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

To suggest Payne pushed Goode, suggests he knew he was there. He merely collided with him.

Sounds like Payne only had third party insurance.

MrsP wrote: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.

Which part of "nor tap, push or pull the feet or foot" relates to the tackle? It says "don't tackle" and then extends to cover other situations. Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter - 3 IRB officials agreed that it was dangerous play and warranted a yellow or more. They are professional refs. We're just keyboard warriors.

When two players collide and bang heads they are by definition at the same height whether they are in the air or on the ground. The difference here is that when one player is in the air the Laws protect them because they are vulnerable. If a player on the ground makes contact, they run the risk of being penalised for dangerous play. It really is that simple. When both are in the air, they are equally vulnerable and a collision is just a collision (as just happened in Toulon-Leinster, with McFadden and Delon injuring each other in mid air and Barnes - correctly - waving play on).

Poorfour wrote:

MrsP wrote: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.

Which part of "nor tap, push or pull the feet or foot" relates to the tackle? It says "don't tackle" and then extends to cover other situations. Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter - 3 IRB officials agreed that it was dangerous play and warranted a yellow or more. They are professional refs. We're just keyboard warriors.

When two players collide and bang heads they are by definition at the same height whether they are in the air or on the ground. The difference here is that when one player is in the air the Laws protect them because they are vulnerable. If a player on the ground makes contact, they run the risk of being penalised for dangerous play. It really is that simple. When both are in the air, they are equally vulnerable and a collision is just a collision (as just happened in Toulon-Leinster, with McFadden and Delon injuring each other in mid air and Barnes - correctly - waving play on).

That would be the part in BOLD. This Law is about "Tackling a player in the air".




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.

Poorfour wrote:

MrsP wrote: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.

Which part of "nor tap, push or pull the feet or foot" relates to the tackle? It says "don't tackle" and then extends to cover other situations. Anyway, my opinion doesn't matter - 3 IRB officials agreed that it was dangerous play and warranted a yellow or more. They are professional refs. We're just keyboard warriors.

When two players collide and bang heads they are by definition at the same height whether they are in the air or on the ground. The difference here is that when one player is in the air the Laws protect them because they are vulnerable. If a player on the ground makes contact, they run the risk of being penalised for dangerous play. It really is that simple. When both are in the air, they are equally vulnerable and a collision is just a collision (as just happened in Toulon-Leinster, with McFadden and Delon injuring each other in mid air and Barnes - correctly - waving play on).

Only 1 official deemed it worthy of a red as the TMO had considered it worth a yellow.
The fact is it happens all the time, just moments ago Rob Kearney leapt into the air against a Toulon player attempting to get a penalty, that colloision on the video on a previous post didn't even warrant a penalty. For that matter it could be deemed that Goode leapt in the air at Payne in a penalty attempt gone wrong for him.
I still stand by the fact that if Goode hadn't been injured that collision would have been a penaly, yellow at the very worst. There was no tackle taking place and therefore intent or lack there of doesn't even come into it. Jerome Garces stamped his mark on that match and he is the one who will be seen as the fool over this. Much like the time Wayne Barnes handed Wales the game at the Aviva when Stevie Ferris made a perfectly legal tackle. Referees frequently get it badly wrong and in this case badly so.
Try the shoe on the other foot and see how many of the Garces fans here would reverse their opinions.

I don't understand the fixation with Payne jumping or not!

The ball was coming over his head in the same direction he was running, he obviously didn't see Goode so why would he jump? Taking the ball at full speed would allow him to make a significant line break or even score a try.

Goode on the other hand obviously saw Payne coming and jumped to get to the ball quicker. That was smart play by Goode as he knew he would have the protection of the Law.

The problem for the IRB is what to do with these aerial collisions. Awarding red cards makes no difference because there is no intent in an accident. In the other two identical accidents - on Scully in Clermont/Leicester and on Hayward in the Reds/Force (both on the same day), cards weren't issued just penalties awarded. So obviously a massive lack of consistency when dealing with exactly the same situation.

Cards should be used to discourage foul play because that is a bane on the game, but using them to try and manage accidents is unfair as there can be no consistency. The IRB have a choice to make - do they accept that rugby can continue to allow aerial collisions and the risk that someone can get hurt or do they remove it from the game altogether?

Maybe it's time for the IRB to change the laws and penalise any player for jumping in the air as dangerous play?

MrsP wrote: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.

he should have been penalised for that too...tackling without using his arms

seriously though, the laws are grouped into categories and then further explained. the "tackling in the air" covers everything to do with contact with a player in the air. i dont think anyone would describe it as a "tackle" in a lineout for example.

payne made contact with a player in the air who had possession of the ball. minimum penalty. yellow or red are dependent on whether the refs see it as reckless/dangerous. the fact goode landed on his had clearly had an impact. BUT lets be clear, there was NO MISTAKE by the refs. They have a lot of latitude for interpretation and this is at the harsher end of that interpretation. But if players make these mistakes they have to be prepared that some refs may see red.

In that case maybe Goode should also have been penalised for a no arms tackle on a player without the ball!

  

I disagree that there was NO MISTAKE by the ref.

Just because this was an option open to him does make it the correct option to take.

That typo is confusing. Was it unintentional without use of arms or are you trying to prove a point?

MrsP wrote:In that case maybe Goode should also have been penalised for a no arms tackle on a player without the ball!

  

I disagree that there was NO MISTAKE by the ref.

Just because this was an option open to him does make it the correct option to take.

well you dont understand the laws then. a mistake would be an incorrect application of the laws. or an incorrect failure to apply the laws. the laws were applied correctly, you just disagree with the degree of severity of the punishment.

Just seen it on youtube. Well worth a card, he took the man out at best recklessly and possibly deliberately. By the laws a card of some colour for sure. He should have known where Goode was.

Certainly not a mistake by the ref to give a red. Its simply down to his judgement if its a red or a yellow.

beshocked wrote: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.

It was a fair attempt at trying to catch a ball, beshocked. Your reasoning, and how you word your comments have me thinking that your real intent is to inflame. Work away.

That is a non sequitur.

I think the ref was mistaken in his decision to declare this a dangerous tackle when it was not a tackle at all, merely a collision between 2 players who were both focusing their attention on the ball.

We differ in our interpretation of the Laws.

TJ wrote:Just seen it on youtube.  Well worth a card, he took the man out at best recklessly and possibly deliberately.  By the laws a card of some colour for sure.  He should have known where Goode was.

Certainly not a mistake by the ref to give a red.  Its simply down to his judgement if its a red or a yellow.

Did you see the other accidents TJ that looked identical but ended up with no cards? Presumably the referees in those games did therefore make mistakes?

MrsP and others who are debating based on whether this was a 'tackle', you are talking semantics. From the IRB website...

"DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.
A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place."

Therefore a no arms tackle (shoulder charge), or a swinging arm tackle (forearm smash), are not tackles but are referred to as tackles for ease of identification.

Pushing and pulling are not part of a tackle, but are mentioned in law 10.4(i) which deals with tackling the jumper in the air. Tackling is a generic term that is used as a coverall for most contact situations in the game which do not fit the definition of a tackle, so claiming the ref was wrong as this was not a tackle is a really flawed argument.

The law is typically as clear as mud in it wording... and implementation.

The Great Aukster wrote:

TJ wrote:Just seen it on youtube.  Well worth a card, he took the man out at best recklessly and possibly deliberately.  By the laws a card of some colour for sure.  He should have known where Goode was.

Certainly not a mistake by the ref to give a red.  Its simply down to his judgement if its a red or a yellow.

Did you see the other accidents TJ that looked identical but ended up with no cards? Presumably the referees in those games did therefore make mistakes?

Never seen one identical that was not a card

In your interpretation Ozzy.

Which may or may not be any more valid than mine.

Swinging arms are usually referred to as "swinging arms".

TJ wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

TJ wrote:Just seen it on youtube.  Well worth a card, he took the man out at best recklessly and possibly deliberately.  By the laws a card of some colour for sure.  He should have known where Goode was.

Certainly not a mistake by the ref to give a red.  Its simply down to his judgement if its a red or a yellow.

Did you see the other accidents TJ that looked identical but ended up with no cards? Presumably the referees in those games did therefore make mistakes?

Never seen one identical that was not a card

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs98Prm-JnQ

Not even a penalty.

http://www.mobypicture.com/user/mickobrien1/view/16745988

Only a penalty.

Notch wrote:The law is typically as clear as mud in it wording... and implementation.

Notch, the law is clear. It's a penalty, with discretion given to the referee as to whether further sanction by way of red or yellow card is warranted. There is nothing unclear about. I am gutted that it happened and Ulster lost, obviously not as much as yourself and others who frequent Ravenhill, but they are my second team after London Irish. I think the referee over reacted, and a yellow would have sufficed, but ultimately he acted within the laws, which are pretty clear on the subject.

MrsP wrote:In your interpretation Ozzy.

Which may or may not be any more valid than mine.

Swinging arms are usually referred to as "swinging arms".

Tell me about the 'choke tackle' MrsP. That doesn't fit the description of a tackle, yet is only ever referred to as one. This is not interpretation on my part. We all use the term tackle to loosely cover a multitude of actions that do not fit the definition.

MrsP wrote:That is a non sequitur.

I think the ref was mistaken in his decision to declare this a dangerous tackle when it was not a tackle at all, merely a collision between 2 players who were both focusing their attention on the ball.

We differ in our interpretation of the Laws.

you are attempting to introduce semantics into the rugby laws. that is just going to give you a headache.

when its on the man carrying the ball, contact = tackle. dangerous contact = dangerous tackle. it's that simple.

pen only v yellow v red is a subjective decision of the referees as to how dangerous or avoidable the situation was.

you can only argue he made a mistake if you think it wasnt a penalty offence. if you agree it was foul play according to 10.4 then whether there was a card and what colour it was is not up for debate as it's the subjective opinion of the ref, therefore by definition he is right.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Notch wrote:The law is typically as clear as mud in it wording... and implementation.

Notch, the law is clear.  It's a penalty, with discretion given to the referee as to whether further sanction by way of red or yellow card is warranted.  There is nothing unclear about.  I am gutted that it happened and Ulster lost, obviously not as much as yourself and others who frequent Ravenhill, but they are my second team after London Irish.  I think the referee over reacted, and a yellow would have sufficed, but ultimately he acted within the laws, which are pretty clear on the subject.

Oh I don't disagree with the law. I wouldn't advocate any changes to it except to possibly clarify the wording. I would not call what happened is a tackle in the same way that if two players run into each other anytime else its a tackle.

On reflection, a yellow card would have been fair. A penalty by itself was the bare minimum. A red, I think, was utterly crazy for a sad accident. These things happen. If a player goes to take out the legs of another player in the air thats absolutely fair for a red. When there's no intention, it's just a good way to ruin a game for no gain.

I don't think "choke tackle" is referred to in the laws, is it?

At least it conforms to part of the definition I suppose.

This was accidental contact. You can argue about how much responsibility rested on Payne for that accidental contact but it most definately not a tackle in my opinion (or in the opinion of the IRB by the looks of it).

The Great Aukster wrote:I don't understand the fixation with Payne jumping or not!

The ball was coming over his head in the same direction he was running, he obviously didn't see Goode so why would he jump? Taking the ball at full speed would allow him to make a significant line break or even score a try.

Goode on the other hand obviously saw Payne coming and jumped to get to the ball quicker. That was smart play by Goode as he knew he would have the protection of the Law.

The problem for the IRB is what to do with these aerial collisions. Awarding red cards makes no difference because there is no intent in an accident. In the other two identical accidents  - on Scully in Clermont/Leicester and on Hayward in the Reds/Force (both on the same day), cards weren't issued just penalties awarded. So obviously a massive lack of consistency when dealing with exactly the same situation.

Cards should be used to discourage foul play because that is a bane on the game, but using them to try and manage accidents is unfair as there can be no consistency. The IRB have a choice to make - do they accept that rugby can continue to allow aerial collisions and the risk that someone can get hurt or do they remove it from the game altogether?

Maybe it's time for the IRB to change the laws and penalise any player for jumping in the air as dangerous play?

By far the most common sense and reasonable post on this thread! Well done Aukster!   

The choke is exploited as a loophole in the laws pertaining to definition of ruck and maul.

It's a bit cynical, but it's legal by default.

[ed.] plus it's a great skill and a testament to the upper body over-honing required of top professional players these days.

No disputing it's legality Portnoy, merely commenting that it does not fit the definition of a 'tackle' yet is referred to as one, much as 'taking a player out in the air' is often referred to as 'tackling a player in the air'.

Ozzy3213 wrote:No disputing it's legality Portnoy, merely commenting that it does not fit the definition of a 'tackle' yet is referred to as one, much as 'taking a player out in the air' is often referred to as 'tackling a player in the air'.

Could that be because in a lot of cases the offending player is actually trying to tackle the player who is in the air?

Whereas, here, I think most folks would agree that there was absolutely no attempt or intention of Payne tackling Goode. They merely collided.

What did you think of the other incident I posted Ozzy?

Having watched it quite a few times, Payne has his eyes on the ball. However he must know Goode is going to be there as well and is very likely to be jumping, Payne was always going to be second to that ball against a fullback of quality and should have been ready for a player in the air (either by waiting for him to come down or competing in the air himself). The mistake by payne was not to even have a glance forward.

Still next time he will not make the same mistake.

I thought it should have been a yellow but a red was always on the table.

I've not watched it MrsP, nor have I watched any of the other clips posted on here by people apart from the Edinburgh one, as I don't believe they are relevant to this discussion.

Yes they collided, and it was more a collision than a 'tackle', but the onus is on the man who is on the ground to avoid dangerously interfering the man in the air. Yes it is referred to as a tackle when it isn't but this is semantics. What Payne did was dangerous, and put another player at risk of serious injury. Do I think it justified a red? No I don't. Was Garces correct in his decision? Yes, because the only thing set in stone in the law is that it is a penalty, the card is at the referees discretion.

You should watch it Ozzy.

Two players running much more directly towards each other than Goode and Payne.

I would be interested in your opinion.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned it but McCall thought it was a yellow

Also anyone blaming Goode in anyway whatsoever is a clueless idiot

geoff998rugby wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned it but McCall thought it was a yellow

He's possibly just being diplomatic after his side won.

It would definitely be the sensible thing to say, even if you think otherwise.

I've looked now MrsP, it's very similar to Payne and Goode.  The referee has correctly awarded a penalty and for me has been too lenient and should have yellow carded the Reds player, much as I feel that he should have yellow carded Payne yesterday.

Can anyone hear what the ref says when he is talking to the captains in that clip?

I watched it with the sound down, so I have no idea what the ref says.

Take a look at the official highlights:
http://www.ercrugby.com/matchdaytv

You can hear the ref at 0:59 saying to Payne, "No, no, the player was in the air and he hit his head on the ground".

Rather does support the position that the judged the outcome rather than the action.

he judged both.

action - making contact with player in the air.

reaction - player in the air landed on his head.

additional conclusion from tmo and ref - he made not effort to contest the ball therefore it was a professional foul and therefore red.

I think in the modern game if you take a player out in the air deliberately or not and he lands on his head/shoulder there is a good possibility you will see red.

If there is a possibility that you get red and you get red then you can feel hard done by but haven't much of a cause for grievance.

In fairness to the ref he scrutinised the footage again and again to give Payne a chance - in real time it looked like a red and unfortunately the footage shows Payne just glanced at Goode and then clatter into him.

I wouldn't criticise Payne because there isn't much he can do but its a consequence of the modern IRB directives that you have to err on the side of caution when near a player in the air.

It could have been yellow, it could have been red. Shoite happens, it was red.

Cyril wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned it but McCall thought it was a yellow

He's possibly just being diplomatic after his side won.

It would definitely be the sensible thing to say, even if you think otherwise.

I don't think so. What he said when asked about it was 'We would have been happy with a yellow'. As in, if it had just been a penalty they wouldn't have been happy- and who can blame them for that? A yellow wouldn't have been complained about by Ulster either. It would have been the fairest outcome. The question was phrased as 'was the red card unjust' or something. He said he would have been happy with a yellow. Fair enough.

He also said they were lucky, I think he's not referring to the card there but to the missed kicks that were ultimately unpunished and the defence at the end- massive credit to Saracens for their discipline but in that situation you can imagine the slightest of mistakes leading to a penalty. On the players side or on the refs. I bet if you go through it by the strictest letter of law you could find a few penalties to give against either side.

What really galls me is that you can't judge the offence by the outcome if there's no intent. Are we meant to believe that if Goode had bounced back up the offence would have been less? I fully agree that he reffed the injury not the offence.

I would like to know Nigel Owens' take on it.

He has been very quite about this on his twitter which suggests to me he disagrees with the decision.

I think Owens would have gave yellow as he's pretty empathetic - Barnes would have called off the match.

Red for me.

VinceWLB wrote:I would like to know Nigel Owens' take on it.

He has been very quite about this on his twitter which suggests to me he disagrees with the decision.

I follow Owens on twitter and the number one thing he says when followers ask him about controversial calls is that another referee should never contradict or criticise another referees decision in public. He'll not give his opinion on this or any other call while he's still reffing and maybe not when he retires either.

Thats all how it should be, I think.

That's strange because my thought at the time was that Owens would not have shown a RED card and it was one of the first things MrP said when he got back from the game.

Are we now all thinking of Owens as the final arbiter of incidents on the pitch?

I don't think Owens would have shown a red either. Doesn't matter. He wasn't reffing.

rodders wrote:I think Owens would have gave yellow as he's pretty empathetic - Barnes would have called off the match.

I suspect you are correct about how Nige would have seen it. Loved his chat with the front rows yesterday.

VinceWLB wrote:I would like to know Nigel Owens' take on it.

He has been very quite about this on his twitter which suggests to me he disagrees with the decision.

i think he's been quiet about it because there is nothing to say.

wasnt a mistake, was down to another ref's interpretations.

does owens regularly criticise other refs decisions?