Did the Tongan Thor deserve to be sin binned for his enormous hit?

Like I said the TMO cleared him of a high tackle with far more angles available. I respect your thought process but given the TMOs resources I'll side with them in that the tackle was not high

Now we are getting really technical but since you are so black and white about it, here's my take. At .35 the camera cuts away before Tupou has completed the tackle - 1 Metre out from the line. At 1 Sec he is clearly shown at the wider angle to continue on and remains in contact with CCL almost back to the line. At that stage his shoulder is way above the shoulder line of CCL This is what is visible at 17 sec. Its not the worst and regularly would go unpunished but he does make contact above the shoulder. The law then is very clear "A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders."

I can say that because contact has been made and there is still daylight between TT and CLL. There is no evidence of contact to the head (including from the TMO). You can't give a yellow card on a feeling without evidence. And certainly not for "close to the head".

You can’t say that because Tupou’s right shoulder is obscured. And the video cuts away before the tackle is completed. So you never see if CLL head hits the shoulder from that angle. It’s a 50/50 call but as always the onus is on the tackler to prevent any contact so the call goes against him.

Only due to the angle. If you continue to 0:34-0:35 you can clearly see the point of contact is shoulder – shoulder

At that exact same frame the top of Tupou's shoulder is at CLL's cheek height, and CLL's shoulder is below the emblem on Tupou's chest. Both these things making the Tackle above shoulder height and illegal.

Yup a certain Warratahs coach's thighs were the thighs that got me. No chance of wrapping my arms around those tree trunks even at under 13.

Do we want to allow big people legally smash little people such that the little people are hurt? That is the question

This. Plus Hegarty is hit seconds before this exactly like Thor’s but without the weight. No mention

I was filthy about it last night but the comments above have softened me a bit. I still think it was ok but maybe.....not totally ok. Anyway the good thing to come from Lilo's marmalising was he got up to complete an 8/10 performance as flyhalf and captain. If he's not the Walabies 10 and possible captain O'Conner and Johnson have balls the size of caraway seeds!

Well it seems we're both set in our interpretations so let's agree to disagree

Well, if you've seen the slow-motion replay and still believe that it was textbook tackle, then I'd never want to play in a match reffed by you. When I watched live I thought the tackle was OK, but seeing the slow-motion (which I know always makes it *look* worse, and I've taken that into account when reviewing it) then I realised that it was a shoulder charge. Tackling with the arms doesn't stop dominant tackles - it helps them; but Tupou's hit wasn't a dominant tackle.

Great post, wish I could have put it this way. The main problem I have with the hit is that it clearly had bad intentions, beyond a normal tackle. He didn't need to, and it could've ended worse for CLL, everyone is OK to argue the points of difference because Christian got up, what would the discussion be if he was taken off on a stretcher. Kids don't need to see these kinds of late hits that lay players out. To me it was in the cowardly hit category, I don't think I called it a dog act however. I don't want to see these kinda hits in rugby, front up to another prop for a good fair tackle if you have something to prove, not a fly half looking away from you who's already passed the ball.

One could argue it is Foul play 9.13 'A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.' No one is saying he was carded for head contact, so you don't need to keep asking where was the HIA. In this day and age, with the awareness of long term injuries, the shear physicality of professional athletes, this type of tackle is generally considered dangerous. All this 'I was a ref for 20yrs', 'I played for 20yrs' carry on, means nothing sorry, the game is far from the same game it was 20, 15, and even 10yrs ago. These guys are bigger faster and stronger than ever, so the thresholds will understandably become tighter.

Refs get things wrong all the time - so point me to which law was broken in the night, which law discusses excessive force, nearly high, almost high, a bit close to high? You can’t and you can’t point to a logical reason so you choose to resort to name calling - dog act, coward hit blah blah. Just point to the particular law that was broken and you will have made your point. If the hit was such an egregious hit to the head where was the HIA?

i don't have to show you sunshine, the ref did when he made the correct ruling on the field. Painful I know, but perhaps accept the actual twaddle coming from you is best left in your own mind.

Still peddling your twaddle. You still can’t show us which rule was broken.

CLL's problem was his shoulder. That's a big clue as to where the point of contact was. If the contact was with his head he would have been off and TT's card would rightfully have been red. The fundamental problem was the physics of 135kg mass colliding with 95kg mass.

Every tackle is a shoulder charge in slow motion. You hit with the shoulder and then your arms wrap around. Except arm grabs of course. Except arm grabbers tend not to make Super rugby, apart from Beale of course. And Quade.

*eye roll emoji*