We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Mon 10 Dec 2012 | 09:05
Cardiff Blues' Lloyd Williams red carded for alleged dangerous tackle

40
Comments

Cardiff Blues scrumhalf Lloyd Williams was shown a straight red card for a dangerous tackle against Montpellier in their Heineken Cup third round clash on Sunday. Montpellier won 35-24 after having a numerical advantage for much of the match.

The 23-year-old Welsh international flung opposite number Benoit Paillaugue to the ground, resulting in a straight red card from referee John Lacey with just a quarter of the game gone.

Montpellier scored three tries while all the home side's points came through the boot of young Rhys Patchell. The loss of Williams however meant the Blues struggled.

"It was a bit of a rustic challenge, I think we will contest it but we will have to have a look at it. I am not sure it was the right decision," said Cardiff director of rugby Phil Davies.

Montpellier's Fabien Galthie had a different view on it though, saying it was the correct decision.

"The law is the law. The player knows the law and he has to respect it. It would have been the same for us. It is a dangerous tackle that deserved a red card," he said.

Williams will face an ERC Disciplinary Hearing this week to see if he will face a further suspension or not, with the low end entry point for a dangerous tackle being a two week ban.

"That was tough for us, but fortunately no one was hurt and we just carried on after it I suppose," added Davies, hinting at the possibility of appealing the outcome of the hearing.

"I've just got to have another look at it, their guy finished the game which is important, but we'll just have a little look and see what we'll do with it after."

Montpellier host the Blues in France next weekend for the return fixture.

Posted By: Grant Constable

40 Comments

  • pretzel
    9:33 PM 14/12/2012

    Oh no Nate... Hore will miss 3 warm up matches... the NZ staff and club staff have assured the disciplinary panel that these matches are very important to Hore....

    LOL

  • stroudos
    10:37 AM 12/12/2012

    Ah, so you're not vicariously offended, you're actually offended (or disappointed). Fair enough. I wasn't calling you or anyone else a worm, by the way - not on purpose anyway!

    But mariconada isn't really anti-gay, it just doesn't translate that way. It's a bit like if you said in Spanish that you're "constipada" it wouldn't mean you're constipated... And the word is definitely not anti-female, so I wouldn't worry about that.

    If you've played rugby for 25 years I daresay you'd agree with a lot of the content of his post though?

  • dcfurie
    9:43 PM 11/12/2012

    I didn't need your help translating the word, stroudos. I realize mariconada is a derivative of maricon & may be open to wider interpretation. But the majority of definitions I have come across reference something either anti-gay or anti-female. As gay and female and a rugby player for 25 years this worm isn't offended as much as she's dissapointed. Rugby is rugby - same laws, same equipment, same joy - no matter who you are.

  • promin42
    4:17 PM 11/12/2012

    Oh how I yearn for days of old where wispy French half backs were laughed at when they got stuck on their arses by scrappy Welsh scrum-halves who then received a congratulatory pat on the back from a teammate.

    Was what occurred dangerous - no. Was it a silly thing to do well given the "Laws" as they now stand and how they are interpreted - probably yes.

    To be honest the most grating thing about the whole incident is the Montpellier forwards making such a meal of it when every one of them would have known Paillaugue was absolutely fine. Definitely an element of Soccer culture creeping in!

  • 3:55 PM 11/12/2012

    Stupid tackle. Don't lift a player. Simple. If you do don't slam them into the ground - whether onto flat of back or head as the ref will ping you and card you. Appreciate it's sometimes easier said than done though.

    Don't think it should be a card (though I very rarely do!) but the second I saw it I thought that'll sadly be red.

    Interesting that the forward who was quite clearly throwing a few punches didn't even get a talking too!

  • pretzel
    3:43 PM 11/12/2012

    If you say so browner...

    If you think this isn't likely to achieve possession then I suggest you think rationally...

    If you are tackled you try to fall on your teams side (facing your own try line), this enables you to place the ball back, leave a gentle hand on it to steady it and it means the opposition has to step OVER you to reach the ball. Now lets say one game you decide to always fall facing the opposition try line, now you are not supposed to roll over, (although sometimes players do) therefore in order for your team to secure the ball you have to effectively place it over your body and behind you,. It is generally more difficult to do with bodies swarming in to retrieve the ball. So if you honestly believe that turning a player does NOT help your team then I doubt you've ever played a decent standard of rugby in your life.

  • chogan
    1:54 PM 11/12/2012

    I must to say that I can't remember what I said and now that the comment has been removed, I am unlikely to ever remember.
    Having said that I agree with all that you (Tenser) have said and that your interpretation of what I said is a sentiment that I stand by.

    The frustration with those that fail to accept the laws as they stand is now baffling. You may disagree with the law but that does not mean that decisions made are wrong. The law is the same for all sides (no McCaw jokes needed).

    The particular law in question and its directives are in place to prevent serious injury. They manage this by stopping it at the root where any potential serious injury from tackles of this nature could occur. I applaud this 100%.

  • nemo34
    12:26 PM 11/12/2012

    Anyone whose ever stepped foot on a rugby pitch know the referee is always right! Legs upside down = tip tackle = red card. End of story.

    Cardiff blues probably lost the game on this very action, as Montpellier was blatantly dominated before this event and struggled to win despite playing 14 to 15. Too bad, but the guy to blame is Williams , not the referee.

  • askelkana
    12:13 PM 11/12/2012

    On a side note, wasn't the Montpellier SH a mile offside? He didn't stay behind the ball at all!

  • stroudos
    11:48 AM 11/12/2012

    Sensationalist and hysterical.

  • stroudos
    10:21 AM 11/12/2012

    Oops, didn't mean to open a can of vicariously-offended worms here...

    @ dcfurie - calm down mate, it doesn't really translate literally. My comment was not meant to accuse Leo of homophobia, but more a challenge to try and find an English equivalent to "una mariconada" - not an easy task. Probably something like Tana Umaga's "tiddlywinks" comment, or Boris Johnson's "namby-pambyism" would be an apt translation.

  • stroudos
    10:21 AM 11/12/2012

    Oops, didn't mean to open a can of vicariously-offended worms here...

    @ dcfurie - calm down mate, it doesn't really translate literally. My comment was not meant to accuse Leo of homophobia, but more a challenge to try and find an English equivalent to "una mariconada" - not an easy task. Probably something like Tana Umaga's "tiddlywinks" comment, or Boris Johnson's "namby-pambyism" would be an apt translation.

  • 9:54 AM 11/12/2012

    Spot on! I think I would have given a penalty thought, because of the flying legs.

  • browner
    5:17 AM 11/12/2012

    Pretzel for Prime Minister .................

    ............ in the 1900's though....

    The Key Element on this 'tackle; was THE TWIST OF THE PLAYER to bang him into the dirt. Tackler shows poor technique- Tackler is always required to release the player 1st, so the Judo throw isn't likely to achieve possession [surely the aim?]

    I'd much rather see my players manouvering the Ball carrier to give the tackler a better chance to strip the ball, or contest for possession, then he'd get more synpathy.....

    The referee's immediate whistle tone and the players reactions all said the same thing....unacceptable BECAUSE IT WAS DANGEROUS

    xx

  • browner
    5:04 AM 11/12/2012

    Big Joe doesn't speak on behalf of many.

  • pretzel
    2:37 AM 11/12/2012

    I don't like these "one inch more" or "nearly was this" or any of those sorts of comments...

    Referees are there to judge offences, not potential offences.. I mean, surely we could go into a whole realm of: "This tackle is soooo dangerous, because if he had landed on his neck he might of died instantly, and then having his legs flipped up like that might have sent a loose stud flying which could have hit another player in the eye and blinded him and that player could have been running at full speed and then suddenly being blinded he might have run into another player and clashed heads and that other player may have been knocked unconscious and fallen and bitten the neck of a team mate and ripped open his jugular vein (whilst falling and then swallowing his own tongue and dying from suffocation) and that player could have gushed blood out and another couple players may have swallowed some blood and one of those players might have developed a nasty infection whilst the other one might have developed a taste for blood and then gone on a killing rampage later on in the day ripping open family members, friends, and any stranger that gets too close and drinking their blood, a horrified motorist that witnesses that may have not focussed on the road and ploughed into a school bus which then swerved into a tanker lorry covering all the children in fuel, which might trickle down to a hot exhaust and ignite thus sending flaming children everywhere, one flaming child may have run into a busy material factory igniting all the loose material lying around the place and sending the whole building into a towering inferno, therefore the firebrigade would have to be called out, some of the fire fighters might lose their 70's tache's in the heat whilst veteran "one day away from retirement, wife and 3 kids" firefighter Sam Flamey sacrifices himself to save a puppy caught in the fire..(which later has to be put down as it cannot be rehomed).."

    So yeh, Lloyd Williams..lifetime ban!!

  • conorl
    10:52 PM 10/12/2012

    People may not agree with it, but by the letter of the law the ref made the right call. Whether the law itself needs changing is a whole other matter entirely.

    And just to echo Colombes point up above, all the people on here bitching and moaning about the game becoming "too soft" need to find an hour and a half's free time one day and sit down and watch the Clermont-Leinster game from yesterday.

    Neither team got anywhere near scoring a try, but it was 80mins of the most intense, physical, fantastically brutal rugby anyone could wish to see. And not a spear/tip tackle or red card in sight!

    Roll on next weekend in Dublin! Allez Les Bleus!!

  • mrmrchoice
    10:45 PM 10/12/2012

    On one had, he DID turn him upside down and did drive him into the ground. Source: I watched the clip.

    You can't quote a post written by an amateur referee as law. Not least because I, as a senior referee, disagree with it. Why would it be necessary that the tackler grasp the ball carrier below the hips?

    What the dangerous tackle laws are trying to stamp out are tackles which are dangerous. I.e., the mischief they are trying to remedy are tackles which have an unacceptably greater chance of causing serious injury to the ball carrier.

    Here the ball carrier ends up upside-down, with the neck/shoulder area taking the brunt of the force.

  • mrmrchoice
    10:40 PM 10/12/2012

    As a lvl 7 myself I'd agreed. Best advice I was ever give is "at a flashpoint situation, if you have to stop and think whether it's a red card or a yellow card, it's a red card. You must be certain it's a red card". I'm not surprised he gave a red, as an immediate reaction.

  • mrmrchoice
    10:35 PM 10/12/2012

    And flipping someone headfirst over your shoulder isn't reckless?

  • guy
    10:00 PM 10/12/2012

    If that's how his comment translates, it's pretty pathetic. Rugby has always been a game for people like Gareth Thomas: great, tough athletes with a never say die attitude and terrific ambassadors of the best game in the world.

  • dcfurie
    9:19 PM 10/12/2012

    So you are saying rugby would become a game for Gareth Thomas? It is 2012 - gay men are and have been playing rugby at world class level. Rugby is a game played by all sorts of people - your attempt to emphasize your point w/an anti-gay phrase fails.
    I do find part of this comment offensive but rather than report it I choose to attempt to enlighten. Which I don't often do outside of the pub w/Guinness in hand.

  • daluaine
    8:15 PM 10/12/2012

    Disturbing how the trend now is for the potentially "wronged" team to all rush in with handbags. Get the impression that a lot of these decisions are being given one stage higher in some cases purely because of the reaction of the rest of the team?

  • stroudos
    7:58 PM 10/12/2012

    You forgot to translate "una mariconada".... ;)

  • stroudos
    7:52 PM 10/12/2012

    I don't like these judo-style tackles. Also, it seems to me that Williams did put a bit of extra "spice" into it, presumably out of embarrassment at how easily the other 9 had just nicked the ball from his scrum.

    Personally I think red is harsh. Even according to the draconian IRB tip tackle directive, yellow would seem sufficient - it only recommended red if you force/spear the player downwards or drop him from a height. ("For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient" - http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html).

    But players at this level must know that if they lift a player they're going to have to be very careful how they put him down, otherwise they'll very likely see a card. It is very similar to the two-footed tackle in the spheroid fetishists' game - all the players know that if they go into a tackle with both feet off the ground and their studs showing, they will almost definitely be booked, yet many top professionals still do it. Many of those tackles are very dangerous indeed, some are not; but 9 times out of 10 they'll be punished with a yellow or red card. So why take the risk?

    In my own personal tip tackle attitude journey, I'm now arriving at a place where, even though I think many perfectly safe tackles are being wrongly and too severely punished, I'm slowly resigning myself to the fact that this is how they're going to be policed, so deal with it. To borrow a phrase from Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bq_dkPkQUU), I don't like it but I'll have to go along with it. And I'm afraid the professionals are just going to have to start taking a similar approach or they'll be missing 10+ minutes of lots of games.

  • facepalm
    7:38 PM 10/12/2012

    Dynamics have nothing to do with it. Just because it isn't what you're used to seeing as a spear tackle does not mean it isn't a spear tackle. This is a definitely a red card.

  • rufio
    7:25 PM 10/12/2012

    anyone that likes this tackle or thinks its not a red obviously doesnt play rugby, coz this has all kinds of dangerous written all over it!! Im all for rugby being hard hitting within he laws of the game, and to say its gone soft isnt true!! But this could of ended far worse.

    If you dont agree with me, let me know and il be more than happy to come recreate this tackle you like this and we'll see what you have to say after!!

  • stroudos
    7:20 PM 10/12/2012

    Couldn't agree more Gonzoman.


  • willwillrob
    7:09 PM 10/12/2012

    I think Red Card no sanction is a suitable outcome. He wasn't looking to injure the player but defiantly looking to bring him down hard.

  • gonzoman
    7:08 PM 10/12/2012

    On a side note, this whole citing vs. refereeing debate is one that I haven't run into as a rugby referee yet, but as an ice hockey referee I had a couple of run-ins with the citing/hearings system that I felt undermined the authority of referees. In both cases, myself and my two colleagues that were handling the games in question noticed that our officiating suffered for a good period of time after having our decisions overruled, or a token 1-game suspension being handed down.

    There seemed to be two sides to it: first, you were careful not to make big calls, instead handing out smaller penalties because you didn't want to get dragged into another useless hearing. This had the effect of making it difficult to manage games properly, as everyone knew it should have been a tougher call. Second, borderline offences would get called more often, and we were jumpy on the whistle, because no matter how much you try to be consistent and professional, you are worried about getting into a situation where you might have to make a big call again.

    I wonder if we're seeing a similar effect here: the higher-level referees seem to be suffering from the "I don't want to be the next Alain Rolland" syndrome, while the lower-level referees seem to have a case of the "If I go big here, I'll look tough on 'crime' and it'll bode well for later".

    Thoughts?

  • gonzoman
    7:00 PM 10/12/2012

    Interesting discussion so far...I'll give my opinion first, then bring up a larger discussion point...

    My opinion: the referee did well. According to the letter of the law, it was definitely penalizeable: there was no control and no-one can honestly argue that the tackled player was brought to ground safely. A centimetre or two in a different direction and we could be dealing with a broken neck. I've actually seen it in person: a player landing on their shoulder and head, and the game was called off and they were sent to hospital for surgery. Two years later he was able to go back to work part-time and was lucky to still have full motion in his limbs. It's not something to be toyed with.

    The topic for discussion: do you think there would be as much outrage/controversy/whining, etc. if the citing commision got things right? For example, in this case the red should be ample punishment. There was no malice, just dangerous recklessness. I'm sure the player has learned his lesson. That would leave citings for bigger issues, and for things that were missed in the game (ie: A. Hore's flying elbow).

    I think that the "justice system" at the IRB has gotten all out of whack. A card is a significant punishment, and unless it's an extreme case of violence/something that can't be dealt with within the laws of the game, there should be no citing!

  • colombes
    6:41 PM 10/12/2012

    actual rules are actual rules ;)

  • colombes
    6:40 PM 10/12/2012

    sorry moaners but if the player is lifted and fall on the upper body part, the red card is justified at "the letter of the law" :/
    and if the law doesn't seem correct for most of us, a thing that i quite agree..... it's to the IRB to find new sanctions to avoid these dangerous tackles.
    The ref can't choose between red or yellow checking if the player is injured or not.

    And i don't think rugby will necessarly become more soft. we're talking about technic not impact. Yesterday, i've watched Clermont-Leinster which was the most intense and brutal match of the HCUP WE in term of number tackles and desperate defence, and i haven't watched one action which appeared illegal.

    axtual rules are actua

  • jadawin
    5:56 PM 10/12/2012

    a judo-like tackle. but rules are rules...

  • pretzel
    4:10 PM 10/12/2012

    ....the old boys?? O.o Not that I am an old boy (far from it) but I have had the pleasure, or perhaps the displeasure of playing against some "old boys" and geez, if they weren't aggressive then I don't know what is....

  • guy
    2:26 PM 10/12/2012

    That could have ended with a nasty injury. Broken collar bone, dislocated shoulder, etc. Don't think Williams intended to hurt him but it definitely looked dangerous and I can understand why the ref issued a red card. Don't think he should receive any more than the card, though.

  • lambchop1234
    2:18 PM 10/12/2012

    Ok sorry I got that wrong. He didn't land on his head. But was still dangerous. I do respect everyone's opinions though. Everyone has their own intepretation. I said what I said from a referee's point of view as I am one myself

  • pretzel
    1:58 PM 10/12/2012

    .....pathetic... turns the player so he lands on his teams side with a "not brilliant looking" tackle and he gets red carded...

    I vote we change this sport to tag and then invent a new rugby based on the old laws when the ball didn't used to get jammed up in rucks...so on and so forth...moan gripe bitch whine...travesty...hypocrisy...and I really am no longer surprised by this shit...

  • rodofle
    1:24 PM 10/12/2012

    Yes lambchop1234, harsh but fair. The Welsh apparently have a problem with French players when it comes to tackle properly...

  • lambchop1234
    1:13 PM 10/12/2012

    Certainly dangerous. Perhaps a little harsh but every player knows the laws. It is the tackler's responsibility once you have picked a player up to return that player to the ground safely. You have a duty of care to that player. In this case Lloyd Williams has certainly not done that and has put him down on his head. Not malice whatsoever though. Harsh, but fair call I suppose! Anyone agree?

Related Articles