Let's not forget the ref

Wrong again, Hakwa. The ref was, in essence, playing advantage for the high tackle. Had the try not been scored, it would have been a penalty where the high tackle took place. That is why he said that he was not going to yellow card him. Had a card been his intention, he would still have carded him after the try was awarded.

Like the case with the Bismarck/Carter "off-side" tackle, the bright spark commentators did their part in causing confusion. Best not to pay too much attention to commentators' opinions.

The commentator caused the confusion when he said that Owens said that he was not going to card him because the try was scored. I heard that he said "but" the first time I heard the incident during the game, which is why I went through the effort of downloading the sound bite from the video clip, slowed it down and uploaded it to Soundcloud.

 Thanks for your Theory Ceradyne but if that were so, Nigel Owen would have said,"The tackle was high. I am not gonna yellow card you BECAUSE the try was scored"

 Please leave Beeno out of it JW --> We only want scientific evidence plus he'll start going off about McCaw when we all know McCaw wasn't there at Newlands

 Hakwa, you are going to find yourself approaching Beeno-levels soon. You are making exactly the same mistake that the commentator has made, i.e. assuming that Hougaard was not yellow carded because a try has been scored.

Nobody can deny that Owens is one of the best, if not the best, in the business. Surely he will know that a try being scored can never cancel a suspension or a send-off. A try can only cancel a penalty, free kick or a scrum sanction. A penalty can cancel a scrum or a free kick. A penalty can also be cancelled by a next penalty ("new advantage" that the refs often call) that is in a more favourable position than the initial one.

 I am not disputing the Laws of the game Ceradyne - ALL I am pointing out is what Nigel said did not make sense at ALL levels.
For example, If the defending Team punched and knocked someone (who was innocent) out but the attacking Team scored a try (the scorer not being the person who got knocked out), the try would still stand BUT the punching defender would still get a red card.

 Let us then assume that even though Ashley Cooper managed to score the try, the tackle left him quadriplegic, would Nigel then have awarded a yellow card?

 The merit of his decision to award a card or not has nothing to do with what he said. Players get seriously injured by perfectly legal actions all the time. In this case Owens decided that the tackle does not warrant a card. If he did think so, he would have done so. Simples.

 Ceradyne,"The merit of his decision to award a card or not has nothing to do with what he said" - don't you think that is bizarre given the context of the situation? 

 Are you saying Nigel's brain does not know what his mouth is saying? 

 @ ceradyne,
Owens is talking to Hougaard about his tackle. He began with "The tackle was high" and finished with "(Be) Very careful, please". It has no sense at all to talk about the try in the middle of that little talk if it wasn't referred to the tackle. It would be like saying "The tackle was high. I'm not gonna yellow card you but the taylor is rich and the weather is good in California. Very careful, please".
No. The only one that make sense is (and it's what I understand in your recording):

"The tackle was high. I'm not gonna yellow card you coz the try was scored. Very careful, please"

Anyway, very far from what you were saying to correct me:

"I am sure that he said that it would have been a penalty had the try not been scored."

Notice that you are also referring the penalty (wrongly coz he talks about the yellow) to the try being scored or not.

And the tackle that Horne made on Serfontein is also yellow worthy at least. IMO both Hougaard and Horne should have been cited.

 You are farting against thunder here. There is no way that Hougaard escaped a yellow card because of the try. There could only have been one outcome, had the try not been scored. Penalty. Owens has said that he was not going to card him. I have slowed down the sound clip even more and will upload it on Soundcloud, and post the link as well. He did not say "coz". "Because" has now become "coz"? Listen again.

As you said, in your opinion, both Hougaard and Horne should have been cited. It is just an opinion, after all, and it is well within your right to have that opinion. No harm in that.

@Cloudy, once again.... the try did not negate the try. Everybody keeps on accepting what the commentator said, i.e. that he was not going to yellow card him because the try was scored. That was not what Owens said. Listen to the sound clip. I have slowed it down even more. He said: "I'm not going to yellow card you but the try was scored", not "because" or "coz".

https://soundcloud.com/mrtzgr/hougaards-tackle-3

 Thanks Ceradyne for your input - I shall now bid you goodnight as we continue to find more contentious issues to discuss and debate tomorrow

Nigel Owens has developed into a good ref...he is a good communicator and saw fair decisions based on initiative on both sides...he clearly stated to Hougaard that a yellow was due, and he would have issued one if the try had failed to be scored.

No yellows but game controlled very well...takes no nonsense but communicates first....Michael Hooper border line playing was kept in check... compare with Poc ock and Bryce Lawrence in that controversal WC game.

Joubert is also a good ref...stupid comments by some that he tends to favour the AB's in non SA games does not hold with most...it's just that the AB's play clever rugby...if McCaw is rated by some as McCheat it's just that he is cleverer than Pocock or Hooper to play the ref...this is part of the game today and Craig's interpretation goes deeper than most.

Nigel Owens is the type of ref you need for finals...very balanced, good communicator and firm...I think the players respect him too which is probably the most important factor.

 Ok Seb, whatever timezone you are in Goodnight to you too

 The first one is the one that the commentator "heard" and which has a number of people thinking that he did not card Hougaard because of the try that was scored. In other words, in the minds of some, the try cancelled out the yellow card.
All I was indicating was that he did not say that he was not yellow carding him because of the try that was scored. Owens never used the word "because". Simple as that. There is also no law against prescribing if and when a yellow card has to be awarded.

 ".....the conclusion one would draw is that he didn't card him because the try was scored.....". There is nothing to suggest that. I would go as far as saying that there would not have been any argument, had the bright spark commentator not made the "because" remark. Remember how thousands, last year, where convinced that Bismarck was off-side because a commentator said that he was?

Same story.

PS. I am not trying to start the entire Bismarck/Carter argument again. I am only seeing a comparison with the commentators being wrong and setting everybody off on a wildgoose chase again.

Cloudy that's precisely why a good ref has initiative...ie to execute a ruling based on fairness... a good ref must within the letter adjudicate a ruling that's fair and goes more with the spirit of the law rather than the letter...that's precisely why the law has been called an ass.

We live in a world framed by digits and full stops and people cannot think or use initiative. This is true as we have become computerised and placed in compartments and catergories...God gave us a brain to think and do what in the context of the law is right...in other words to go beyond the clinical letter but not to manipulate it,,,imho he made a sound judgement based on facts...not only that but the high tackle was more impulsive and desperate than deliberate...a very fair call and satisfied both players.

The weakness of such a decision of course can be abused but the history of the man's integrity will show itself...and has indeed...as I said the players respect him and he keeps a good game going and in control.

Nigel Owens is the type of ref that's needed otherwise one day, forbid, computers will decide all decisions.

 That settles it you lot -- since we have not and never will reach a consensus on this matter - the only thing left to do is to ask Nigel Owen himself.

Any of you learned gentlemen knows Nigel personally and able to talk to him over coffee or something and ask his thoughts on the matter? Evidence in the Form of a video recording would be most appreciated.