@ Moz. The tackle situation with SBW.

Moz i 100% agree with your response in a previous post. I decided to make this post to show exactly why i agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9t-7QJ44is

There a link to the SBW sending off.

Go to 00:55 in the video.

Note, it's slow motion

At that point there are some things SBW is unaware of...

1) Where the attacker will end up heightwise.

2) If the tackler will break the first tackle.

3) Where his own player will end up during the tackle.

4) The possibility of an off-load to the 9 who looks to be circling round.

5) Finally, weather the attacker will straighten or continue to move laterally across the field in the tackle.

So, there are five pretty huge variables there. Almost every aspect of the tackle is at that point unknown to SBW. To be able to preempt a course of action is practically impossible.

Lets assume that none of us knew the outcome of this tackle and i presented you with this video up to this point and from as many angles you like.

Would you be able to guess the outcome? Fact is you wouldn't Neither would i, neither would anyone else. And this is with all the time in the world to think about it.

Can we assume that SBW could reliably predict what would happen thus preempt a course of action accordingly ? 100% NO!

How did he prepare for the tackle? How is SBW set up for the tackle?

1) He hasn't yet dropped his shoulder

2) His body position is relatively low already in anticipation of having to go in low since the attacker is being brought down.

3) In no way is he leading with his shoulder and already has his arms out as though to tackle legitimately.

In other words, his setup, from a safety perspective at least, is perfect.

Now we play the video clip up to 00:56.

Notice that this is 1 second later, in roughly 50% slow mo. Therefore in reality only half a second or 500ms has passed.

During that 500ms, SBW went from being completely fine and within the law of the game, to a committing a foul which i believe lost the ABs the series. Not that they lost since it was a draw, but rather that they'd have outright won it.

Remember that the defending player also has a right to defend himself, and in this instance that's what i believe SBW was doing since the tackle played out quite strangely.

The main point against my reasoning here is that if he went low enough then all the above is circumvented.

Take a look at 00:09. SBW's knee is practically touching the ground. Prior to the tackle. For me, that is sufficient proof that is trying to go in low.

TLDR: SBW went in low, with arms, into a tackle that played out strangely and was required to respond in what i believe to be an amount(500ms) of time which precludes culpability.

We watch in slow motion and he looks guilty as hell.

Taking all the factors and real time speed of the incident into account there is no way he should have been sent off. There should never be an incident where a player is powerless in preventing getting carded and having the game ruined.

in an incident like this the ref should have to watch the replay in real time and only if he is able to determine in real time that the player is guilty, should the player be sent off.

If there is pre-medidated action involved, like hitting a ruck with a shoulder with no arms etc then slow should be used.

https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

Just to make the thread more interesting.

There is link to a page that tests human response times. My average is 350ms.

That is, the page is green, when it turns red, you click your mouse.

It tells you the time it took you to press the mouse button after seeing the box color change.

So, my average response time to when all i have to do is click a mouse button, is only 15/100 faster than the time SBW had to adjust his entire body and respond to an event for which he didn't know the outcome.

Kinda brings the inevitability of the situation and the helplessness of the player into focus a bit.

Thanks plum for a very good posting,   I think on seeingthe clip that a yellow card and not a red should have been considered.    

That really is a desperate attempt to vindicate Williams, Plum. It was deliberately intended to hurt the attacking player ... it was dirty ... Williams had no intention of using either arm.

It's not the first time that we've seen dirty play from this over rated thug.

All 5 of your points are totally irrelevant. None of them went through Williams' head. He saw an opportunity to hurt someone and he took it ... probably knowing full well that by being an All Black he would get away with it.

He did in the end, didn't he?

The Kiwis and their "mighty" All Blacks play by a different set of rules ... and when taken to task for transgressing the law, one often sees childish tantrums from the likes of Hick and Hakwazeeeeeeeee.

It was a deserved red card ... and it should have been followed up with a hefty suspension.

Thanks Moz & Mike.

@ Blue & CC

I agree, because it's there for all to see, that it was dangerous shoulder to head contact. It might result in nothing or it might result in something  very bad. 

CC I disagree with the idea that we can infer intent. 

There are too many moving parts and too little reaction time. 

Sure, we can assume anything we like. Objectively, it's hard to assume too much.

Here is my point...

There are situations where a player might be trying to play within the laws of the game but gets put into a situation where he cannot do anything else but be sent off.

How long is it before teams start intentionally ducking into tackles to get penalties and cards in their favor. I believe this is already happening.

A boot to the head with force is probably a red card offence. What if as you go to kick the ball the attacker somehow gets his head where the ball should be and you kick.him in the face. A silly example I know. 

Of course an intentional or reckless strike to the pip should be red. It's just that often times it's not one of those two, yet sanction remains.

@Xavi

I take it you've read all my protestations about Ben "Kung Fu" Smith's high ball technique.

At a minimum, it was reckless.  I know it was borderline, but the onus is on the tackler to ensure a safe tackle. Difficult in some cases, I know, but you need to draw the line somewhere. 

At a minimum, it was reckless.  I know it was borderline, but the onus is on the tackler to ensure a safe tackle. Difficult in some cases, I know, but you need to draw the line somewhere. 

@Draad agreed.

That is what happens most of the time. Going into a tackle at waist or rib height is perfectly fine and seen as taking the attacker's safety into consideration. 

Sometimes a player clearly goes in at a legitimate tackle height and then gets sent off because the attacker tripped and ended up headbutting a guy's shoulder.

Similar to a boxer turning his head so that a punch to the face now becomes a punch to the back of the head. The guy throwing the punch doesn't have time to adjust. The ref doesn't warn the puncher unless he is intentionally punching the back of the guy's head since the ref knows that there isn't enough time to adjust or pull out of the punch.

Then we watch it in ultra slow-mo and call it reckless.

Anyway, I don't have sleepless nights about this. Just an interesting side topic. 

Agreed Plum. Some of the contact in the air stuff sometimes seems a bit unfair too. At such times one at least hopes for consistency in the absurdity of it all.

@ Plum

Yeah I remember that but just the other day he did it again and this time the commentators mentioned it and how effective it was fo r him.

@ Xavi

Aah, the ever sweet smell of vindication.

There is a clip where another player who is jumping from a standing position literally kicks out toward Skosan's head. 

I can understand maybe knees facing forward in a running jump. But to be stationary, jump, and then kick out again when you're at max height? It's so obviously a kick.

Skosan in anticipation of the kick actually jinks to avoid taking studs to the face. 

I said at the time that there was nothing natural about jumping like that. Even asked some board members to try and see what they thought. Nobody tried it and everyone said I was nuts.

Of course, I was talking crazy

Put your tinfoil hat back on.... your'e making too much sense.

Plum ... I think that when a player runs in and uses his shoulder as a battering ram, the intention to do bodily harm is rather clear for all to see.

Williams knows the tackle laws ... but chose to ignore them. His intention was to have his shoulder make first contact ... and one can see that there was no intentions of ever using his arms ... and that's exactly what happened ... right to the face ... which to my mind is totally unacceptable. The red was well deserved ... just a pity that he was given the go ahead to do it again by a reduction to his suspension.  Typical.

As for Ben Smith. His tactic to push his boot out as a means to prevent the opposing player from contesting the high ball is just another cheat technique taught by the kiwi coaches. It's what they do. McCaw cheated for years and got away with it. It's exactly what built his rep as one of the best rugby player the planet has ever seen. A lie ...

Ben Smith should be taken to task. His cheat technique is dangerous and doesn't promote a fair contest.

Well the big question in referring is this...should a ref have a discretionary ruling at his disposal but this opens a can of worms as this could be abused.

Lately there has been 2 incidents (apart from the above) that involved 2 penalty tries being awarded for high tackles on the fringes of try lines when the player ducked low in his efforts to dot the ball down to score tries and was defended by the defending player which resulted in a "high" tackle per se...it is clear that the defending tackler had no intention to high tackle but had no option to stop the try.

Such pecularities are not rare and indeed not peculiar in the true sense of the game and in the past appeared to be overlooked.

My own thoughts on this is that the ref decision was correct and is the only way to go as, to where do you draw the line or "how long is a piece of string/"

The law (rule) must be applied to all as these things happen in all sport and it's just one of the hazards in sport and yes unfortunate and sometimes undeserving but rules are rules.

Discretionary rulings are a mine field and will lead to more controversy ...nothing is perfect in every department in sport and rugby certainly can be complex enough albeit it is really a simple game. We certainly don't need it to governed by more complexities.

My sympathies are for the refs...a very hard and thankless job and they certainly deserve more credit and respect than which is often dealt out by biased fans.

Incidentally Plum thank you for this interesting post which was very thoughtfully composed.