The danger of jumping

by clivemcl Sun 06 Apr 2014, 12:27 am

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

by quinsforever Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:38 pm

Notch wrote:
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.

hadnt seen your post Notch. exactly what i would have hoped from Owens.

by MrsP Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:43 pm

You know what?

Hasn't it been great being able to discuss the incident, disagree, listen to other's thoughts and opinions without the whole thing descending into spleen and insults!

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:47 pm

It's what the site should be about MrsP. We're never all going to agree, and nor should we, it would be a bloody boring world if we did!

by MrsP Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:50 pm

Plus, I'm sure we did all come round to the view that I was right all along!

Very Happy

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:54 pm

Well you are a woman MrsP and living with the number of women that I do, I learnt a long time ago that you can never be wrong! Wink

by MrsP Sun 06 Apr 2014, 8:58 pm

by Portnoy's Complaint Sun 06 Apr 2014, 9:13 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:Well you are a woman MrsP and living with the number of women that I do, I learnt a long time ago that you can never be wrong!

I don't know - I don't want to know - how and why Ozzy knows that Mrs P is size 10.

by The Great Aukster Sun 06 Apr 2014, 9:49 pm

englishborn wrote: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.

So not only does any player trying to catch a ball at full tilt have to survey the field in front of him, but also judge what quality his opposition is!

Quite often players take the high ball without jumping in the air, are they fundamentally at fault? By definition they can't possibly know if they've missed seeing someone, as in the Cuthbert case. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of Garces decision, giving yellow/red cards for accidental collision seems fundamentally flawed as it cannot change behaviour. How can a player know when it's ok to jump and when it's ok not to jump? It's fine sitting in an armchair to adjudicate on who was right and wrong but hindsight isn't something the players have in the middle of a game.

If this incident was truly worthy of the ultimate sanction by the referee, that is indicative of a big safety issue in the game that needs to be resolved. Most would acknowledge that the incident was dangerous - to both players. That was exacerbated because one player was in the air and the other was on the ground.

Simply issuing cards won't change anyone's behaviour the next time a chaser doesn't see a jumper. To avoid this situation the Law has to be changed to either:
- always jump when taking a high ball
or
- always stay on the ground when taking a high ball

Either Law change would at least even up the contest and reduce the risk to the players. If the game is made safer and fairer then that will be progress.

by quinsforever Sun 06 Apr 2014, 9:55 pm

really. wont change anyone's behavior, really.

i bet you jared payne wont run headlong without looking to see if he is going to upend a player in the air.

he will either look and jump, or look, wait and hit the catcher when he lands.

i guarantee you at that level of sport that payne knew exactly what he was doing - he wasnt going to get to the ball, and thats why he couldnt jump - because he would have been even further away from it. so he kept on running holding his arms hopefully infront of him, knowing he might interfere with anyone else trying to catch.

pretty sure he wont do it again though.

by marty2086 Sun 06 Apr 2014, 10:01 pm

quinsforever wrote:really. wont change anyone's behavior, really.

i bet you jared payne wont run headlong without looking to see if he is going to upend a player in the air.

he will either look and jump, or look, wait and hit the catcher when he lands.

i guarantee you at that level of sport that payne knew exactly what he was doing - he wasnt going to get to the ball, and thats why he couldnt jump - because he would have been even further away from it. so he kept on running holding his arms hopefully infront of him, knowing he might interfere with anyone else trying to catch.

pretty sure he wont do it again though.

I love your ability to judge a person there with such certainty of their thought, if Payne doesnt see Goode there he has no way of knowing he isn't getting the ball. Goode didn't jump from a distance, he went up later than most would have with Paynes eye on the ball its a blind spot for him

In that case was Goode not acting dangerously going up with his knee up with an opposition player coming at him full pelt?

by MrsP Sun 06 Apr 2014, 10:09 pm

Quins?

Are you really suggesting that Payne deliberately ran into Goode?

With his face?

I thought it was Burger whose nickname was "Face first!" I have never heard Payne called that.

by **Notch** Sun 06 Apr 2014, 10:17 pm

I've got respect for your opinion quins. But thats crazy. He put a kick out on the full just a few minutes before. He looked rattled and not thinking clearly from kick off onwards. Occasion got to him perhaps. He should have been thinking of where Goode was of course- he should have been doing that old Woodward mantra 'Thinking Clearly Under Pressure'. But the game he had up until that incident suggests he was doing the opposite.

It's instinctive to try and protect yourself when you're going to take a hit like that. I can't believe he saw him coming because he did nothing to do that. I know we're all expert international full backs who'd never make such an error but in a cauldron like atmosphere at Ravenhill with the emotion of the occasion, it's no so simple even for experienced players. And we're talking split second decisions here.

Another thing you could only see in the ground was how deep Goode came onto the ball from. Both players were running at full tilt watching the ball all the way. I wouldn't lay any fault on either of them for what happened, whatever the sanction is, because it's just so easy to misjudge it.

by Portnoy's Complaint Sun 06 Apr 2014, 10:29 pm

MrsP wrote:Quins?

Are you really suggesting that Payne deliberately ran into Goode?

With his face?

I thought it was Burger whose nickname was "Face first!" I have never heard Payne called that.

I think it was an unfortunate accident.

Perhaps Payne was simply too over-pumped by the occasion.
He's an experienced player. He really should have been aware - even if he wasnt.

I still hover between a red and a yellow as an appropriate penalty.

There was talk over this board about the TJ's 'au moins jaune' recommendations.

Equally I heard Garces ask for a real time view of the incident. None was forthcoming from the TMO that I recall.
The slo-mo often makes things like this look worse.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 06 Apr 2014, 11:06 pm

Notch wrote:
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.

Owens would have spoken about this incident with Brian Moore on Talksport tonight.

He doesn't second-guess officials but he does clarify the points of law. He's on most weeks. I missed the live broadcast so will have to wait for the recording to appear on the website. I know Moore was planning to talk about the Alex McKinnon case this week so I think that perspective would have been in the conversation.

Some mixed views on Twitter from current and former players:

http://www.espnscrum.com/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/220865.html

by blackcanelion Mon 07 Apr 2014, 7:29 am

Shouldn't have been a card or penalty. I have only watched the incident rather than the refereeing of it. I assume he called it as he saw it. I can understand how the ref could have erred.

by The Great Aukster Mon 07 Apr 2014, 7:30 am

quinsforever wrote:really. wont change anyone's behavior, really.

i bet you jared payne wont run headlong without looking to see if he is going to upend a player in the air.

he will either look and jump, or look, wait and hit the catcher when he lands.

i guarantee you at that level of sport that payne knew exactly what he was doing - he wasnt going to get to the ball, and thats why he couldnt jump - because he would have been even further away from it. so he kept on running holding his arms hopefully infront of him, knowing he might interfere with anyone else trying to catch.

pretty sure he wont do it again though.

I take it you've never played in the back three. If you take your eyes off the ball, you drop it - you can't look up and down at the same time. These accidents will continue to happen because players are trying to catch the ball and awarding cards won't change human physiology.

I also take it you're in the 'wait until enough people are seriously injured before changing the Law' camp.

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Apr 2014, 8:03 am

I don't understand comments suggesting just a penalty. It's either nothing or a card. If it's given as a penalty, then given how Goode landed a red isn't THAT surprising considering the IRB recommendations of lift-and-drop tackles. But it could have easily been nothing. No way was it ever just a penalty.

NB: from reading Tom May's twitter thing linked above.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 8:18 am

Whether it has become the norm or not is irrelevant here. There is a serious bigger question to be asked.

Is it right to fairly allow an act of jumping in the air, and put the responsibility for that persons safety entirely in the hands of everyone else on the pitch.

When the style of play evolved to the point where jumping in the air (which could lead to very serious injury) occurs as common place - did the IRB say - lets totally avoid the risk? No - they said - lets put the pressure on every other person to ensure the serious injury doesn't happen whilst the dangerous act of jumping is in process.

If you don't want to risk falling on your neck - don't jump up 4 feet in the air in front of chasing players. WAIT - calm down. I'm not criticising Goode - I'm talking about the wider picture. Its not right to ask other players to make sure they don't injure somebody when that somebody is doing something that involves risk.

In any case - if its going to happen - the job is to eradicate any notion of a deliberate tackle of a player in the air because this is just idiotic and dangerous.

But we are going too far IMO if we are going to say 'whilst on a rugby pitch you must be fully aware if somebody is jumping into the air in front of you.

That is too much. If you jump, surely you must accept the chance that somebody may not see you.

For what its worth - both players reached the same point at the same time - Goode just happened to be a meter higher. Goode came from an angle - Payne was running straight. Payne had every right to make a clean catch on the ground in the chance he could have made a break with ball without losing speed.

Some argue Payne did not see Goode (I agree).

Some argue he should be expecting somebody to jump and that he should have ran slower and taken in his surroundings better - I think thats ludicrous and makes for less competitive rugby.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 8:42 am

Thunor,

I get what you are saying. I think people tend to think,

"Someone fell from a height and was injured but Payne was not doing anything wrong so it should not have been a card so we'll say it was just a penalty."

I remember having the same discussion around another controversial card!

censored

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:17 am

clivemcl wrote:Whether it has become the norm or not is irrelevant here. There is a serious bigger question to be asked.

Is it right to fairly allow an act of jumping in the air, and put the responsibility for that persons safety entirely in the hands of everyone else on the pitch.

The precedent for this has already been set with the tip tackle rule in 2011. It no longer matters about intent, what matters is whether you were responsible for another player landing in a dangerous position. People can scrutinise the semantics of the IRB laws but with Goode landing on his head as a result of Paynes contact this as always likely to be red.

I'm a huge fan of Payne's but when Goode jumps he has to jump otherwise avoid contact with the man in the air.

To me it was an unfortunate case of bad timing and once upon a time wouldn't have even been a penalty at all but in the modern game 7 out of 10 times its a red card incident such are the directives.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:20 am

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Whether it has become the norm or not is irrelevant here. There is a serious bigger question to be asked.

Is it right to fairly allow an act of jumping in the air, and put the responsibility for that persons safety entirely in the hands of everyone else on the pitch.

The precedent for this has already been set with the tip tackle rule in 2011. It no longer matters about intent, what matters is whether you were responsible for another player landing in a dangerous position. People can scrutinise the semantics of the IRB laws but with Goode landing on his head as a result of Paynes contact this as always likely to be red.

I'm a huge fan of Payne's but when Goode jumps he has to jump otherwise avoid contact with the man in the air.

To me it was an unfortunate case of bad timing and once upon a time wouldn't have even been a penalty at all but in the modern game 7 out of 10 times its a red card incident such are the directives.

You cannot compare, and you miss the crux of my argument. If you are the victim of a tip tackle - you did nothing to risk yourself. But a jump in the air in front chasing players is a considerable risk - a risk which the jumper has been totally absolved of.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:23 am

I think the difference between this and a tip tackle is who caused the player to be in the air.

In a tip tackle the tackler placed the player in the vulnerable position and so is completely responsible for returning him safely to ground. In this incident though it was Goode himself who took him into the air. Does that change the balance of responibility?

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:25 am

MrsP wrote:I think the difference between this and a tip tackle is who caused the player to be in the air.

In a tip tackle the tackler placed the player in the vulnerable position and so is completely responsible for returning him safely to ground. In this incident though it was Goode himself who took him into the air. Does that change the balance of responibility?

To me, you jump in the air - you take the risk if you are taken out accidentally. You cannot make laws to eradicate accidents. You can only remove the risk altogether.

by kunu Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:39 am

rodders wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Whether it has become the norm or not is irrelevant here. There is a serious bigger question to be asked.

Is it right to fairly allow an act of jumping in the air, and put the responsibility for that persons safety entirely in the hands of everyone else on the pitch.

The precedent for this has already been set with the tip tackle rule in 2011. It no longer matters about intent, what matters is whether you were responsible for another player landing in a dangerous position. People can scrutinise the semantics of the IRB laws but with Goode landing on his head as a result of Paynes contact this as always likely to be red.

I'm a huge fan of Payne's but when Goode jumps he has to jump otherwise avoid contact with the man in the air.

To me it was an unfortunate case of bad timing and once upon a time wouldn't have even been a penalty at all but in the modern game 7 out of 10 times its a red card incident such are the directives.

I get your point Rodders, but I think the tip tackle rule, and the regular tackle in the air rule are very different to this situation.

If Payne doesn't know he's in competition for the ball, he can't be expected to prepare for that which he doesn't know. Tip tackle laws are justified, given the tackler should be discouraged from reckless tackles. Tackles in the air also should be discouraged.

But as Payne wasn't aware it was even a tackle situation, the only thing the IRB is discouraging through a red here is players running without fully recognising their surroundings. If you can accept that the player doesn't know Goode is there to compete - which seems to be the case as Payne crashes into him with his face, then the collision is unfortunate and accidental, but not reckless as there is no positive act committed other than running.

In a tip tackle for example, the reckless act is bringing your elbow above your shoulder in the tackle. In a general tackle in the air situation, the competing player has a duty of care to ensure the airborne player lands unimpeded. But that duty simply cannot apply if the player never knows there's an airborne player.

Hypothetically, if somebody kicked a Garryowen into the Ulster half, and Payne awaited it for the catch. Goode comes from the blind side parallel to Payne, and jumps into him - while Payne doesn't jump. Payne has no idea Goode is there to compete again - yet the same scenario happens with Payne taking Goode out in the air.

In both scenarios Payne hasn't done anything reckless akin to tackling a player with a high elbow. He has just played the game as it should be played in his eyes, unaware there's a player in the air.

As I've said before, its like giving the defending player a red for an accidental clash of heads. Its just an accident of circumstance.

If the IRB are trying to encourage players to be more generally vigilant, then its a good call. But I don't think Rugby has gotten to that stage yet. Thats a step too far I think.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:39 am

Do not forget that written in the laws are are duty of care, MrsP.

Jared is an experienced professional player. At some point, such a player, should (must) be aware of the not only of the ball, but the liklihood of his winning the ball by continuing his charge.

In all probability he would leapt in the air had he had any chance of competing for the ball.

Because he continued on, then became culpable of not exercising his duty of care.

Goode was, I understand, knocked out in the incident and had to go off for the appropriate assessments - something you are strong on. And as a consequence his game too, was also over.

Payne was guilty as charged imo. He had a duty of care to allow his opponent to come safely back to ground. But he allowed his emotions in the moment get the better of his responsibilities. As I said earlier, he was probably just too pumped by the coaches, the team imperative, the crowd and the occasion.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:43 am

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Do not forget that written in the laws are are duty of care, MrsP.

Jared is an experienced professional player. At some point, such a player, should (must) be aware of the not only of the ball, but the liklihood of his winning the ball by continuing his charge.

In all probability he would leapt in the air had he had any chance of competing for the ball.

Because he continued on, then became culpable of not exercising his duty of care.

Goode was, I understand, knocked out in the incident and had to go off for the appropriate assessments - something you are strong on. And as a consequence his game too, was also over.

Payne was guilty as charged imo. He had a duty of care to allow his opponent to come safely back to ground. But he allowed his emotions in the moment get the better of his responsibilities. As I said earlier, he was probably just too pumped by the coaches, the team imperative, the crowd and the occasion.

So Portnoy, are you saying Payne knew Goode was coming in, and that he was jumping?

Or, like some others are just saying he should have been going slower and 'expecting' somebody would be jumping?

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:45 am

P.S. you also are ignoring my point that the IRB allowed the jumping idea to continue and absolved the jumping player of all the risk. I think this is unfair, and only removes some danger from a dangerous scenario.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:45 am

clivemcl wrote:
MrsP wrote:I think the difference between this and a tip tackle is who caused the player to be in the air.

In a tip tackle the tackler placed the player in the vulnerable position and so is completely responsible for returning him safely to ground. In this incident though it was Goode himself who took him into the air. Does that change the balance of responibility?

To me, you jump in the air - you take the risk if you are taken out accidentally. You cannot make laws to eradicate accidents. You can only remove the risk altogether.

Absolutely, if you decide to leap into the air it's yourself that has taken the risk,
I mean there are too many comments claiming Payne saw Goode taking to the air and decided to take the impact (and quite a considerable impact at that) in the face/neck area. With that questionable logic you could say that Goode must have seen Payne and decided to leap in the air leading with his hips into Jared's face. Both scenarios being utter tripe.
Payne absolutely keeps his eye on the ball and doesn't jump for it so that he can sollect it and set off at full pelt on the offensive, something he regularly does. Goode does what he thinks is best in taking to the air with the priority of getting possession. He didn't premeditate the collision any more than Payne did. It was an accidental collision and after that it's up to the ref to decide on actions to take. Garces decides on the red despite his TMO's advice on it being a yellow card offence which it would have been had Goode not been injured.

This is why I believe it should have been a yellow card. Jared Payne is in no way a dirty player and would never set out to risk another player's injury. If a player cannot attempt to take a ball at pace then why not outlaw garryowens for goodness sake. Ridiculous red card decision and in the context of the game a disgusting one.

by beshocked Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:47 am

The findings of the poll are very interesting. Just tells you how difficult a decision it was for Garces. I don't think any ref wants to be put in that situation.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:47 am

"Payne was guilty as charged imo. He had a duty of care to allow his opponent to come safely back to ground"

Portnoys that is inaccurate. Of course you have a duty of care in bring an apponent safely to the ground IN A TACKLE. This however was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

by kunu Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:50 am

Pete330v2 wrote:"Payne was guilty as charged imo. He had a duty of care to allow his opponent to come safely back to ground"

Portnoys that is inaccurate. Of course you have a duty of care in bring an apponent safely to the ground IN A TACKLE. This however was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

Unless you believe Payne likes to use his face as a defensive tool these days. Unlikely haha

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:51 am

MrsP wrote: Does that change the balance of responibility?

Not to the IRB.

Even with the tip tackle the tackled player plays some role on them ending up airborne - and to some degree has more control in terms of how they land, where as a jumping player can be even more vulnerable.

Payne does look and see Goode just before the collision - its easy to say as its split second stuff but he make no effort to pull out of the challenge and just follows through.

This is what the TMO was scrutinizing again and again, to see if Payne was aware of Goode or not and to be honest the replays didn't support Payne's defence because he clearly glances at Goode - I think if he hadn't looked down at all, or if he'd have made a last ditch attempt to stop he'd have got away with yellow...but he didn't.

by kunu Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:53 am

rodders wrote:
MrsP wrote: Does that change the balance of responibility?

Not to the IRB.

Even with the tip tackle the tackled player plays some role on them ending up airborne - and to some degree has more control in terms of how they land, where as a jumping player can be even more vulnerable.

Payne does look and see Goode just before the collision - its easy to say as its split second stuff but he make no effort to pull out of the challenge and just follows through.

This is what the TMO was scrutinizing again and again, to see if Payne was aware of Goode or not and to be honest the replays didn't support Payne's defence because he clearly glances at Goode - I think if he hadn't looked down at all, or if he'd have made a last ditch attempt to stop he'd have got away with yellow...but he didn't.

If that's the case then its something I missed, and should be a red. Was under the impression he didn't see Goode until about half a foot away from him.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:53 am

Rodders,

What makes you say that was what the TMO was scrutinizing?

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:57 am

As much as it Paynes (see what I did there!) me to say it I think Portnoy is 100% spot on.

by broadlandboy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 9:58 am

Kunu, If Payne was stationary then it falls upon Goode for jumping into him. However Payne was running so Payne had duty of care. Goode had every right to jump for the ball, if Payne hadn't ran into him he wouldn't have gone beyond the horizontal. It was Payne's action that took Goode beyond the horizontal, irrespective of intent, so a red card should be issued. Do you think that now any player intends to do a tip tackle knowing they probably will be sent off?

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:00 am

I just can't believe the Ravenhill crowd was booing so much. Whichever way you cut it, it was a shockingly dangerous coillision. Of course if the boot had been on the other foot, I doubt the Ravenhill mob would have done anything else other than demand a public birching of the Saracens player.

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:01 am

MrsP wrote:Rodders,

What makes you say that was what the TMO was scrutinizing?

Because its what he asked him and what he discussed with the assistant referee. He'd decided he was carding Payne but wasn't sure about yellow or red. He asked to see the final front on shot which shows were Payne was looking, and then used the real time one for context and came to the conclusion Payne was at fault.

It was pretty obvious to me watching on TV what was going on.... and unfortunately it was obviously going to be red. I genuinely think the referee was looking for a reason to show yellow on the replays but didn't get one.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:02 am

rodders wrote:
MrsP wrote: Does that change the balance of responibility?

Not to the IRB.

Even with the tip tackle the tackled player plays some role on them ending up airborne - and to some degree has more control in terms of how they land, where as a jumping player can be even more vulnerable.

Payne does look and see Goode just before the collision - its easy to say as its split second stuff but he make no effort to pull out of the challenge and just follows through.

This is what the TMO was scrutinizing again and again, to see if Payne was aware of Goode or not and to be honest the replays didn't support Payne's defence because he clearly glances at Goode - I think if he hadn't looked down at all, or if he'd have made a last ditch attempt to stop he'd have got away with yellow...but he didn't.

Rodders - the obvious point you miss is that Goode was on the ground when Payne glances at him. There is no requirement to pull out simply because another player is running towards the same ball as you. And there is no guarantee that Goode is going to jump. Maybe quite likely. But not guaranteed. Payne felt he was in a foot race.

The danger of jumping - Page 6 Bkjh8m10

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:03 am

You heard all that? Or are you guessing because of the views shown?

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:06 am

People here must think rugby players see the world in slow motion. They don't have that luxury and there was absolutely no chance that Payne saw Goode coming when he was focused on the ball and visa versa for Goode seeing Payne.

As for the booing, there was some but the crowd were rightly angry about the match being ruined and the likes of Ashton with his childish 'splash' rubbing it in. Also don't claim to think you would know a single thing about the 'Ravenhill Mob' as you put it. Don't comment bilge on people you don't know.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:07 am

I also think he knew what he was doing (my opinion), if he didn't then he was reckless and still deserved the Red card for endangering another player.

I really don't get why so many of you are defending him?

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:11 am

There's no guarantee of anything clive but if you put yourself in that position by committing to winning the ball and in the process risk colliding with a player in the air then you risk a red card.

It's not black or white, I think bad luck was a big factor but I think the red card is justified albeit harsh.

A yellow would have been fair and lenient.

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:12 am

MrsP wrote:You heard all that? Or are you guessing because of the views shown?

Both.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:15 am

Scrumpy,

There are refs from across the globe discussing what the ref should have done. Many of them with no connection to either team.

If they are discussing the whys and wherefores of this I think it is acceptable for us to also, no?

Are you saying that there would be no discussion on this if the incident had involved players from different teams?

by marty2086 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:18 am

rodders wrote:There's no guarantee of anything clive but if you put yourself in that position by committing to winning the ball and in the process risk colliding with a player in the air then you risk a red card.

It's not black or white, I think bad luck was a big factor but I think the red card is justified albeit harsh.

A yellow would have been fair and lenient.

rodders in that case how much of a precaution can you take? If Payne saw Goode and didn't think he was going up for the ball is it reckless?

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:18 am

rodders wrote:There's no guarantee of anything clive but if you put yourself in that position by committing to winning the ball and in the process risk colliding with a player in the air then you risk a red card.

It's not black or white, I think bad luck was a big factor but I think the red card is justified albeit harsh.

A yellow would have been fair and lenient.

Back to my point - a jumper doesn't accept any responsibility of being taken out accidentally by someone who doesn't see them? Like Pete says, its not slow motion. Goode comes from an angle. Its all very very fast. I personally want to see players compete by putting their bodies on the line. Payne showed how committed he was by take a hip to the face. Any notion that Payne chose to take Goode out with a hip to his face is just laughable.

The only logical response is Payne didn't know Goode was going to be aerial, and it was an accidental collision. An accident because one player was running very quick, and another player left the ground. Nobody is mind reading. Everybody is moving very fast.

Yet again - this is the point where Payne knew for certain he had to avoid an aerial player...

The danger of jumping - Page 6 Bkjh8m11

I very much refuse to accept that a player has to assume somebody will be aerial and slow down. One more time - laws cannot account for accidents, nor can penalisation reduce the likelihood of accidents.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:24 am

MrsP wrote:Scrumpy,

There are refs from across the globe discussing what the ref should have done. Many of them with no connection to either team.

If they are discussing the whys and wherefores of this I think it is acceptable for us to also, no?

Are you saying that there would be no discussion on this if the incident had involved players from different teams?

Discussing the incident is fine, but it was a clear red hence why the Ref got it spot on, he would have known another player would have gone for that ball therefore his actions were reckless, he lost his head.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:25 am

If. If Payne focussed entirely on the ball and filtered out any peripheral vision (a key requirement of top-class rugby players), then he charged into the incident without any care to his own safety - let alone that of others.

i.e. he was reckless. The classic definition of recklessness.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:27 am

Well many of the refs discussing the incident take a different view so maybe the "clear red" might not be quite so clear as you suppose.

If refs are holding different opinions from Garces then I think it is fair for us to discuss the incident too.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?