The danger of jumping

First topic message reminder :

Lets leave the match thread and talk about this particular scenario by itself.

Here's my take on it.

In days gone by, everybody stayed on the ground to catch balls.


Then one day somebody decided to jump to make catches - here's the benefits.

- You get the ball before the opposition player who is still on the ground
- (and this came later) IF they tackle you, they are penalised.

So, the tackle in the air rule was created because obviously it can lead to very serious injury.

But, why didn't they just outlaw jumping instead? Does that sound boring? Maybe, but its safe. We still aren't allowed to jump tackles as far as I know - for similar reasons.

The chasing team -  will want to run as fast as they can to challange for the kicked ball. Whilst running fast, they need to both watch the ball, and keep an eye on who they will be challenging for the ball.
The defending team - doesn't have to run too fast, more time, and the protection of the rules if they are in the air.

What's the problem?

If the defending team player does not jump, and the attacking player does - we get boots, hip, knees in the face.
If the attacking player does not jump, but the defender does - the defender gets taken out by the other players upper body.


In this particular case, I simply cannot see why Jared Payne who is running full tilt in order to get underneath the ball can be expected to be responsible for a player who left the ground when he was only meters away.

a) he does not HAVE TO jump
b) he did not have enough time to react
c) he didn't see Goode had jumped anyway
d) he was completely focused on catching a ball
e) a player MUST accept the risk involved if they jump into the air in a contact sport



Ultimately, what's the message? What does the IRB want to say to players in these situations?

a) don't try to get under a ball?
b) ALWAYS jump, the other guy probably will
c) don't run so fast when you are chasing kicks

A few other ponderings -
a) if Payne had got injured, would he still have seen red
b) If Goode hadn't been injured would he have seen red


Discuss

VinceWLB wrote:

Cyril wrote:
I agree that actual injury should not necessarily decide the sanction but are you suggesting Goode 'milked' the red card?

I'm certainly not but this is not impossible, heck Halequins used fake blood few years ago who would have suggested that?

It just strikes me as odd that Goode is now being criticised for being knocked onto his head and being stretchered off. The fact that he was up and smiling before half time seems to be an admission of guilt to some.

VinceWLB wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:
So anything goes in the first 20 then?

When it's not clear cut dont give the harshest possible sanction.

Its not about that. Had Payne seen Goode, the normal rules of recklessness apply. He didn't see him, and all he did was run after the ball until the two collided. Payne obviously didn't know Goode was there as he hits him face first. Its unfortunate, and a penalty in my opinion, nothing more.

Compare it to an accidental clash of heads. Its dangerous of course, but you don't give a card there.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Goode was milking the episode. There were clearly serious concerns over him at the time and we are all delighted that he was able to be up and about later. That does not mean he was not significantly injured. The impact of his head on the pitch was indeed significant.

I think some people are asking if the mere fact that you are in the air should absolve you of all responsibility for the safety of yourself and others while the mere fact that your feet were on the ground makes you guilty of dangerous play.

Some of us think that 2mm of air between the grass and Payne's boots should not necessarily swing the pendulum of blame so far in cases where both players are clearly focused on the ball.

I just don't know how you can blame someone for something they don't know about. He didn't see that Goode was going to contest, so the question is - should he have seen that?

Can you ask the attacking player to slow their chase to take in their surroundings, while giving the defender free reign?

Thanks to those who have posted clips of other high ball collisions. The more we see, the more we can understand how officials generally seem to treat such incidents. If three senior men thought a red card was warranted in this instance, then we really need similar punishments on similar offences in the future.

I don't think anyone has called Payne a dirty player but that's not relevant. You can commit a reckless red card offence with no malice aforethought.

As far as I can see, the IRB is trying to ensure that players never even accidentally get into a position when they put another at risk. We are rugby union fans here but everyone should be following a recent case in league which caused a serious injury for Alex McKinnon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-BmKXU12yE



We don't want to be in a position where we are telling our referees to make decisions because of a tragic incident. We need them to make decisions to reduce the chance they occur at all.

I probably had Payne down for a yellow, much as I did Warburton. I'm open to the idea that both merited heavier punishment but this needs to be a widely applied principle or not applied at all.

Kunu the ball happened to be in Goode's hands when Payne took him out. Perhaps next time Payne shouldn't be so reckless.

MrsP Goode jumped and caught the ball. He was the first player to the ball. It is the responsibility of the opposition player to not take the man out in the air.

Goode is quite clearly focused on the ball because he catches it.

Goode was focused on the ball. So was Payne.

The only difference is one's feet were on the ground and the other was in the air.

And I would disagree that Payne "took him out in the air". The 2 players collided while both were trying to catch a ball they were fully focused on.

Rugby Fan wrote:Thanks to those who have posted clips of other high ball collisions. The more we see, the more we can understand how officials generally seem to treat such incidents. If three senior men thought a red card was warranted in this instance, then we really need  similar punishments on similar offences in the future.

I don't think anyone has called Payne a dirty player but that's not relevant. You can commit a reckless red card offence with no malice aforethought.

As far as I can see, the IRB is trying to ensure that players never even accidentally get into a position when they put another at risk. We are  rugby union fans here but everyone should be following a recent case in league which caused a serious injury for Alex McKinnon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-BmKXU12yE



We don't want to be in a position where we are telling our referees to make decisions because of a tragic incident. We need them to make decisions to reduce the chance they occur at all.

I probably had Payne down for a yellow, much as I did Warburton. I'm open to the idea that both merited heavier punishment but this needs to be a widely applied principle or not applied at all.

The incidents are very different in my opinion. Warburton knew he was involved in a tackle, and acted recklessly in brining his elbow above his shoulder. The red was designed to ensure that tacklers are not reckless. And following the McKinnon incident, its hard to argue with the validity of Rolland's interpretation.

Payne on the other hand, doesn't know its a tackle situation, or that he's competing for the ball. The only positive act Payne commits is running in a straight line for the ball. I don't think we should get to a point in rugby when running can be deemed reckless. The big difference between Payne's case and others is - usually you'll see others turn their back to the contact, or use their arms to take the hit, showing they're aware that its a contest. Payne struck Goode with his face.

Had Payne knew he was in competition for the ball, then red should have been given - regardless of his intent. The law attaches a duty of care to the grounded player to ensure the airborne player isn't impeded on the way down, regardless of his intent in the situation. I suppose my point is, can you attach that same duty when the attacking player doesn't know of the existence of the defending player in that situation? I don't think so, penalty against Payne, but i wouldn't give a card.

Mrsp Goode caught the ball. Payne then takes out Goode. The ball was in Goode's hands. Not Payne's. Payne does not go to jump to contest. If he was going to stand any chance of winning the ball he had to. The ball was closer to Goode. Of course he took him out in the air.

To contest the ball Payne needed to show more intent, looking at a ball is not enough. He was not in a position where he could beat Goode to the ball.

You know I was watching rugby red card incidents a couple of weeks back and can I just make a comment that Jerome Garces seems to be in the middle of 50%+ of them? The most recent being, you guessed it, Stuart Hogg. He also gave 2 red cards to the USA a couple of years back in the same match. Now I don't want to say he is card happy for the sake of it; I just think he is a *very* safety conscious referee. There's no problem with that and you could also argue he just happens to be in the middle of dangerous red card incidents.

I *am* surprised that coaches have apparently yet to pick up on this. Unless they are, and players are unwittingly focusing too much on "don't get a red card" (and if you keep thinking that, you'll probably get one.) For what it's worth I genuinely think Payne was careless and should have been more alert, especially given who the referee was on the day. I do think that it was a yellow, though. Glad Goode is okay, very unfortunate incident and looks like he was knocked out from the impact.

Hope it is ruled that the red card was enough for Payne. If it was a yellow perhaps a couple of weeks ban, but that card effectively dampened almost all of Ulster's hopes for European success this season - probably that's enough.

Congrats Saracens and I do feel for Ulster!

PS get a poll going & put the GIF link in the OP?? Be interesting to see 606's view after being able to deliberate over it.

beshocked wrote:Mrsp Goode caught the ball. Payne then takes out Goode. The ball was in Goode's hands. Not Payne's. Payne does not go to jump to contest. If he was going to stand any chance of winning the ball he had to. The ball was closer to Goode. Of course he took him out in the air.

To contest the ball Payne needed to show more intent, looking at a ball is not enough. He was not in a position where he could beat Goode to the ball.

In that scenario, yes. But if Payne doesn't know that Goode is there to compete, which it appears he doesn't as he hits him face first, he wouldn't need to jump. Its a tricky situation.

Doesn't know he is competing for the ball? What does he think? That the ball is going to gladly fall into his hands? That no one would compete? Tell me how many aerial battles are there that a player does not need to compete at as an attacker?

I'm sure we've all seen players taken out in the air. We can agree they usually use their arms or back to take the contact, not their face

Still takes the man out and was very dangerous however you want to interpret it.

beshocked wrote: Tell me how many aerial battles are there that a player does not need to compete at as an attacker?

Good point. I genuinely don't know, but as Goode comes from deep to catch the ball, just like Payne, I think its reasonable to assume he thought the ball was his. You'd be much more wary of the opposition full back in the 10 metre-22 area.

beshocked wrote:Still takes the man out and was very dangerous however you want to interpret it.

So is a clash of heads

Not even a penalty.

After yesterday's events i don't want to ever read about poor reffing in the rabo, ever.
Our game is becoming soft.

Danger is part of the game. What annoys me about this, is I'm near certain if Goode doesn't fall badly- it's not a penalty. Should have been a penalty, but it wouldn't have been. The sanction was determined by what happened after the incident.

kunu wrote:I just don't know how you can blame someone for something they don't know about. He didn't see that Goode was going to contest, so the question is - should he have seen that?

Can you ask the attacking player to slow their chase to take in their surroundings, while giving the defender free reign?

I think it's about *all* rugby players chasing a kick to take in their surroundings. If you are there second even by a split second you do probably need to be a little more careful. If it is by a whisker then I'd say both need to be careful. The defender is not necessarily there first.

At the moment, given the situation, Goode I think knew what was going on and expected Payne to jump and challenge or pull out. Payne did not see what was going on , but should have , and should have either jumped to challenge assuming he can get his hands near the ball, and keep the dangerous body parts away from Goode (Goode does the same for Payne - that's how jumping etiquette ought to be of course) - or pull out. Payne didn't do this; which is naughty. I think you have take into account that magnitude of the occasion; it being the start of the match (by this I mean that people are fired up and it's always going to be cagey at first); the speed of the runners; the height that Goode jumped; and the fact that it really did look accidental. All of that, to me, adds up to a yellow card and a very stern talking to the captain and Payne. "that was dangerous, although unintentional. Calm your boys. If another of your players does anything remotely like that, it's going to be red."

That's how I would have handled it in my capacity of never reffed a game in my life   

Yeah I take your point there. I think Payne only realises what is going on when he is about half a foot from Goode though, and can't react. Otherwise I think he would have blocked his face with his hands.

Notch danger is part of the game sure. But breaking the rules is not. Taking a man out in the air is breaking the rules. We do not want to encourage reckless play. Player safety is important too. You are right - the nasty fall did make things worse - that can happen when someone is taken out in the air. Slow mo replays of the incident didn't help either.

Finished downloading the game so i could watch the whole mascarade again,

Being French fluent i could understand what was said, Yellow was recomended from the TMO, they looked at wether or not Goode's head hit the ground, I'm not even sure Garces looked at Payne's attitude, this confirm to me he reffed what happened after the incident and did not ref the incident itself.
Garces then shows red to Payne citing "dangerous tackle in the air", key word being "tackle".

Can anyone see a tackle here?

beshocked wrote:Mrsp Goode caught the ball. Payne then takes out Goode. The ball was in Goode's hands. Not Payne's. Payne does not go to jump to contest. If he was going to stand any chance of winning the ball he had to. The ball was closer to Goode. Of course he took him out in the air.

To contest the ball Payne needed to show more intent, looking at a ball is not enough. He was not in a position where he could beat Goode to the ball.

Why would he jump when he didn't know that Goode was coming in unsighted from an angle? In Paynes mind all he had to do was catch, not jump.

Players don't have to jump to been seen to challenge for the ball. I've seen Kearney win many a high ball with his feet barely off the ground.

Not mamy players can jump as high as Goode anyway.

Munchkin, of course he knows Goode is coming for the ball, and if he doesn't he should do. He runs straight underneath a player in the air and takes him out.

This is dangerous play. It is very simple. The fact that he may not have intended to do it is not relevant and is not covered in the law.

The simple question Garces has to ask himself is 'was that dangerous?' If the answer is yes, then it is a penalty, no question. Then it is subjective as to whether further sanction is warranted and that would come down to how dangerous the referee feels it was. Being human, he may base that decision on what he considers the intent was, but ultimately that is not part of the law.

There can be no argument that this was a penalty. For what it's worth I think the red was excessive and yellow would have sufficed, but ultimately Garces acted within the laws of the game.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Players don't have to jump to been seen to challenge for the ball. I've seen Kearney win many a high ball with his feet barely off the ground.

Not mamy players can jump as high as Goode anyway.

Correct, but players do have a responsibility to not take a jumping player out whilst he is in the air.

Yep Ozzy that is why- like you said it was a penalty and maybe a yellow (same thing happened in the Clermont game and ot was only a penalty)

The only reason it was a red is because Goode was injured.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Munchkin, of course he knows Goode is coming for the ball, and if he doesn't he should do.  He runs straight underneath a player in the air and takes him out.

This is dangerous play.  It is very simple.  The fact that he may not have intended to do it is not relevant and is not covered in the law.  

The simple question Garces has to ask himself is 'was that dangerous?'   If the answer is yes, then it is a penalty, no question.  Then it is subjective as to whether further sanction is warranted and that would come down to how dangerous the referee feels it was.  Being human, he may base that decision on what he considers the intent was, but ultimately that is not part of the law.

There can be no argument that this was a penalty.  For what it's worth I think the red was excessive and yellow would have sufficed, but ultimately Garces acted within the laws of the game.

Ozzy, how do you know that he spotted Goode running in? Can you show me where exactly in the replay this is made obvious? I don't agree with you at all.

I wouldn't argue over a yellow being handed out, but a red was extremely harsh. As far as I'm concerned Garces has got it very, very, wrong.

VinceWLB wrote:Finished downloading the game so i could watch the whole mascarade again,

Being French fluent i could understand what was said, Yellow was recomended from the TMO, they looked at wether or not Goode's head hit the ground, I'm not even sure Garces looked at Payne's attitude, this confirm to me he reffed what happened after the incident and did not ref the incident itself.
Garces then shows red to Payne citing "dangerous tackle in the air", key word being "tackle".

Can anyone see a tackle here?

Yeah I should have mentioned that I've heard Garces speak to his French TMOs before (my French is conversational) and he does always seem to tend toward red. I do think the IRB need to sit down the elite panel and make sure they are being consistent - either everyone changes their standard to Garces's or Garces is told to be a little bit more scrutinising.

For example had Hogg been shown yellow many would have said "fair enough", the same as when it was red, because you can't really argue with it yet you could also see why a yellow is enough. I do personally think Hogg's is a red for intention, though.

BTW so far I've been really impressed by Ulster fans' reaction. No sour grapes it seems. Stand up response.

Munchkin, he runs from his own 22. When he sets off he can see what is ahead of him. He is a top professional and at that point would have to be anticipating challenging the opposition full back for the ball. As he runs, you can see he is watching the flight of the ball, then as he reaches his own 10 metre line he looks forwards to see what is coming before looking at the ball again. There is no way on this earth that he doesn't know that Goode is coming to collect.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Munchkin, he runs from his own 22.  When he sets off he can see what is ahead of him.  He is a top professional and at that point would have to be anticipating challenging the opposition full back for the ball.  As he runs, you can see he is watching the flight of the ball, then as he reaches his own 10 metre line he looks forwards to see what is coming before looking at the ball again.  There is no way on this earth that he doesn't know that Goode is coming to collect.

Goode is running in at an angle. There had been various camera angles shown, and not all clearly demonstrate Goode running in at an angle to Paynes straight run. Payne looking straight ahead, as he was, wouldn't have spotted Goode. Certainly not until the last second. What is obvious is Payne's reaction of shock to the collision.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Munchkin, he runs from his own 22.  When he sets off he can see what is ahead of him.  He is a top professional and at that point would have to be anticipating challenging the opposition full back for the ball.  As he runs, you can see he is watching the flight of the ball, then as he reaches his own 10 metre line he looks forwards to see what is coming before looking at the ball again.  There is no way on this earth that he doesn't know that Goode is coming to collect.

Like I've said numerous times Ozzy, we are giving a red because a player failed to anticipate a jump? Really? And Goode accepts no danger in putting himself off the ground.

- Payne was competing for the ball
- He most likely did not see Goode
- He intended no danger.

Here's a random hypothetic scenario. Two players jump for the ball. Defending jumps early and catches. Attacking player jumps late. Defending players feet are back on the ground (with ball) and he takes out the other jumping players legs.

Is it no longer dangerous if you caught the ball first?

This whole part of the game is dodgy. And if I can go back to the original point of the post - if you create a rule to protect a player in the air, you encourage - nay - create a game style that involves a very dangerous act. And lets not forget - very serious injury can occur even when BOTH players are jumping. Its just plain dangerous. Just being on the ground is slightly more dangerous If serious neck injuries are the concern, players should just not be 4 feet in the air in what is a very physical contact sport.

George Carlin wrote:I agree that the fact Payne clearly didn't adopt any brace position or use the usual instinctive methods one uses to protect oneself from an imminent collision means that he almost certainly didn't see Goode at all.

Did the ref go to the TMO about this? Did anyone hear what was said?

yes it went to the tmo. and given the injury and stretchering off of Goode, they had fully five minutes to discuss it. The ref, touch judge and tmo had a lengthy discussion. Basically their chat went like this:

- Payne did not jump for the ball
- Goode landed badly, striking his head on the ground
- this was therefore a "professional" foul and merited a red card. they explained "professional" in the sense that he Payne knew what he was doing was likely to takeout any player jumping for the ball, and that it might prove dangerous.

they reviewed the clip several times from multiple angles.

given they way these three top IRB refs reviewed the replays and agreed with each other, they can't be accused of making a snap decision. In fact, they clearly delayed awarding the red because they knew it was likely to end the match as a contest.

I agree with Brian Moore's comments.

clivermcl - reds could be awarded every time something like that happens. the fact they arent is more down to refereeing interpretation and inconsistency than error.

suggesting the laws need to be changed to stop reds being awarded for what clearly constitutes dangerous play is a bit backwards.

Some more details on the conversation between Garces and the tmo:

That was before images were actually shown on the big screens, tmo said 15 white is late and never jumped to catch the ball, 15 black fall on his side then Garces ask if this is really intentionnal, tmo replied with a yes, this is my first impression, yellow.

The Garces was able to see the images..

Last we heard from the tmo was: "the camera is on you".

kunu wrote:I just don't know how you can blame someone for something they don't know about. He didn't see that Goode was going to contest, so the question is - should he have seen that?

Can you ask the attacking player to slow their chase to take in their surroundings, while giving the defender free reign?

it's nothing to do with attacker vs defender. it's to do with competing or not competing. if you get there second and dont compete, and the first arriver makes a clean catch, then you are risking the safety of the jumper, and possibly yourself. and that's what can get given a red. not whether its attacker or defender.

the first player to arrive does not need to "take in their surroundings" in quite the same way as the second to arrive, as they will be the one in the air with the ball in their hands, and thus more vulnerable.

Payne was an idiot. If he thought he had a chance of taking the ball he would have jumped, like Goode did. The reason he didnt is that it would have slowed him down to take the step required to get lift and he would have been nowhere near catching the ball. He kept on running and took out Goode's legs. Can't complain if the referee deems it dangerous and that Payne should have known better, and gives a red, harsh though it may seem.

Some of you have seen a very different incident to the one i saw. To suggest Payne, in any way shape or form, took Goode out deliberately is a joke. Goode didn't leap straight up in the air and then Payne hit him, Goode leapt towards Payne, who, as he had his eyes on the ball, failed to register Goode's actions and collided with him. This was Payne's error, and it was of course a penalty offense and a yellow for failure to recognise the danger of the situation.

But a red for willfully 'taking the player out', utter, utter Love sacks. Not matter how many times beshocked says so.

Delighted to see Goode up and about afterwards. Shook his hand and told him as much after the game. Great player.

VinceWLB wrote:Some more details on the conversation between Garces and the tmo:

That was before images were actually shown on the big screens, tmo said 15 white is late and never jumped to catch the ball, 15 black fall on his side then Garces ask if this is really intentionnal, tmo replied with a yes, this is my first impression, yellow.

The Garces was able to see the images..

Last we heard from the tmo was: "the camera is on you".

no, the tmo said he landed on his side and his head struck the ground. tmo specifically mentions head striking the ground.

and the tmo did not say yellow. you have invented that.

quinsforever wrote:
no, the tmo said he landed on his side and his head struck the ground. tmo specifically mentions head striking the ground.

and the tmo did not say yellow. you have invented that.

Yeah it's true about the head striking the ground part.

But i can tell you at exactly 13:31 on the video file that the tmo said "jaune", yellow.

"Goode got there first and caught the ball. Payne took Goode out. Reckless and dangerous."

Utter bilge.
Payne didn't take anyone out, there was obviously no intention togo for the player. Had he driven the shoulder in or made to grab at Goode then I would think differently but this is as clear cut a collision as I've seen. Even the TMO thought it should have been a yellow. Had Goode not been knocked out I dare say it would only have been a penalty and stern talking to.
The only person who had a rush of blood to the head was Jerome Farces

VinceWLB wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
no, the tmo said he landed on his side and his head struck the ground. tmo specifically mentions head striking the ground.

and the tmo did not say yellow. you have invented that.

Yeah it's true about the head striking the ground part.

But i can tell you at exactly 13:31 on the video file that the tmo said "jaune", yellow.

Actually he says "at least a yellow"

Pete330v2 wrote:Even the TMO thought it should have been a yellow.

The tmo thought Payne intentionally hit Goode in the air and it warranted a yellow and he was wrong about the intentionnal part...

A red is way, way out of order.

LondonTiger wrote:
Actually he says "at least a yellow"

No it was a firm "yellow"

Payne is the one who does the unusual which makes it dangerous. Most players chasing a high kick either jump to get to the ball first or realize that they couldn't compete for the ball so slow to prepare to tackle when the opposing player has landed. If Payne had jumped there would have been less chance of Goode going beyond the horizontal as his impact would have been higher on Goode, not taking Goode's feet. Harsh as it is it is the correct decision as we don't want players running flat out into jumping players with the possible outcome from players landing head first. It was Payne's action that took Goode beyond the Horizontal. The fact that other refs got it wrong doesn't make it right.

VinceWLB wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Even the TMO thought it should have been a yellow.

The tmo thought Payne intentionally hit Goode in the air and it warranted a yellow and he was wrong about the intentionnal part...

A red is way, way out of order.

No, no it isn't. Personally I believe yellow would have sufficed, but as soon as you are in that territory for foul play a red is always an option.

VinceWLB wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:
Actually he says "at least a yellow"

No it was a firm "yellow"

I have had the whole conversation transcribed - you are 100% wrong about what the TMO was saying in the conversation - because you are focussing on a single word. You have no concern for the truth - just your desire to whinge and blame the ref. I am sick and tired of people on these boards always blaming the ref. Easier than just accepting defeat I guess.

VinceWLB wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:
Actually he says "at least a yellow"

No it was a firm "yellow"

au moins jaune

means at least yellow.

Is it fair to say that Payne "took out" Goode?

The origins of this phrase are based on premeditated action to remove deliberately someone from participating in events, to disable, maim or even kill them.

I don't think there is anything visible or audible that proves that Payne's actions against Goode were deliberate.

Other aspects of the game should be reversed to how it was before in my opinion. One in particular, is the calling of the mark. It should be as before, both feet on the ground making and calling the mark before a clean catch. This calling the mark whilst running or jumping is a complete farse and makes it so easy for the defending side. It takes a more confident player to stand his ground, knowing opposition players are charging in on him, to stand his ground an take a clean catch. The ability to shout mark, run and jump knowing you can't be touched without being penalised has no skill at all.