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 30 Mar 2015 | 03:40
Nick Williams cited for dangerous challenge that sent Rhys Patchell to hospital

18
Comments

Ulster number eight Nick Williams has been cited for striking Cardiff Blues back Rhys Patchell during their Guinness Pro12 match in Belfast on Friday. Williams was yellow carded, but many have been angered by the incident, feeling it should have been red.

Flyhalf Patchell spent the night in hospital after being carried off on a stretcher following treatment for 10 minutes from the forearm blow. He was treated amid fears of a bad concussion.

The massive New Zealander has since been cited for Law 10.4 (a) - Punching/striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee.

Cardiff Blues coach Dale McIntosh said after that match that a red card was in order.

"A forearm to the head? It should be a red card. I've done it enough, I should know," he said.

Former Ireland centre Maurice Field said that while the result was severe, "It was not a forearm smash". He went on to tell BBC Northern Ireland that Williams had executed a reckless challenge.

"Patchell is unfortunate - full-backs do not usually find themselves in those ruck situations. Nick Williams is a physical guy, that is the nature of his game," he added.

Ulster went on to win the match 36-17. You can view the incident below in a quick clip from the highlights wrap. We'll have more from the Pro12 soon. 

Should this have been a red card, or was it merely a clumsy effort at cleaning out a player?

Posted By: Grant Constable

18 Comments

  • danknapp
    9:12 PM 05/04/2015

    I actually think there might be something in this. I'd like to see a trial of slo-mo only being used to identify if the ball had been dotted down or not, not for violence. Slow motion isn't representative.

  • drg
    9:41 AM 02/04/2015

    Hahaha!

  • drg
    9:39 AM 02/04/2015

    ...you're unreal you know that?

  • oliver
    8:57 AM 02/04/2015

    don't worry, I'm sure we'll find something to disagree on when the next France-England game rolls around!!

  • drg
    8:24 PM 01/04/2015

    Oliver, we disagreed on Lawes, but I totally agree with your comments on here... I'm confused...

  • drg
    8:19 PM 01/04/2015

    Yeh I did have a little look back at that and I notice that you're both defending Lawes. My apologies. :)

  • oliver
    1:24 PM 01/04/2015

    yeah, that would be considered racist in France.
    Which is why I was asking!
    and couscous is usually served with meat, so I really didn't follow his "logic"........

  • stroudos
    11:35 AM 01/04/2015

    I think coucous-eater might have a different (racial?) meaning in France?

    Phill's just implying that vegetarians are weak and soft.
    People who object to foul play in rugby are weak and soft.
    Ergo if you don't like dirty play, you're a vegetarian.

    A non-sequitur and basically flawed logic, but this is a guy who seems to enjoy being smashed repeatedly in the head, so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt... ;)

  • oliver
    10:12 AM 01/04/2015

    Speak for yourself Phil.
    I'm French and I think that should have been a red, clear forearm hit.

    (and couscous eaters?? WTH are you talking about?)

  • stroudos
    9:26 AM 01/04/2015

    Phill, I love the physical aspect of rugby. I'm not so keen on dirty play.

    You keep describing deliberate acts of foul play as "part of the game". They're not. There are laws which prohibit deliberate foul play.
    Do you remember that scumbag stamping on Doddie Weir's knee in the 1997 Lions Tour? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3zr2HJv6BE). Do you consider that to be "part of the game"?

    A professional player trying to stop a rolling maul will assume a body position that might actually have some effect on the momentum of that maul and join the maul in a legal way. This guy joins from the side and does not bind onto another player, so he's already committed a penalty offence (Law 17.2.b), even without the foul play. More significantly, he made absolutely zero impact on the direction the maul was moving.

    By the way, I reckon from your rabid bloodlust, you're probably more likely to be a "vegan eater" than most.

  • drg
    12:34 AM 01/04/2015

    irony? Sarcasm I mean...

  • drg
    12:33 AM 01/04/2015

    .....irony?

    Weren't you both outraged by Lawes?

  • finedisregard
    4:12 PM 31/03/2015

    Not a big deal

  • elvis15
    10:28 PM 30/03/2015

    Not only to have his arm by is side like that (almost awkwardly so, I agree), but to come into a maul standing upright? He's surely a better forward than that to not know he'd have no real power stopping the momentum of the maul.

    But then it looks to me like he had other ideas on how to stop the maul, in this case by hitting another player deliberately in the head and knocking him out (or at least causing him to fall to the round) and disrupting the maul.

  • drg
    8:25 PM 30/03/2015

    I'm happy for someone to challenge and sway my view, but I think this is a red.

    Personally I can't figure out what is going on with Williams right arm, I don't see why it would improve his entrance to the maul by tucking it in..

  • cogibear
    7:01 PM 30/03/2015

    watched it over and over now and must say...........i now think it wasnt a yellow or red.

  • badams
    5:52 PM 30/03/2015

    I think he's just trying to put a good impact on the opposing maul, and ends up hitting the other guy a bit clumsily. Barely a yellow, imho, I thought a penalty would suffice. The refs are too influenced by the injury to the player these days (as also evidenced by the red card in the George North knockout), rather than what is allowed within the physicality of the game.

  • cogibear
    5:21 PM 30/03/2015

    Nick Williams is like marmite...........I thought it was a yellow for sure. A red is really open to interpretation and what you think his intent was..........clearing out or damaging a fellow player. He does have form and so the neutral would go against him. Nobody ever really knows intent although we all like to think we do!!

Related Articles