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

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

I am French fluent and i have the video file what more do you want?

If someone said at least yellow it was the assistant ref or Garces himself.

Pot Hale wrote: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.

the refs decided that payne's actions were deliberate. they used the word "professional" foul. specifically because he did not compete for the ball. therefore payne took goode out in the air, dangerously and red was merited.

it is hard but it will absolutely not be overturned, or apologised for by the IRB. Anything protecting player safety i think they are glad when a ref makes the really hard decisions and awards reds. The easy thing for Garces would have been to give a yellow.

Pot Hale wrote: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

I don't think that's right. Taking out someone is the same as blocking someone. You can do it deliberately or accidentally. If you prefer something with less ambiguity, what would you suggest?

Clearly the best term for it is that it was an accidental collision.

I'll be honest having watched that quite a few times now I don't even think its a penalty. At the moment Goode jumps what could Payne possibly do different? Maybe dive to the floor? This to me just looks like a collision, Payne was opening the bread basket to catch the ball, he didn't take out Goode they just collided.
I do think that when it comes to safety its better to be too strict and penalise harshly, and you see people getting tackled in the air quite a bit so its a good thing to stamp out, but this TO ME was just something that happens sometimes when 2 people are running full pelt to the same point.

Similar, not even a penalty

Gentlemen forget what the intent of Payne was, forget about whether he was looking at the ball or not, think how the referee looked at this.

He reacted to the end result of what he saw, and that is the collision with one player being in the air, and the other with his feet on the ground running into an airborne player.

It was in his discretion that he decided a red card is warranted, another referee may have seen it as a yellow and another may have seen it as a penalty only, as the law 10.4 provides the penalty, the card is interpreted by the referee.

If Payne's red card stops other players running full pelt into potentially dangerous contact no problem for me.Better to have 100 "Wrong" red cards than one player seriously injured.

A good sensible and fair assessment Biltong   

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote: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

I don't think that's right. Taking out someone is the same as blocking someone. You can do it deliberately or accidentally. If you prefer something with less ambiguity, what would you suggest?

On the contrary, I think use of the term "take out", in this particular discussion, is unambiguous and deliberate. Its use portrays Payne and his actions in a poor light; that they were intentional and deliberate to maim or cause injury to the player.

I do believe his actions were accidental for the primary reason that I see no evidence that they were deliberate.

The two players were moving towards each other, at speed, intent on the same objective - getting the ball. The one towards whom the ball was travelling jumped to get the ball, the other who was chasing the ball to receive it on the ground, didn't. They collided.

I like this thread. I happened upon it early in the morning while having my breakfast and thought it was a tough red but certainly a justifiable one. Then I went to the toilet and felt more at peace with the world and the red looked harsh. I've seen other videos of similar incidents and have come to the conclusion that if Payne had also gone down injured or at least hurt like Slade, nothing would've happened.

Which just goes to show you how the aftermath can influence the ref in his decision. If one player lands awkwardly and the other looks in the wrong, it's easier to come down hard on the guy. If both come off second best, then it's harder to come down on the one player with the full force of the law. I hope we don't get the situation in football when a player commits an ugly foul and then writhes on the ground in agony to fool the ref into thinking that the foul was unintentional and to escape sanction.

It's obvious that Payne didn't know Goode was coming but it's very difficult to debate whether the ugly landing that happened as a result of the collision was Payne's wrongdoing, intentional or not. I'm just glad that Payne didn't make a meal of a nasty collision and Goode didn't milk his ugly fall. I really hope we don't ever come to the stage where rugby players are play acting on the floor to avoid sanction or to provoke it. If it does happen, then those players should receive lengthy bans.

I can certainly sympathise with Ulster fans who had their quarter final effectively determined by the red card. I can sympathise with the ref that his actions were out of the interests of safety and he had the conviction of his beliefs to give the red card. I can also sympathise with Payne, who didn't intentionally set out to collide with Goode. Ultimately this was a harsh but nonetheless justified red and it's certainly brought this issue to limelight and although that is no consolation for Ulster fans, I think it could be consolation if these types of injuries are minimised.

broadlandboy wrote:If Payne's red card stops other players running full pelt into potentially dangerous contact no problem for me.Better to have 100 "Wrong" red cards than one player seriously injured.

Goode took a risk while jumping to get the ball and it should be assumed as such.

broadlandboy wrote:If Payne's red card stops other players running full pelt into potentially dangerous contact no problem for me.Better to have 100 "Wrong" red cards than one player seriously injured.

Sure that is a fantastic idea, but don't complain when Rugby Union no longer exists. Since what you have just said happens in every single game we play or watch.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I like this thread. I happened upon it early in the morning while having my breakfast and thought it was a tough red but certainly a justifiable one. Then I went to the toilet and felt more at peace with the world and the red looked harsh. I've seen other videos of similar incidents and have come to the conclusion that if Payne had also gone down injured or at least hurt like Slade, nothing would've happened.

Which just goes to show you how the aftermath can influence the ref in his decision. If one player lands awkwardly and the other looks in the wrong, it's easier to come down hard on the guy. If both come off second best, then it's harder to come down on the one player with the full force of the law. I hope we don't get the situation in football when a player commits an ugly foul and then writhes on the ground in agony to fool the ref into thinking that the foul was unintentional and to escape sanction.

It's obvious that Payne didn't know Goode was coming but it's very difficult to debate whether the ugly landing that happened as a result of the collision was Payne's wrongdoing, intentional or not. I'm just glad that Payne didn't make a meal of a nasty collision and Goode didn't milk his ugly fall. I really hope we don't ever come to the stage where rugby players are play acting on the floor to avoid sanction or to provoke it. If it does happen, then those players should receive lengthy bans.

I can certainly sympathise with Ulster fans who had their quarter final effectively determined by the red card. I can sympathise with the ref that his actions were out of the interests of safety and he had the conviction of his beliefs to give the red card. I can also sympathise with Payne, who didn't intentionally set out to collide with Goode. Ultimately this was a harsh but nonetheless justified red and it's certainly brought this issue to limelight and although that is no consolation for Ulster fans, I think it could be consolation if these types of injuries are minimised.

The reality is then that Payne would have been better staying down himself, because apparently the result of an accidental collision can determine the punishment. Which is crazy in my opinion.

Given videos posted of similar events, that is indeed my conclusion Rory. Which is why eternal credit must be given to Payne for getting up, as after all he has concussion and whiplash after that collision.

How on earth can we be saying that a player attempting to run underneath a ball is in any way illegal. The basis of ball catching is with feet on ground. Jumping is a 'further step' to gain advantage. But attempting to catch the ball on the ground should be fairly warranted.


is it dangerous to jump in the air during a contact sport? yes.

If a player is deliberatly tackling a player in the air - red card for certain. But is it the exact same result for somebody doing it accidentally?

Like I keep saying. There is no guarantee that an opponent will jump, and its unfair to expect Payne to react once Goode leaves the ground.

Both players were moving towards each other.

Does this make a difference I wonder? What if Payne got there in plenty of time and was standing still when Goode jumps and gets 'taken out'. Is Payne still at fault even if he's motionless? Because surely if you are to 'look out for aerial players', a stationary player would have to get out of the way of a jumping player coming in at speed.

Pot Hale wrote:...I think use of the term "take out", in this particular discussion, is unambiguous and deliberate.

If you think some people believe Payne did not pull out when he could have done, then I'd agree with you. At least one of the match officials was thinking along those lines.

We don't all have to believe that to be using the English language accurately. I don't think Payne acted maliciously but he certainly ended up taking out Goode.

broadlandboy wrote:If Payne's red card stops other players running full pelt into potentially dangerous contact no problem for me.Better to have 100 "Wrong" red cards than one player seriously injured.

Nobody wants to see serious injury. Wrong reds are .. well .. wrong. If a wrong red can be justified as in the interests of safety, then the laws need changed.

That particular red will not help prevent players running full pelt into contact. Players are expected to run full pelt into contact, and do so every week. I know this isn't exactly what you're saying, blb, but neither will it help limit dangerous play for the simple reason that it was accidental. If it was deliberate then I would agree. It wasn't.

The more I see the incident the more I think that the call was completely wrong, and honestly a penalty would have been sufficient.

Both players run to compete with the ball, both have their eyes fixed on the ball, the only difference being that one player leaps into the other, with the other staying on the ground. Now, what is the responsibility that is being questioned of Payne here? He did not attempt a tackle, nor to take anyone out in the air. He was looking to take the ball, and to anyone with both eyes open this is completely clear to see. He doesn't look at Goode and we can see that as he leads face first and gets a bad case of whiplash himself. So what is being questioned here?

Should Payne have jumped, and is a player under the obligation to jump when competing for the ball? There is no law that states this, nor does this make any sense. There is a possibility of serious injury whether a player jumps or not in such a contest, that is the nature of the game. Payne did not have to jump to make a clean catch.

Is it being questioned that Payne should have brought Goode down safely? Well that makes little sense as a) Payne does not make a tackle which would have been illegal anyway and b) the opposing player jumped into him to win the ball. How can Payne be at fault for that? If one player jumps and another doesn't and an injury occurs, how can the player who did not jump be blamed for it? Both players took the risk to compete for the ball, which resulted in a very bad collision.

It is encouraged for any fullback at any level to keep their eye on the ball when competing, and the best fullbacks in the world always do this, and sometimes take a heavy hit or a hard landing in doing so. That is the nature of the game, and sometimes it can end badly. A player should never be carded for legally competing for a 50/50 ball.

169 posts and counting. Good idea to set this up as a separate thread.

The full quotes from the coaches were these:

Mark Anscombe wrote:“When you lose a pretty important player five minutes into the game, you’re always going to have your backs to the wall. It’s unfortunate. It was a collision in the air and did it warrant a red card? I think we’re pretty hard done by there.
 
“Sometimes I think with these it’s the emotion of the injury (that) creates the penalty, and I think at worst it was a yellow card. To have a red card four minutes into the game meant we were always going to be chasing our tails.
 
“I’ve got to take my hat off to the boys to hang in there and, to actually be taking the game to them and trailing 17-15 in the 80th minute, we’ve got to be really proud of their effort.
 
“Jared, the whole time, had his eyes on the ball. I mean, how’s that a red card? I think that’s the emotion of the injury. You saw how difficult it was as, a couple of the tries they scored, we had numbers down. We went to the break at 9-5, which was a pretty good feat, and to keep it so close at the end... but that’s the way it goes at times.”

and

Mark McCall wrote:“Ulster deserve an enormous amount of credit after losing a man after five minutes and, not only from the effort they put in, but to also be as tactically astute and aware as they were was a great achievement and we’re just lucky we got over the line at the end.”
 
“It definitely wasn’t intentional (Payne’s collision) but it was reckless. You could argue both ways, but it’s a big call to make five minutes into the match and it changes the match. At times we played some good rugby and at times our physicality was outstanding, but we kept on showing unbelievable indiscipline.
 
“We gave away too many penalties and we kept them in the game and we kept the crowd in the game, and we were fortunate to get away with the win.”

Pete330v2 wrote:"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

You call it utter bilge. Goode did get there first and did catch the ball. Payne did take Goode out in the air. It was reckless and dangerous.

How is that inaccurate? If Payne runs into an opposition player who is jumping in the air to catch a ball what does he expect to happen?

Maybe he should have gone to Specsavers?

Payne does not jump for the ball.

Jerome Garces had ample time to make the call.

Answer this Whose action caused Goode to go beyond the horizontal?

The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty. If the referee deems that contact as dangerous, they are encouraged to give a yellow or red card as they see fit.

As Brian Moore stated, intent does not enter into it.

Did Payne make contact with Goode in the air? Yes.
Did Payne do so in a dangerous manner? Yes.
Is a card warranted? Yes
Is it debatable whether it should have been red or yellow? Yes, though I think the case for red is quite strong in this case and Garces was right to give it.

It really isn't relevant where Payne is looking. The Laws afford special protection to players in the air, because they are in a uniquely vulnerable position. If Payne had jumped, he would have been afforded the same protection; there would in all likelihood have been no penalty, even if there had been an injury. But any incident would almost certainly have been less severe because when both players are in the air their centres of gravity are at about the same height, so there's less risk of tipping, and they are both decelerating, so the impact is less severe.

When one player is on the ground, it's very different. The player on the ground is able to maintain his speed and he will make contact well below the jumper's centre of gravity. It is much more likely that the jumper will be tipped up and fall head first into the ground.

Payne chose to run, full tilt, into a zone where he could almost guarantee to encounter another player in the air. The fact that he hadn't seen the player or that, having chosen not to jump, he kept his eyes on the ball meant that he did not give himself much option to adjust his line or react. I don't think it was malicious or planned - I think you can see on his face th moment when he realises that he won't get to the ball but doesn't have time to check his run - but it was reckless and dangerous.

That doesn't mean Payne is a dirty player, or intended to cause an injury. But he did make a bad decision and chose to play in a way that was likely to cause injury and he has to live with the consequences.

broadlandboy wrote:Answer this Whose action caused Goode to go beyond the horizontal?

Somebody who happened to run in front of him unaware.

If a man is walking down the street and stares at a woman walking by in another direction and collides with an old woman and in the process of colliding with the woman unhooks the bag strap from her shoulder and catches it on his own, what conclusion would the policeman nearby come to after he had spoken to several eye witnesses?

Would the policeman's reaction depend on the attire of the man, his ethnicity and race and that of the old woman, or would the letter of the law be consistently applied on each occasion?

MrsP there doesn't seem to be much intent to catch the ball - Goode emphatically beat him to it.

I find it hard to believe that Goode magically appeared in his line of sight. Even if that's somehow the case then Payne should be more aware of his surroundings.

If he jumped then Payne would have shown an intent to compete for the ball in direct contest with Goode. Looking at a ball doesn't count.He then took out the man catching the ball.

Ianbru it's in the rules that you cannot take out a man in the air. Payne should have jumped.

If I drive across a junction and hit a cyclist turning (legally) across my path, it's not going to cut any ice that I didn't notice him.

Does this make a difference I wonder? If the basis for the argument is 'you must not endanger an aerial player then - What if Payne got there in plenty of time and was standing still when Goode jumps and gets 'taken out'. Is Payne still at fault even if he's motionless? Because surely if you are to 'protect aerial players', a stationary player would have to get out of the way of a jumping player coming in at speed.

SO yea - massive ambiguity.

beshocked wrote:MrsP there doesn't seem to be much intent to catch the ball - Goode emphatically beat him to it.

I find it hard to believe that Goode magically appeared in his line of sight. Even if that's somehow the case then Payne should be more aware of his surroundings.

If he jumped then Payne would have shown an intent to compete for the ball in direct contest with Goode. Looking at a ball doesn't count.He then took out the man catching the ball.

Ianbru it's in the rules that you cannot take out a man in the air. Payne should have jumped.

Now you've just proved you've gone bias in the opposite direction. Ridiculous statement.

Poorfour wrote:If I drive across a junction and hit a cyclist turning (legally) across my path, it's not going to cut any ice that I didn't notice him.

But the cyclest isn't just cyling - he's doing a wheelie.   

Poorfour wrote:If I drive across a junction and hit a cyclist turning (legally) across my path, it's not going to cut any ice that I didn't notice him.

Lol are you seriously trying to say this is comparable?   

Then he's unicycling. It doesn't matter that he's intentionally unicycling. He's still taken out.

beshocked wrote:MrsP there doesn't seem to be much intent to catch the ball - Goode emphatically beat him to it.

I find it hard to believe that Goode magically appeared in his line of sight. Even if that's somehow the case then Payne should be more aware of his surroundings.

If he jumped then Payne would have shown an intent to compete for the ball in direct contest with Goode. Looking at a ball doesn't count.He then took out the man catching the ball.

Ianbru it's in the rules that you cannot take out a man in the air. Payne should have jumped.

Really, beshocked? Was Payne just checking for rain?

clivemcl that's a different incident though.

If there was a desire for Payne to catch the ball he should have jumped!

In all likelihood if Payne had jumped it would have been a different scenario. Difficult to say what would have happened then but that was definitely a factor in Garces punishing Payne.

If he jumped he might have won the ball - instead he took out Goode in the air as he was catching it.

Poorfour   

Poorfour wrote:The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty.

That is false or else we would see every single competition for the high ball result in a penalty, and the majority of line-outs result in a penalty as well. There is always going to be contact.. otherwise competing for the ball would not be allowed.

clivemcl wrote:

beshocked wrote:Wrote stuff.

Now you've just proved you've gone bias in the opposite direction. Ridiculous statement.

If it was a ridiculous statement it just joins the many ridiculous statements as far as I can see in Paynes defence.

Whenever we see challenges like this we see people screaming for penalties or cards if their team was "offended" against, or denouncing the jumper if their team was penalised. (See numerous discussions about Lee Byrne and Rob Kearney previously as full backs flattened while in the air).


I have previously denounced the law that was broken as ridiculous. After all it was brought in to protect Lineout Jumpers, not those in open play - and until it was brought in full backs (and others) except for the odd former Aussie rules or GAA guy would never jump for the ball. Despite being mocked repeatedly on here for that view, i still believe the law is wrong - but until it is changed you risk being sent off should you break it. And Payne - intentionally or not did break it.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty.

That is false or else we would see every single competition for the high ball result in a penalty, and the majority of line-outs result in a penalty as well.  There is always going to be contact.. otherwise competing for the ball would not be allowed.

What poorfour is saying is that if you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, it is a penalty. Of course if you are both jumping and make contact that is different, as somebody (can't remember who) has explained above, as you are then essentially competing on level terms. If you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, he effectively has no chance of controlling his landing.

Munchkin

If he was trying to catch the ball it was an awful attempt at it. Took out Alex as he was catching the ball.

beshocked wrote:clivemcl that's a different incident though.

If there was a desire for Payne to catch the ball he should have jumped!

In all likelihood if Payne had jumped it would have been a different scenario. Difficult to say what would have happened then but that was definitely a factor in Garces punishing Payne.

If he jumped he might have won the ball - instead he took out Goode in the air as he was catching it.

Poorfour   

Every time you say this, you simply imply Payne wanted to take Goode out and was pretending to go for a catch? If this is your belief, just come out and say it. A PLAYER DOES NOT HAVE TO JUMP TO CATCH

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty.

That is false or else we would see every single competition for the high ball result in a penalty, and the majority of line-outs result in a penalty as well.  There is always going to be contact.. otherwise competing for the ball would not be allowed.

What poorfour is saying is that if you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, it is a penalty.  Of course if you are both jumping and make contact that is different, as somebody (can't remember who) has explained above, as you are then essentially competing on level terms.  If you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, he effectively has no chance of controlling his landing.

So what you are telling me is that a player has to jump to compete for the ball? Can you find me the law that states this please? And can you also explain to me how two players both in the air making contact allows for more control over the landing?

broadlandboy wrote:If Payne's red card stops other players running full pelt into potentially dangerous contact no problem for me.Better to have 100 "Wrong" red cards than one player seriously injured.

Thats a foolish argument, that means the game should be a timid one as players would need to stop and have to do a full scan of the pitch before competing

To me Payne did try to catch Goode once contact had been made, he seemed to try and wrap his arms around but was bounced off by Goodes knee

clivemcl wrote:Does this make a difference I wonder? If the basis for the argument is 'you must not endanger an aerial player then - What if Payne got there in plenty of time and was standing still when Goode jumps and gets 'taken out'. Is Payne still at fault even if he's motionless? Because surely if you are to 'protect aerial players', a stationary player would have to get out of the way of a jumping player coming in at speed.

SO yea - massive ambiguity.

No, no ambiguity at all. Several times in a match you'll see a chaser jump through more or less static players to catch a ball, and it's typically only even a penalty if they react and interfere with him. In that case, it's the jumper's lookout until they move, because he can see what he's jumping into and prepare for it.

broadlandboy wrote:Answer this Whose action caused Goode to go beyond the horizontal?

Answer...Both players.

clivemcl a player does need to jump and catch if there is an opposition player directly competing. It's not in the law book - just common sense. If you jump you're getting to the ball quicker and potentially preventing the opposition from getting it as Goode did.

A player cannot expect to instantly win the ball which has been kicked without some opposition pressure unless the kick is particularly poor.

Payne handed the initiative to Goode because Goode became the man in possession of the ball. If Payne allows him to go to ground then tackle him - there would be no punishment.

If Payne jumps there would be no card.

It is not Goode's fault if Payne showed an inability to see him.

I wonder what would be the situation if roles were reversed....

In fact I don't see this thread going anywhere, nobody is going to change anyone's mind and what happened, happened. Congratulations to the Saracens, although I would have much preferred a fair game without such a decisive game-changing decision that was quite frankly wrong in my opinion.

I think that is fair to say without sounding like a sore loser as well, it clearly did have a monumental affect on the game. Your own coach admits the same.

I don't think that's sore at all Rory. That's how you feel. Of course it affected the game.

No one wants a decisive game-changing decision like that I feel sorry for Garces that he was put in such a tough decision. You can argue whether it was a good call or not but it was certainly an unenviable one.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty.

That is false or else we would see every single competition for the high ball result in a penalty, and the majority of line-outs result in a penalty as well.  There is always going to be contact.. otherwise competing for the ball would not be allowed.

What poorfour is saying is that if you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, it is a penalty.  Of course if you are both jumping and make contact that is different, as somebody (can't remember who) has explained above, as you are then essentially competing on level terms.  If you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, he effectively has no chance of controlling his landing.

So what you are telling me is that a player has to jump to compete for the ball?  Can you find me the law that states this please?  And can you also explain to me how two players both in the air making contact allows for more control over the landing?

No, not saying that at all. You can compete for a ball from the ground, but if a player has jumped for the ball and you collide with them in competing for the ball, you run the risk of being penalised for dangerous play.

Law 10.4(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

No mention of intent there. Just a simple "must not". Payne clearly pushed Goode in the air.

Law 10.5(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.

Technically, any breach of Law 10 offers the option of a yellow or red card. Garces was therefore totally within the Laws to use the red. We can argue whether another decision would have been more sympathetic to the situation (I wouldn't have argued against yellow, though I think the recklessness justifies the red), but not about whether it was correct under the laws. It was.

But the Law you quote is dealing with a tackle.

This was in no way, shape or form a tackle.

It was a collision between 2 players.

Head butting is foul play but no one calls for cards when 2 players collide and bang heads.

Poorfour wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Poorfour wrote:The laws are unambiguous. Contact with a player in the air is a penalty.

That is false or else we would see every single competition for the high ball result in a penalty, and the majority of line-outs result in a penalty as well.  There is always going to be contact.. otherwise competing for the ball would not be allowed.

What poorfour is saying is that if you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, it is a penalty.  Of course if you are both jumping and make contact that is different, as somebody (can't remember who) has explained above, as you are then essentially competing on level terms.  If you are on the ground and make contact with a player in the air, he effectively has no chance of controlling his landing.

So what you are telling me is that a player has to jump to compete for the ball?  Can you find me the law that states this please?  And can you also explain to me how two players both in the air making contact allows for more control over the landing?

No, not saying that at all. You can compete for a ball from the ground, but if a player has jumped for the ball and you collide with them in competing for the ball, you run the risk of being penalised for dangerous play.

Law 10.4(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

No mention of intent there. Just a simple "must not". Payne clearly pushed Goode in the air.

Law 10.5(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.

Technically, any breach of Law 10 offers the option of a yellow or red card. Garces was therefore totally within the Laws to use the red. We can argue whether another decision would have been more sympathetic to the situation (I wouldn't have argued against yellow, though I think the recklessness justifies the red), but not about whether it was correct under the laws. It was.

These are all intentional acts.

There should be allowance for accidents. The ref and assistants should have been capable of distinguishing this. All the pundits and viewers could see Payne was focused on the ball. Ref seems to think intent or not is irrelevant - yet the law (as you state) directly refers to intentional actions.