Williams faces 10-match ban

[The Pearl]

De Gois was very lucky not to be seriously injured. If he didn't get as much rotation into it as he did, he could have landed directly on his head. It was a Pomeroy style back slam gone wrong.

I was watching the game last night and as soon as the incident occurred my mates and I said he'd get 4 to 5 weeks for it.

Might seem a bit harsh, i dunno. But do the crime.. do the time. Intent or no intent.

 

[Browny]

Just like Taylor copping the loading last year

 

[Ari Gold]

Whilst I have no doubt the position was very dangerous, I still think Farah's tackle is what the game should be stamping out more. If you had someone else make a tackle using the same technique Williams used 100 times, and did the same for Farah's, I have no doubt that the person on the end of the Farah type tackle would be in much more danger. Maybe that says more about Farah's sentence than Williams', but I still think in terms of technique and types of tackles we want out Farah's is higher on the list.

 

[Kaz]

Lets remember, Williams is a Manly player.

He deserves 10 weeks for that alone.

 

[Kimlo]

I think 7 weeks with loading is justified. If De Gois actually landed on his head he might have been very seriously injured.

 

[Coxy]

Those pointing out that De Gois was in a very dangerous position are spot on.
Those pointing at intent are missing the point altogether.

The charge is "Dangerous Throw". I don't think anyone can argue that the T-Rex throw was more dangerous than the Farah one. Neither tackle has a place in the game.

 

[Jeba]

Just on intent as well. Would there really be any cases in the history of Rugby League where a tackler INTENDS to break someone's neck. My guess would be no. Intent is irrelevant IMO. Fact is he put De Gois in a very dangerous position and it wasn't a case where it couldn't have been avoided. Reckless. 7 weeks well justified.

 

[Foordy]

Just on intent as well. Would there really be any cases in the history of Rugby League where a tackler INTENDS to break someone's neck. My guess would be no. Intent is irrelevant IMO. Fact is he put De Gois in a very dangerous position and it wasn't a case where it couldn't have been avoided. Reckless. 7 weeks well justified.

break someones neck ... NO; but their is a case of a player intentionally trying to break someones leg, in fact we happen to be playing against him on Friday, the boys better watch out.

 

[Coxy]

And people mentioning Injury are missing the point. Doesn't matter how badly he could have been injured, you don't make ruling based on whether someone could get injured or not.

Intent is important. How he INTENDED to make the tackle is important. His intent to throw him on his side (clear as day that's what e tried to do) is important. He wasn't intending to effect the tackle in any other way but unlucky for him it ended that way.

Look at Farah. What was his intent? Who knows! Farah intent was to make some sort of attempt at a tackle but his actions were completely careless and he put no thought in what he was actually INTENDING to do.

When we say intent, we are talking about his intentions to effect the tackle, not his intentions to injury a player (which is irrelevant like you said)

You're utterly wrong. It's called a Dangerous Throw. It's not graded by intent, it's graded by the amount of danger the tackle put the victim in. Williams put De Gois under incredible danger through that tackle.

It's different to a high tackle where intent and point of contact are the main considerations.

 

[Foordy]

Williams got charged with a RECKLESS tackle not an INTENTIONAL tackle. there is a difference. both the reckless and careless tackle categories are for non-intentional tackles. IMO, they hit him with the right charge, he has had several charges in the past and that is why he is looking at that long on the sidelines.

 

[Coxy]

Williams got charged with a RECKLESS tackle not an INTENTIONAL tackle. there is a difference. both the reckless and careless tackle categories are for non-intentional tackles. IMO, they hit him with the right charge, he has had several charges in the past and that is why he is looking at that long on the sidelines.

No, he got charged with a Dangerous Throw. There is no careless/reckless/intentional categorisation of dangerous throws.

If you look at it, there's about 15 gradings for high tackles (5xcareless, reckless, intentional). There's only 5 gradings for dangerous throws. So the jump in punishment, especially as you reach grade 4 and 5 is huge.

 

[Porthoz]

You're utterly wrong. It's called a Dangerous Throw. It's not graded by intent, it's graded by the amount of danger the tackle put the victim in. Williams put De Gois under incredible danger through that tackle.

It's different to a high tackle where intent and point of contact are the main considerations.

This absolutely ^^^^

It's gonna wreak even more havoc with my fantasy teams, but the charge is fair imo. I can hear the Manly whingeing from here! :haha:

 

[Coxy]

And he should still get 10 weeks.
We had a case by case system once. People whinged about inconsistency.

 

[Dexter]

Geez Rock, the only way that could have been worse is if he actually landed on his head. That is just plain bad and deserves every minute he gets. He will plead guilty, ( I think ) but it could be interesting to hear what BS defence Manly come up with.

 

[Broncoman]

Gee that sucks for Manly. T-Rex has been in tremendous form and would've been on the Blues radar this year. Watmough is a good replacement though.

 

[The Brizz]

He recklessly threw a player on their head and with his record I have no complaints about this ban, how Farah only gets 2 weeks for driving a player head first into the turf is boggling!

 

[jarro65]

Seems a fair penalty to me for what he did.

Could've been really bad if De Gois landed fair on his head ... which he almost did by the way !

 

[Dexter]

Manly are considering arguing for a downgrade to grade 3 which can't be possible because if that's a grade 3 what is a grade 5?