Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Winston Stanley let off, but Paul Williams gets suspended for Carter late hit

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Winston Stanley let off, but Paul Williams gets suspended for Carter late hit

Auckland outside backs Winston Stanley and Paul Williams were both cited following incidents on the weekend that took place during their 22-16 loss to Canterbury.

The two players appeared in front of a judicial committee on Wednesday, with the result being that Stanley escaped punishment, but fullback Williams was handed a one week suspension.

Williams was accused of charging an opponent without the ball, which resulted in only a penalty at the time, and Dan Carter spending a few dizzy moments on the floor.

Williams claimed that he was trying to avoid contact with the other Auckland player who was making the tackle, but judicial officer Bruce Squire upheld his own view that he considered contact with Carter resulted from a last minute decision to pull out of a tackle to which he was committed.

Squire judged that the contact was made at an unacceptably high level and that the degree of recklessness involved warranted a period of suspension.

Time: 04:25

First!!

By Bradders, at August 12, 2009 2:08 pm
The Williams late hit would have seen a card in the English Premiership!
The Stanly hit seemed a little less aweful probably avoidable.

By Bradders, at August 12, 2009 2:09 pm
RETURNING FLY HALF SINGLED OUT FOR ROUGH ATTENTION!!!

Shocking, who'd have predicted that?

Not condoning it mind - and it seems the players responsible have been dealt with properly.

By Hackney Griffin, at August 12, 2009 2:27 pm
first hit was nothing

second hit was fairly nasty....late and no intention to get the ball, he just jumped at dc with his shoulder out,

how did he stay on the pitch after that?????

By Kenny, at August 12, 2009 3:33 pm
It'd be hilarious if Carter was injured there, cos the idiot that did it would have been depriving his country of their best outhalf, and he would be despised by all his countrymen. Luckily for him Carter was ok.

By Kearney for tests, at August 12, 2009 4:52 pm
i reckon there were a couple of judges on that board that were willing to give williams a personal hiding for that...precious lil dan

By Anonymous, at August 12, 2009 7:21 pm
since this tackle has been made on dan carter the NZ rugby board have decided to put in new rules saying that "carter may only play when wrapped up in cotton wool.....then when we play the spring boks we might not get such a hiding" :PXD o.j ppl

By creggs08, at August 12, 2009 10:32 pm
those two hits seem really nasty, I think both deserved a yellow card

By Anonymous, at August 12, 2009 11:41 pm
Those two are damned lucky. Both should have been carded, both should have been suspended for longer.

@Kearney for tests: He's already dispised by most of the country. He plays for Auckland.

By Anarchangel, at August 13, 2009 1:20 am
In the SH we don't give out cards like you lot do in the north.
Cards are only used in situations of really bad, really ugly play.
otherwise a penalty and a talking to suffices.
It's why we complain when NH refs give out so many cards in test matches. It's not the way we do it, and it pisses us off.
Rugby's rough, and unlike soccer, there's no real history of sending offs and carding players.
In fact fifteen years ago it never happened.
I honestly blame the influence of soccer for the emphasis on carding players and looking for penalties in NH rugby.
It's why we hate your refs, and why we never understand your constant clamouring for sightings, bans, cards and penalties.
I think the view of most SH rugby fans is that the best ref is the one who is hardly noticed and we just want to get on with the game.
In rugby there is a ver, very fine line between a great tackle and an ilegal one, and that line WILL be crossed, all the time. You can't send players off all the time, because it will never stop.
Trying to stop it all together by throwing players in the bin will only dilute the game and ruin it as a sepcatacle.
Anyway, Carter was fine, a penalty is the right outcome.
Keep the cards up north, down here we don;t want them.

By Jon, at August 13, 2009 2:19 am
In the SH we don't give out cards like you lot do in the north.
Cards are only used in situations of really bad, really ugly play.
otherwise a penalty and a talking to suffices.
It's why we complain when NH refs give out so many cards in test matches. It's not the way we do it, and it pisses us off.
Rugby's rough, and unlike soccer, there's no real history of sending offs and carding players.
In fact fifteen years ago it never happened.
I honestly blame the influence of soccer for the emphasis on carding players and looking for penalties in NH rugby.
It's why we hate your refs, and why we never understand your constant clamouring for sightings, bans, cards and penalties.
I think the view of most SH rugby fans is that the best ref is the one who is hardly noticed and we just want to get on with the game.
In rugby there is a ver, very fine line between a great tackle and an ilegal one, and that line WILL be crossed, all the time. You can't send players off all the time, because it will never stop.
Trying to stop it all together by throwing players in the bin will only dilute the game and ruin it as a sepcatacle.
Anyway, Carter was fine, a penalty is the right outcome.
Keep the cards up north, down here we don;t want them.

By Jon, at August 13, 2009 2:19 am
First hit was absolutely nothing. Wasn't even a hit.

It was a hollywood dive. Is rugby turning into soccer?

By Anonymous, at August 13, 2009 3:33 am
Bryce Lawrence should have taken control, those AR's did not have any clue what they were doing or saying. Both players deserved cards and that is very poor refereeing. Once again Lawrence again I would like to say is not worthy of the IRB rugby panel.

By Anonymous, at August 13, 2009 9:53 am
In the SH we don't give out hand-jobs like you lot do in the north.
Hand-jobs are only used in situations of really bad, really ugly players.
otherwise a buggering and a sweet talking to suffices.
It's why we complain when NH refs give out so many hand-jobs in test matches. It's not the way we do it, and it pisses us off.
Rugby's rough, and unlike soccer, there's no real history of wanking offs and hand-jobbing players.
In fact fifteen years ago it never happened.
I honestly blame the influence of soccer for the emphasis on hand-jobbing players and looking for buggerings in NH rugby.
It's why we hate your refs, and why we never understand your constant clamouring for arse sightings, gang-bangs, hand-jobs and buggerings.
I think the view of most SH rugby fans is that the best ref is the one who is hardly noticed and we just want to get on with the game.
In rugby there is a ver, very fine line between a great shag and an ilegal one, and that line WILL be crossed, all the time. You can't send players off all the time, because it will never stop.
Trying to stop it all together by throwing players in the bed will only dilute the game and ruin it as a sepcatacle.
Anyway, Carter was so fine, a buggering is the right outcome.
Keep the hand-jobs up north, down here we don;t want them.

By Comedy-Jon, at August 13, 2009 10:31 am
hahahaha.
Very good.

By Jon, at August 13, 2009 10:57 am
hahaha

By steve, at August 13, 2009 11:43 am
Jon what are you on about? So you never want cards to be given out? To me(i.e. a fair player) I'd like to see foul play punished. People who don't want to see it punished are probably terrible cheaters or support players that are cheaters. I mean if someone shoulder charges a guy's face after the ball has gone I'd call that pretty dirty and worthy of a sinbin. If it happened to you would you really just say "Ah good on him, the scum. Play on, no need for a penalty or anything." I mean God, punishing people for breaking the rules is one of the cornerstones of civilisation.

By Kearney for tests, at August 13, 2009 1:05 pm
request section 4tw!!!

-> http://forum.rugbydump.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41

again, thx a lot greiffel!

By opfazonk, at August 13, 2009 1:08 pm
First hit was silly, a penalty the correct decision.

The second was a sin-bin. why?
1) Late
2) High
3) Shoulder (no attempted use of arms)

And i am glad that NH referee's do give out cards regualry, it helps to keep the thugs off the pitch. If we want rugby to grow further, and attract young people to play the game, condoning late shoulder charges won't help. If you want mindless violence go to the boxing ring, and leave our great game of rugby union alone

By Anonymous, at August 13, 2009 4:14 pm
Rugby's about bashing each other.
I'd rather just see penalties, with a card only for really, really dangerous play, like gouging.
Other than that, let em bash each other.
Great game of rugby blah blah blah...
Rugby is organised violence mate.
A penalty is enough.

By Jon, at August 13, 2009 11:55 pm
Both should have been cards. rugby is about smashing each other within the rules and also about evading tackles using skill. when lesser players break the rules to impede and possibly injure better players, they need to be sanctioned.

By Canadian Content, at August 14, 2009 5:21 am
No they don't penalties are enough.
Too many cards and you've got soccer, with all the simulation and ref influencing that brings.

By Lennox, at August 14, 2009 5:33 am
Jon, that is absolute nonsense. I think what you have just said is simply idiocy.

A) Yellow cards do not have to be used for extremely serious acts of play, they should and are used for repeated infringements, acts preventing a try being scored, and foul play including dangerous tackles. The use of cards is to cut out the offenders who do not make the game positive. Rugby should be positive and both those acts are simply not positive.

By Anonymous, at August 15, 2009 1:31 pm
You watch too much soccer.
Yellows should be used as little as possible.
They take away fromt the game, make it about the officiating.

By Jon, at August 17, 2009 1:39 am