nick williams must be banned for 2 years.

[TRF_Cymro]

Should have stuck with 16 weeks personally. He knew what he was doing, has a slight track record of these things. I am 99% sure if if was one of us in Patchell's shoes we wouldn't be debating the ban. Got away did old Nick boy. 2 years is far fetch but 16 weeks I wouldn't have said no to.

 

[nickdnz]

Should have stuck with 16 weeks personally. He knew what he was doing, has a slight track record of these things. I am 99% sure if if was one of us in Patchell's shoes we wouldn't be debating the ban. Got away did old Nick boy. 2 years is far fetch but 16 weeks I wouldn't have said no to.

Which is why victims aren't responsible for dealing out punishments.

Again I have to say - I would say it is a stretch to give it a yellow card. And I'm not a 'rugby going soft' type. I just don't think there is anything in it. A guy can get injured without someone doing anything that isn't in the spirit of the game - especially if he has a history of injuries. 8 weeks seems absurd to me - there is certainly no consistency with punishments. The difference between this and a shoulder high tackle - is there is no requirement to 'wrap' ones arms when contesting - in fact the only logical way to clear out a ruck is with only one shoulder connecting. Yes it got his head because the player was low and Nick Williams was high, and it probably was careless. But to say this is even a red card to me is absurd. It's really unfortunate and reckless enough maybe for a yellow - but it happens 90x a match and the only possible argument was that he came in with a swinging arm - which isn't really how I see it. It's just a lazy clear out..

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Which is why victims aren't responsible for dealing out punishments.

Again I have to say - I would say it is a stretch to give it a yellow card. And I'm not a 'rugby going soft' type. I just don't think there is anything in it. A guy can get injured without someone doing anything that isn't in the spirit of the game - especially if he has a history of injuries. 8 weeks seems absurd to me - there is certainly no consistency with punishments. The difference between this and a shoulder high tackle - is there is no requirement to 'wrap' ones arms when contesting - in fact the only logical way to clear out a ruck is with only one shoulder connecting. Yes it got his head because the player was low and Nick Williams was high, and it probably was careless. But to say this is even a red card to me is absurd. It's really unfortunate and reckless enough maybe for a yellow - but it happens 90x a match and the only possible argument was that he came in with a swinging arm - which isn't really how I see it. It's just a lazy clear out..

I highlight the words which stand out to me that makes it a red card. The guy came in with a swinging arm, which is dangerous play. Doesn't matter if he is a back or a forward. The clearout was not legal. My opinion won't sway (which is why we debate) and people can call me all the names under the sun, fact remains it was dangerous play. I personally believe the punishment should have stuck at 16 weeks.

 

[nickdnz]

I highlight the words which stand out to me that makes it a red card. The guy came in with a swinging arm, which is dangerous play. Doesn't matter if he is a back or a forward. The clearout was not legal. My opinion won't sway (which is why we debate) and people can call me all the names under the sun, fact remains it was dangerous play. I personally believe the punish - ment should have stuck at 16 weeks.

Fair enough. But the words you highlighted are removed from the context of the sentence (which is a fun game incidentally). That's the thing with having laws of the game, they're up to interpretation. For me that clear out was legal - but I don't see it as a swinging arm as I explained earlier. When I say it was lazy I mean that it wasn't good technique. I think the fact it resulted in an injury is completely irrelevant. I've had shoulders dislocated for just getting an arm trapped in a maul, nothing illegal occurring - and this is similar for my mind. Had it not would this be a big ban or even a penalty? And would we keep that consistent?

Anyway, obviously some people are seeing this differently from me (not sure I'd call you any name under the sun over this). I don't see it as foul play - and if we're consistent then every act of foul play should results in a 16 week ban as this is at the totally lowest end of the scale that I think it probably was completely innocent.

 

[Bluemoon]

Just to be clear, the two year ban thing is ridiculous and I never once expected that! I think it's just the name of the thread to be honest and the relevant place to discuss the incident.

As I've said, I just felt that the incident was a red card as it was a reckless hit to the head that was avoidable (regardless if that's now rucks happen all the time or his intent.)

Bans I'm not that interested in bans because they just frustrate me with the inconsistency! We could all find 3 examples where in comparison it deserved less or deserved more...

 

[lucky number 7]

I still don't see how people are calling it a shoulder charge...Essentially the only way one should ruck is by gathering momentum hitting with the sshoulder and clearing out on an upwards trajectory. The only thing Nick Williams did wrong was do that silly ****ing arm twist that makes every collision look so much worse.

The more I see the incident the less I think it warranted a card.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Yeah I don't know now, I'm conflicted. If we're talking bans then 16 weeks, 2 years, whatever, is way too excessive for me. All I know is that in Super rugby, clean outs, even if a genuine attempt, if they go wrong or one of your limbs goes flailing in inadvertently, you're done. the referees have been cracking down on it. If rugby all over the world is consistent, then a red card and a couple of weeks is probably justified. There's probably also an argument that says if the head bosses want to make an example out of people, even if this isn't the worst of the worst, then this is the line we're taking. I agree, it doesn't look that malicious, but reckless, lazy, dumb aren't really excuses either. I'm sure someone will say I'm being soft, but that's my take on it. I'm not necessarily saying that's what I would love to see, I'm just saying for consistency and sending the right message then that might be the reality.

Sometimes fans on a rugby board and the judiciary might use different reasoning. I suspect the latter takes a more holistic approach. (obvious statement but sometimes easy to forget)

 

[munstermuffin]

Just on this. I can't say I agree either. Like what Nick Williams did was reckless but no more as if he was few inches either way he'd have made a massive and good clear out. His arm only comes up after that.
But like this is worth 8 but an incident like the Tuilagi/Ashton boxing game or more blatant and dangerous offences get less time is what irritates me

 

[Kempy]

Williams came in with the soft under side of his arm, it could have been a lot worse if he really wanted to cause some harm i.e. His shoulder, his elbow?? etc. it was a bit reckless and so a yellow card to give him some time to cool down is appropriate. It was unfortunate that Patchell was injured as a result of the tackle and I honestly think the same tackle cold have a completely different outcome (no injury) if it happened again! The suggestion of two years is absolutely ridiculous when you put this incident in context and watch alongside other notoriously bad tackles, of which there are many!

 

[lucky number 7]

Just on this. I can't say I agree either. Like what Nick Williams did was reckless but no more as if he was few inches either way he'd have made a massive and good clear out. His arm only comes up after that.
But like this is worth 8 but an incident like the Tuilagi/Ashton boxing game or more blatant and dangerous offences get less time is what irritates me

Call me old fashioned but I think in the context of a rugby match a punch is just a punch. Tempers boil over in a physical and very often frustrating sport and I don't think a punch warrants a ban in excess of 2-3 weeks. Unless it was a cheap shot...but a punch to the face of an individual who you're toe to toe with. Work away gents.

 

[munstermuffin]

Call me old fashioned but I think in the context of a rugby match a punch is just a punch. Tempers boil over in a physical and very often frustrating sport and I don't think a punch warrants a ban in excess of 2-3 weeks. Unless it was a cheap shot...but a punch to the face of an individual who you're toe to toe with. Work away gents.

No I have no issue with punch. More the consistency of punishments. My point being I don't think Williams warranted the lengthy ban

 

[nickdnz]

Call me old fashioned but I think in the context of a rugby match a punch is just a punch. Tempers boil over in a physical and very often frustrating sport and I don't think a punch warrants a ban in excess of 2-3 weeks. Unless it was a cheap shot...but a punch to the face of an individual who you're toe to toe with. Work away gents.

Anyone who is familiar with the case of Kermit Washington knows a punch isn't always a punch.

For me punching a guy in the face is more deliberate and easier to avoid - but I don't feel this is like the Nick Williams case. I doubt he believed there was anything at all unusual or particularly malicious about that clear out.

 

[MPress01]

Should have stuck with 16 weeks personally. He knew what he was doing, has a slight track record of these things. I am 99% sure if if was one of us in Patchell's shoes we wouldn't be debating the ban. Got away did old Nick boy. 2 years is far fetch but 16 weeks I wouldn't have said no to.

8 weeks or 16 weeks... he misses the same amount of games! therefore its immaterial at the end of the day... although 2 years? so Julien Dupey gets a year long ban (give or take) for eye gouging Stephen Ferris... please tell me how this was worse than an eye gouge....God, i wouldnt want thon lad sitting on any disciplinary panel i may be subjected to whilst playing! haha

 

[TRF_Cymro]

8 weeks or 16 weeks... he misses the same amount of games! therefore its immaterial at the end of the day... although 2 years? so Julien Dupey gets a year long ban (give or take) for eye gouging Stephen Ferris... please tell me how this was worse than an eye gouge....God, i wouldnt want thon lad sitting on any disciplinary panel i may be subjected to whilst playing! haha

Sorry don't quite get this. Where did I mention Ferris? Where did I say this incident was worse / better than a gouge? Can I point out that I didn't say 2 years ...

 

[smartcooky]

8 weeks for that is imo harsh. but thats the way the games going and I for one dont think its right. Mainly because yet again they are showing no CONSISTENCY in these rulings whatsoever.

I think eight weeks is fair if the incident is taken in isolation but I too have a problem with a lack of consistency in judicial outcomes. I would like to see all such incidents penalised severely because there is a correct way to join a ruck, and flying in like an exocet missile using the point of your shoulder to impact opponents is not it.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The
bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body
of the player joining the ruck.

(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.[/TEXTAREA]

What did you think of James Horwill's method of joining the ruck in the Reds v Rebels game? He got a red card for it, but would you be happy to see that go unpunished? (I think he should get 8 weeks, same as Nick Williams)

I want to see big forwards hitting rucks with little regard for their own safety...

The "flying missile" method of joining the ruck as a means of winning the turnover is rarely successful but results in a significant number of injuries. If we eliminate this method and resort to the older style of joining the ruck correctly and trying to drive the opponents off the ball (using physical strength rather than impact) then that is going to require the commitment of numbers to the breakdown. and the consequence will be the creation of space for the backs to work in. Its one of the reasons why the early years of Super-Rugby was a much faster and more exciting spectacle that what we have now. Currently, rucks are a joke, one or two players at the most from each side. If you look at rucks from the 1990's they would have four to six players from each side committed, leaving less defenders in the backfield.

- - - - -

NOTE: I see people on this forum referring the "clean-out at the ruck". There is no such thing. The clean-out only happens at the tackle before the ruck is formed where players are allowed to remove an opponent near the ball so as to prevent him securing it. This is the Law that allows it...

[TEXTAREA]LAW 15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES (at the tackle)
(d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.[/TEXTAREA]

...ergo, players near the ball at the tackle can be charged (but not shoulder charged) out of the way or or obstructed from getting to the ball. Cleaning out would otherwise be illegal because it is playing an opponent without the ball.

 

[MPress01]

I was merely pointing out -

1. I agree with you that 2 years is excessive (and draw reference to the Stephen Ferris incident to support that). ;
2. That 8 weeks or 16 weeks is irrelevant given that he will be back playing competitive rugby in and around the same time.

 

[YoungScud]

Err... it was the bicep that made contact with Patchell and the motion is clearly a hip drive with a bit of a swinging arm - very reckless and illegal, as there is zero attempt to bind, but I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with?!
If that's where your elbow is I think you need to see a doctor!

Are you sure you watched the same incident? Williams' right elbow quite clearly collided with Patchell's left ear. I watched it several times in slomo too, to be sure. Like some others, I take some of teh Welsh fans' outrage with a pich of salt (see Liam Williams' outrageous late hit with the shoulder to Alex Dunbar's face. or his pounding of Russell's face into the dirt at a ruck). It's funny how selective their memories become when you mention things like that. However, there is no doubt a) that Williams' elbow smacked Patchell's ear, although it wasn't what I'd call leading with the elbow, and b) his inetent, while unclear was hardly an attempt at a legal clear out.

 

[ratsapprentice]

You know the elbow is only the back of the arm, not the front?

His arm twists after the initial contact, but that's not the same as being elbowed - which implies contact was made with the point of the bone.

 

[YoungScud]

You know the elbow is only the back of the arm, not the front?

His arm twists after the initial contact, but that's not the same as being elbowed - which implies contact was made with the point of the bone.

And the biceps are on the other side from the elbow?

 

[ratsapprentice]

What?