. Because he caught the head he was given a red, regardless of his actual intent. The outcome resulted in the red not the intent.

clive - that's why I also said 'potentially dangerous'.

Payne does not have a rep for being a dirty player, and I'm sure he didn't intend to clatter Goode. But he took a huge risk by running at pace into a situation where he was potentially going to take a player out in the air.

Refs decision surely? Could have given a red. If it was Garces it probably would have been red. If you put yourself in that position you are in danger of getting carded.

A YC is not a deterrent?

It certainly can be a lottery what happens if you interfere with a player in the air whilst you have purchase on the ground and momentum, which is the whole point, and why it's labelled reckless play.

The clear message is don't come charging beneath an up & under without going airbourne yourself, because what transpires will likely be beyond your control and you will be judged by the result.  If players are stupid enough to put themselves at the mercy of that lottery and seriously risk the safety of others in the process, then they deserve the potential outcome.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The Williams incident is very similar to the Hogg one, both guilty of intent, only Hogg was red carded by Garces.

Did Biggar land on his noggin? His neck? His upper back? Nope, in fact he landed on his front without his head touching the ground.

Very inconsistent.

Not really. Did Hogg deliberately put his shoulder into Biggar's jaw? I don't think so. If he had caught him in the chest it would have been penalty/yellow card. Because he caught the head he was given a red, regardless of his actual intent. The outcome resulted in the red not the intent.

Did he intend to hit Biggar on the jaw? I don't know, but did he intend to take Biggar out? Well, decide for yourself on reading Hoggs apology:

"I always try to play hard and fair and what happened today was out of character for me. Once again, I’m very sorry"

I was disappointed in Hogg being red carded, and for selfish reasons I suppose as it ruined the game as a contest, but can't really complain about the red as it looked intentional. Unusual for Hogg as he is a fair player, I think.

They are both fairly similar incidents, Hammer. True that Garces may have taken the strike to the head into account though.

These rulings are farcical, and they will continue to be unless the IRB pull the finger out, and bring clarity to the law.....and fairness.

MrsP wrote:"I think you'll find this Ulster player is doing the opposite. "

Didn't realise you been capped Clive!

DOH!   

beshocked wrote:Refs decision surely? Could have given a red. If it was Garces it probably would have been red. If you put yourself in that position you are in danger of getting carded.

A YC is not a deterrent?

Just look at the numbers of yellow cards given by teams defending in their own 22 with a few minutes left with only a small lead. That should answer your question.

Are you saying that if the IRb came out and said this law equals a red forever and always, that it wouldn't impact on the number of infringements. Of course it would, so lets eradicate the danger.

A player in Payne/Williams position does what he does not knowing if they are at risk of giving away a penalty or getting a yellow or getting a red and a ban.

Just tell them its definitely red from now on, and they will stop taking the risk, there will be a very sharp decline in these type of incidents.

Disagree?

Hound of Harrow wrote:I would not want the current guidelines on cards to be changed because they are there to protect players.

Well they don't. To be quite frank. They have a good intention behind them, but in practice the only thing they do is promote an unfair and inconsistent method of punishing these incidents. If they were designed to protect players they would punish incidents like the Williams challenge more harshly as these are potentially more dangerous and in that case the player is consciously causing that danger- instead they are over-focused on outcome which is not always influenced by the challenge.

How does getting away with a yellow card for an intentional challenge in the air because the player is lucky enough to land safely protect players? Next time he might not be so lucky. Surely stamping down hard on players who go into challenges in a a way that endangers players is the way to protect players. The point is, always has been and always will be that an accidental collision can be more serious in outcome than a deliberate tackle in the air. You can't eliminate accidental collisions from the game but they should still be penalised and punished albeit less severely- we have to accept that something like that happening is part of the risk of the game, especially when players are jumping into traffic. But when you are seeing deliberate challenges punished less than accidental ones, it's proof positive the system is broken, because that is causing that risk to the jumper deliberately.

It's a massive issue that needs addressed by the IRB, asap. The outcome focused way of judging these incidents just isn't good enough. In protecting the player in the air, they are ascribing that players agency to the offending player. You can end up getting penalised much more harshly because the jumper has taken on a bigger risk even if you commit a much less serious offence.

Didn't see the game but Williams seems to be involved in an awful lot of foul play incidents. Really needs to cop on.

Notch wrote:



................... The Payne incident was more dangerous but due to factors that had nothing to with Payne or his challenge, and my argument is those factors should NOT be part of the decision of his punishment. The player should be judged only for what he is responsible for. Payne is no more responsible for Goode landing badly than Williams is for Cuthbert landing safely. Both of those have more to do with the players jump and body posture than the nature of the contact. There is a lot more danger in what Williams did as compared to Payne but Cuthbert was in a less vulnerable position. That does not make what he did any less serious to me.

You are essentially advocating the player should be judged for factors which have nothing to do with the action, which is going to lead to unfair and inconsistent punishments as it has done in both of the incidents we are discussing. As right now the difference between yellow and red is a lottery. You simply can't lay the blame entirely for how a player lands on the player making the challenge. It's qualitatively different to a tip tackle in this respect.

I am advocating nothing. I am telling you why the Payne tackle was more dangerous and why the sanction was correct

Of course it was Paynes fault that Goode landed dangerously. Payne hit him in the air and that created the danger.

How you can possibly say the Williams one was more dangerous when its the complete opposite. Cuthbert landed safely - Goode did not.

You are confusing POTENTIAL danger with ACTUAL danger. YOu want the Ref to guess at the potential danger and at the players intent? a recipe for far more inconsistency. Its far better to use an objective measure which is simple, consistent and easy for refs. Like did the player land on his head, neck or upper back.

What you are doing isa trying to find a way to exhonerate your player. you are then creating a totally bogus argument to do so.

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:



................... The Payne incident was more dangerous but due to factors that had nothing to with Payne or his challenge, and my argument is those factors should NOT be part of the decision of his punishment. The player should be judged only for what he is responsible for. Payne is no more responsible for Goode landing badly than Williams is for Cuthbert landing safely. Both of those have more to do with the players jump and body posture than the nature of the contact. There is a lot more danger in what Williams did as compared to Payne but Cuthbert was in a less vulnerable position. That does not make what he did any less serious to me.

You are essentially advocating the player should be judged for factors which have nothing to do with the action, which is going to lead to unfair and inconsistent punishments as it has done in both of the incidents we are discussing. As right now the difference between yellow and red is a lottery. You simply can't lay the blame entirely for how a player lands on the player making the challenge. It's qualitatively different to a tip tackle in this respect.

I am advocating nothing.  I am telling you why the Payne tackle was more dangerous and why the sanction was correct

Of course it was Paynes fault that Goode landed dangerously. Payne hit him in the air and that created the danger.

How you can possibly say the Williams one was more dangerous when its the complete opposite.  Cuthbert landed safely - Goode did not.

You are confusing POTENTIAL danger with ACTUAL danger.  YOu want the Ref to guess at the potential danger and at the players intent?  a recipe for far more inconsistency.  Its far better to use an objective measure which is simple, consistent and easy for refs.  Like did the player land on his head, neck or upper back.

What you are doing isa trying to find a way to exhonerate your player.  you are then creating a totally bogus argument to do so.

Well Goode is 83kg and Cuthbert is 106kg, what Liam Williams did was worse than Payne.

TJ wrote:Of course it was Paynes fault that Goode landed dangerously. Payne hit him in the air and that created the danger.

How you can possibly say the Williams one was more dangerous when its the complete opposite.  Cuthbert landed safely - Goode did not.

You are confusing POTENTIAL danger with ACTUAL danger.  YOu want the Ref to guess at the potential danger and at the players intent?  a recipe for far more inconsistency.  Its far better to use an objective measure which is simple, consistent and easy for refs.  Like did the player land on his head, neck or upper back.

What you are doing isa trying to find a way to exhonerate your player.  you are then creating a totally bogus argument to do so.

My God, you are so stupid man! How on earth can you not be getting this?! And to then throw insults at me and question my motives because you don't seem to be capable of understanding a very simple argument... jesus wept.

I'm going to try and explain this one last time as slowly and simply as I can. I simply don't have the patience to try and get this through to you so this is the last time.

The outcome is moot because ACTUAL danger is caused by more factors than the collision. The height of the jump, whether the jumper is protecting himself, what speed he is traveling at. There are many factors other than the actions of the offending player that determine what happens next. Sometimes the nature of the collision isn't even the main factor that determines how the player lands.

i want the referee to assess not the outcome of the incident, but the players contribution to the incident. Right now all the blame goes to that player but all the consequences are not a result of his actions. A player should only be responsible for the consequences of his actions. When you say the referee should be assessing the potential danger, that is 100% what he should be doing and if the situation is too complex to determine during the match then give a yellow and flag it up for the citing commissioner to sort out. But if a player collides accidentally face first with a jumper I can guarantee nine times out of ten it will contribute less to the outcome of the collision than if a player lunges into a jumpers legs if all the other circumstances regarding the elevation and trajectory of that player are the same.

The reason the Goode incident was dangerous was his elevation and speed as well as the actions of the offending player. Therefore the offending player should be punished only for his input into that incident and going by the outcome will lead to unfair judgments. You can see an incident here, the Williams one where the player committed an action which is much riskier and much more dangerous but the outcome was safer because the player he targeted was not as high off the ground and not traveling forward as quickly. A safer outcome for a much more dangerous and intentional incident but the offending players contribution was much more severe.

We do player safety no favours at all by punishing the accidental collision more harshly than the deliberate shoulder charge because the other circumstances made it look less dangerous. In the second incident the offending player committed a much worse offence and if those two offences were repeated its the second one that is more likely to result in a worse outcome.

The Ulster thing is a completely moot point- while it did somewhat ruin our season it's done, there's no point in debating it. What is important is to see that if the rules are not reviewed the exact same injustice could happen again to a different team, in a different competition and that can now be avoided if the IRB act now. We've already had one quarter-final needlessly ruined. Why risk having more games spoilt by an unfair law?

clivemcl wrote:

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!!!

Notch wrote:
My God, you are so stupid man! How on earth can you not be getting this?! And to then throw insults at me and question my motives because you don't seem to be capable of understanding a very simple argument... jesus wept.

Not much different here Notch to what you told me off far. Unless was it the capitals alone that was the problem?

You did call me embarassing, so just wondering - was it just the capitals that was embarassing, because referring to another posters poor intellect and ability to argue a point is the exact same as what I did...

Just sayin...

I was addressing a guy who was conversing with me directly, and rather insultingly in the last instance, you were just randomly attacking people clive. That guy never engaged with you at all and probably didn't read any of your prior posts. It was just a very strange and embarrassing thing to do.

To be fair, thats a bit harsh on TJ. I'm sorry TJ. But seriously you have to be trying very hard not to get this point. Like you can't have read all my posts and still be getting the wrong end of the stick here- let's be honest. There's not much effort to see the other side going in here.

Notch.  I have not insulted you.  You simply fail to understand the issues at all and are getting very het up.  the only thing that created the danger for Goode was Paynes actions.  Nothing else at all.  If Payne had not collided with him there would have been no danger.  This is one of the bits you don't want to see in your desire to exonerate your player. Nothing else is relevant.

I completely understand your arguement and also understand it is bogus.  I have explained why it is bogus.

You want the ref to guess at loads of subjective factors.  this is a recipe for far greater inconsistencies

thanks for the apology. As a mod you really should be careful in heated debate.

Notch - its one of the problems with forums. You think if I understood your point I would agree. Not so. I understand your point but still disagree.

I think that if you understood my point you would agree with me. Mind you I am not sure you do.

TJ wrote:Notch.  I have not insulted you.  You simply fail to understand the issues at all and are getting very het up.  the only thing that created the danger for Goode was Paynes actions.  Nothing else at all.  If Payne had not collided with him there would have been no danger.  This is one of the bits you don't want to see in your desire to exonerate your player.  Nothing else is relevant.

Oh my god that is just the cap of it all isn't it... Jesus wept...

If that is not a genuine post you are one of the cleverest wind-up merchants on these boards. If it is a genuine post, and you really don't get this, then I really do worry for you. I really do.

TJ wrote:I think that if you understood my point you would agree with me.  Mind you I am not sure you do.

I understand your point, I don't understand why you have such a very, very poor grasp of basic physics. But if it is your genuine view that when two objects collide the only thing thing that influences what happens next is the speed and trajectory of just one object then good luck to you.