The danger of jumping

by clivemcl Sun Apr 06, 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 marty2086 Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:27 am

Portnoy's Complaint wrote: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.

Portnoy this is one thing that bugs me, if Payne was reckless then surely Goode was dangerous going up with a knee with an opposition player going at full speed towards him?

by Poorfour Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:27 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.

Law 10.4 (which I've posted above) says you must not tackle, push, pull on the feet or foot of a player in the air. We can argue semantics, but the spirit of the law (and Law 10 explicitly says that behaviour against the letter OR spirit of the law should be penalised) is clearly that you should be trying to avoid doing anything to a man in the air that could prevent a safe return to ground.

There is no provision in the Law for whether it is accidental or not. Dangerous contact with a player in the air is a penalty - though it should be noted that in interpreting the laws, refs are encouraged to look at materiality - if they didn't then pretty much every contested lineout would be a penalty.

The contact happened, it was dangerous and one player was in the air. Penalty. There is no room in the Laws for interpretation on this point. Clivemcl, you may not agree with that, but in that case the question is whether the Laws should be changed.

The interpretation is in whether a card is warranted and if so what it is. Here, the referee is given considerable leeway and the option of anything from an admonishment to a red. (So again, Garces is entirely within the letter and spirit of the law). The decision made by 3 IRB officials was that Payne was had committed a professional foul and that the fact that his eyes were on the ball was not relevant (Garces mentions both of these things in issuing the red card).

Their exact reasoning wasn't audible as far as I can tell, but my read of it is that they felt that Payne's running line and decision not to jump created a situation where there was a high probability of making dangerous contact with a man in the air. If he had been static, it would have been OK. If he had jumped, it would have been OK. But he ran at speed through the area where the ball was likely to land.

I think their judgement probably hinged on them believing that Payne did know (or should have known) that dangerous contact was likely and still chose that course of action. Look at it another way: a chaser doesn't want to be at top speed coming in for a catch. It's much harder to adjust your position relative to the ball and much harder to convert your forward momentum into upward momentum to jump for the ball. So Payne would have known in advance that he didn't have a great chance to catch the ball himself (there's a moment on the replay when it definitely looks like he's realised this). He could have decelerated and waited to tackle the catcher on landing, but he chose to run on. Not malicious, but definitely a decision that made for a more dangerous situation.

by clivemcl Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:32 am

I hate it when it gets like this on here. People dance around the points they can't disagree with and start arguing points of their own. I've got to get away for a while - this is pointless. Nobody having an actual debate, just individual declaration after declaration.

Rolling Eyes

by lostinwales Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:33 am

marty2086 wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote: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.

Portnoy this is one thing that bugs me, if Payne was reckless then surely Goode was dangerous going up with a knee with an opposition player going at full speed towards him?

Because thats how he (or anyone) jumps and the knee was angled away from Payne. Its not like Byrne practicing his kung fu.

For what its worth I think Rodders has it spot on. The Red is understandable although arguably harsh.

I also think that the performances of both teams in such circumstances cannot be used as an indicator of how they would have performed had the red card not happened.

by Jimpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:35 am

Pete330v2 wrote: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.

Really? So, the match was ruined by a stupid, reckless and dangerous collison? Okay then... Watch the Youtube clip of the incident. all you can hear is loud and incessant booing from the 'Ravenhill Mob'.

One of the few times i've been smiling when Ashton 'splashed'.

by **rodders** Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:37 am

marty2086 wrote:
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?

I don't have all the answers Marty I'm just saying I understand why it was red.

Its a bit like a tip tackle cause by the attacking player jumping, a bodyweight mismatch or the attacker twisting to offload. There is not much the tackler can do sometimes.

In terms of this - could Payne have done anything different? - I think there is some doubt either way so the ref went for the harsh option, red, rather than give Payne the benefit of that doubt - which as an Ulster fan I'd have obviously preferred but likewise I am prepared to suck up the card as a fair call.

Did it cost Ulster the match - most probably but then we were terrible until we went down to 14 men anyways and still had an opportunity to win the game at the end but Botha stole the lineout.

To be brutally honest Ulster haven't looked like a HEC winning team this year so I'd rather take the positives from the game, and there were many, and look forward than dwell on this.

by MrsP Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:38 am

For all those who feel professional sportsmen have such expert peripheral vision that they would only run into someone deliberately...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T1h2MXhv6g

by kunu Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:44 am

Also should be pointed out that Warburton was cited and banned for 3 weeks following his tip tackle, showing the IRB's support to the cause of deterring reckless & dangerous play. Nothing seems to be forthcoming for Payne

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:47 am

Poorfour wrote:
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.

Law 10.4 (which I've posted above) says you must not tackle, push, pull on the feet or foot of a player in the air. We can argue semantics, but the spirit of the law (and Law 10 explicitly says that behaviour against the letter OR spirit of the law should be penalised) is clearly that you should be trying to avoid doing anything to a man in the air that could prevent a safe return to ground.

There is no provision in the Law for whether it is accidental or not. Dangerous contact with a player in the air is a penalty - though it should be noted that in interpreting the laws, refs are encouraged to look at materiality - if they didn't then pretty much every contested lineout would be a penalty.

The contact happened, it was dangerous and one player was in the air. Penalty. There is no room in the Laws for interpretation on this point. Clivemcl, you may not agree with that, but in that case the question is whether the Laws should be changed.

The interpretation is in whether a card is warranted and if so what it is. Here, the referee is given considerable leeway and the option of anything from an admonishment to a red. (So again, Garces is entirely within the letter and spirit of the law). The decision made by 3 IRB officials was that Payne was had committed a professional foul and that the fact that his eyes were on the ball was not relevant (Garces mentions both of these things in issuing the red card).

Their exact reasoning wasn't audible as far as I can tell, but my read of it is that they felt that Payne's running line and decision not to jump created a situation where there was a high probability of making dangerous contact with a man in the air. If he had been static, it would have been OK. If he had jumped, it would have been OK. But he ran at speed through the area where the ball was likely to land.

I think their judgement probably hinged on them believing that Payne did know (or should have known) that dangerous contact was likely and still chose that course of action. Look at it another way: a chaser doesn't want to be at top speed coming in for a catch. It's much harder to adjust your position relative to the ball and much harder to convert your forward momentum into upward momentum to jump for the ball. So Payne would have known in advance that he didn't have a great chance to catch the ball himself (there's a moment on the replay when it definitely looks like he's realised this). He could have decelerated and waited to tackle the catcher on landing, but he chose to run on. Not malicious, but definitely a decision that made for a more dangerous situation.

Supported by law 10.5

(g)
Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

Sanction: Penalty kick

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.

by MrsP Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:49 am

kunu,

Do you mean that he hasn't been cited?

A red card is an automatic hearing so no citing required.

by HammerofThunor Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:52 am

Poorfour, ok that could explain how it could be just a penalty. A 'technical' penalty for pushing the opponants feet but considered just accidental and therefore merited no card (not saying this was the 'right' call but I can it as a possibility now, and under that interpretaion it couldn't not be a penalty).

Interesting comparison with Hartley's penalty against Falatau in the 6 nations. Falatau runs on to a ball off a lineout, Hartley sets for the tackle, Falatau jumps for the ball and gets taken out in the air. Penalty Wales. Hartley didn't know Falatau would jump, jumping isn't even the norm for taking the ball off a line out. If Falatau had landed on his head, neck, upper back I wouldn't have been surprised to see Hartley red carded. You can't jump into a tackle but if you jump without the ball you can't be tackled.

One 'good' thing from this is that we will have a discipline panel discuss it and hand out a sanction or not. If he gets any ban at all then it's fair red, he gets nothing then it's probably very very harsh (I've never known a 'red card offence' get no ban at all). And this is before reductions due to mitigating factors (good behaviour, remorse, etc).

by MrsP Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:56 am

There are times when the panel declare the on field sanction to have been sufficient I think.

As far as I am aware it is not legal to jump to avoid a tackle.

I suppose you are technically "off your feet" so can not play the ball?

by **BigGee** Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:04 am

There have been plenty cases when a card has been awarded and it could have been red or yellow depending on the ref's interpretation. Think Sam Warburton in the world cup, or more recently Hogg for Scotland v Wales. Both incidents looked worse in slow motion than they did in real time and on another day would have got a different colour card.

That is not to say they did not deserve the red card that they got, both put themselves into very compromising situations and could not complain about the outcome. To their credit, neither of them did. I would imagine that Payne will take the same line when he comes up before the panel later this week. Say he is sorry, accept he was wrong, take a short ban and move on. He would be mad and wrong to contest it!

He knew he was in trouble as soon as he did it, you could see it in his face and in that of the other players and the crowd in the ground. He knew he was getting a card, the only question was what colour. You can't blame the ref for what happened, he made a very difficult call and one that a lot of people were going to disagree with. At the end of the day though, Goode could have been really badly hurt there, thankfully he was not, but it does reinforce the need to referee hard the rules about taking people out in the air.

A rugby league player in Australia was paralysed last week least we forget!

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:15 am

The incident with the rugby league player is entirely different, he was tackled by two opponents. The buzz word being tackled. Payne didn't tackle or intentionally charge Goode in the air. It's crystal clear, clearer stil when you l know the character of Payne who would never consider endangering another player. I mean there is an arguement for stopping player from wrecklessly endangering themselves by jumping into oncoming players running at full pelt to catch a ball Wink

As for gimpy's comments on his schadenfreude when ashton splashed, well that says more about the person making such a comment and calling the wonderful Ulster faithful a mob. Gain knowledge on a subject before you comment upon it.

by **BigGee** Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:20 am

Brian Moore's twitter account just threw up this article, quite balanced and from an Irish perspective

http://whiffofcordite.com/2014/04/07/three-becomes-one/

My point about the Aussie player was just to show how dangerous and what the consequences of illegal tackling (and bearing in mind some of the comments about the definition of tackling that have taken place in this debate), I mean that in the broadest sense.

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:27 am

Just watched the reply.... its a red card, simple as.

by clivemcl Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:34 am

fa0019 wrote:Just watched the reply.... its a red card, simple as.

Post of the thread award goes to.... clap

Thank you so much for your contributions to the debate.

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:37 am

clivemcl wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Just watched the reply.... its a red card, simple as.

Post of the thread award goes to....

Thank you so much for your contributions to the debate.

Sorry dude if you disagree and need to breakdown the issue into every minute detail.. why because you're upset with the decision???

There is no need... its a bad challenge, a dangerous challenge.

It doesn't matter if Payne is a good bloke, was unintentional, he had his eyes fixed on the ball or not. Take the challenge as it was and thats your answer i.e. a straight red.

by lostinwales Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:40 am

clivemcl wrote:I hate it when it gets like this on here. People dance around the points they can't disagree with and start arguing points of their own. I've got to get away for a while - this is pointless. Nobody having an actual debate, just individual declaration after declaration.

Well yes - and there are trolls and the classic misdirection strategy of picking up on minor comments and blowing them up out of all proportion. And yet most of us keep on coming back, still hoping our really important point gets heard because of course its going to convince everyone else if only they would just open the other eye and think for a second.

by Jimpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:43 am

Pete330v2 wrote:The incident with the rugby league player is entirely different, he was tackled by two opponents. The buzz word being tackled. Payne didn't tackle or intentionally charge Goode in the air. It's crystal clear, clearer stil when you l know the character of Payne who would never consider endangering another player. I mean there is an arguement for stopping player from wrecklessly endangering themselves by jumping into oncoming players running at full pelt to catch a ball

As for gimpy's comments on his schadenfreude when ashton splashed, well that says more about the person making such a comment and calling the wonderful Ulster faithful a mob. Gain knowledge on a subject before you comment upon it.

The irony in that statement is basically tangible. I can understand that you're upset, bless you.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:51 am

The point is that the Payne-Goode debate was diverted by request from clive purportedly to take over the incident and to keep the debate on the Sarries/Ulster debate on track.

So he started a new OP 'The Payne - Goode Incident.'.

And now he's got a bag on because posters want to discuss the incident and not the theoreticals that he had a mind to.

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:57 am

Jimpy wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:The incident with the rugby league player is entirely different, he was tackled by two opponents. The buzz word being tackled. Payne didn't tackle or intentionally charge Goode in the air. It's crystal clear, clearer stil when you l know the character of Payne who would never consider endangering another player. I mean there is an arguement for stopping player from wrecklessly endangering themselves by jumping into oncoming players running at full pelt to catch a ball

As for gimpy's comments on his schadenfreude when ashton splashed, well that says more about the person making such a comment and calling the wonderful Ulster faithful a mob. Gain knowledge on a subject before you comment upon it.

The irony in that statement is basically tangible. I can understand that you're upset, bless you.

Excellent retort, I am in awe.....

by clivemcl Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:57 am

At its most basic - the danger exists because players are in the air. I think its a bit much to put responsibility on the shoulders of everyone but the jumper when its a high pace contact sport.

Accidents will happen regardless of how many red cards are given out.

If we want to ensure there is no serious injury - there is only one proper solution.

No jumping.

I'd rather we had a QF contest 15 v15 on saturday with no jumping.

Instead we got a poor contest because of <insert opinion here>, and it could have been worse - we might have had a very serious injury.

by Jimpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:58 am

Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:The incident with the rugby league player is entirely different, he was tackled by two opponents. The buzz word being tackled. Payne didn't tackle or intentionally charge Goode in the air. It's crystal clear, clearer stil when you l know the character of Payne who would never consider endangering another player. I mean there is an arguement for stopping player from wrecklessly endangering themselves by jumping into oncoming players running at full pelt to catch a ball

As for gimpy's comments on his schadenfreude when ashton splashed, well that says more about the person making such a comment and calling the wonderful Ulster faithful a mob. Gain knowledge on a subject before you comment upon it.

The irony in that statement is basically tangible. I can understand that you're upset, bless you.

Excellent retort, I am in awe.....

That's better. Now off you go you young scamp.

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:02 pm

When a ref has forwarded a decision to a TMO have you ever heard him ask....

"Let me know where the offending player's eyes were fixed on"???

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:03 pm

Jimpy wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:The incident with the rugby league player is entirely different, he was tackled by two opponents. The buzz word being tackled. Payne didn't tackle or intentionally charge Goode in the air. It's crystal clear, clearer stil when you l know the character of Payne who would never consider endangering another player. I mean there is an arguement for stopping player from wrecklessly endangering themselves by jumping into oncoming players running at full pelt to catch a ball

As for gimpy's comments on his schadenfreude when ashton splashed, well that says more about the person making such a comment and calling the wonderful Ulster faithful a mob. Gain knowledge on a subject before you comment upon it.

The irony in that statement is basically tangible. I can understand that you're upset, bless you.

Excellent retort, I am in awe.....

That's better. Now off you go you young scamp.

Young is something that's in the distance memories of the past for me

by Scrumpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:04 pm

There is one thing I can't stand and that is a sore loser! thumbsdown

No jumping indeed!

Its a game there are winners and losers get over it there is always next time, as long as you qualify that is! Wink

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:04 pm

fa0019 wrote:When a ref has forwarded a decision to a TMO have you ever heard him ask....

"Let me know where the offending player's eyes were fixed on"???

It's especially confusing when the same TMO advises a yellow and then Jerome Farces pulls the red. Colourblindness doesn't work like that does it? Smile

by clivemcl Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:11 pm

Scrumpy wrote:There is one thing I can't stand and that is a sore loser! No jumping indeed!

Its a game there are winners and losers get over it there is always next time, as long as you qualify that is!

Your whole argument is based on the risk of serious injury to Goode, yet you aren't interested in debating eradicating the chance of said injury? You are just interested in allowing accidents and risk to continue with red card accordingly?

So you want to take the risk of broken necks then.

Lets not forget the type of guilt a man could have if he was at fault for another players paralysis.

The danger COULD be taken away completely.

its worth consideration surely?

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:11 pm

Didn't see the match so can't comment on that only the incident which I saw on reply just now.

However referees can overrule TMOs and often do. They use them purely as a guide not a law into themselves.

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:15 pm

It seem as usual that opinions are indeed like Aholes.

Everyone has one and they are frequently full of Tom Kite.

Lets all agree to disagree on our personal interpretations of rugby laws. Ambiguity is present in far too many of them which makes officials jobs very difficult indeed. Mr Garces made a decision overrulling his TMO due to his own opinion. I think he made a grave mistake, many will agree with him.

There.....end of thread Smile

by whocares Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:16 pm

lostinwales wrote:
clivemcl wrote:I hate it when it gets like this on here. People dance around the points they can't disagree with and start arguing points of their own. I've got to get away for a while - this is pointless. Nobody having an actual debate, just individual declaration after declaration.

Well yes - and there are trolls and the classic misdirection strategy of picking up on minor comments and blowing them up out of all proportion. And yet most of us keep on coming back, still hoping our really important point gets heard because of course its going to convince everyone else if only they would just open the other eye and think for a second.

cheer up everyone. the words debate and discussion are a bit overrated Wink

most of the posters here already had their own opinion of the matter and do not come here to be convinced that they are in the wrong. in fact when it comes to a controversial decision such as this red card, most of the "opposing" parties do have valid points.

by Scrumpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:17 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:There is one thing I can't stand and that is a sore loser! No jumping indeed!

Its a game there are winners and losers get over it there is always next time, as long as you qualify that is!

Your whole argument is based on the risk of serious injury to Goode, yet you aren't interested in debating eradicating the chance of said injury? You are just interested in allowing accidents and risk to continue with red card accordingly?

So you want to take the risk of broken necks then.

Lets not forget the type of guilt a man could have if he was at fault for another players paralysis.

The danger COULD be taken away completely.

its worth consideration surely?

To be fair most players don't run round like a headless chicken looking skywards whilst chasing the ball, there will always be someone jumping for the ball, its crazy and reckless to think otherwise, the defended is more than likely to be standing his ground and jumping as the ball is coming to them and not the guy chasing the ball. Red was the right call.

I'm a Shoe Size 12 (uk mens)

by GunsGerms Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:18 pm

fa0019 wrote:Didn't see the match so can't comment on that only the incident which I saw on reply just now.

However referees can overrule TMOs and often do. They use them purely as a guide not a law into themselves.

Did you think it was a red, yellow, penalty or nothing?

by Scrumpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:18 pm

It was what it was.

by Poorfour Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:19 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Poorfour, ok that could explain how it could be just a penalty. A 'technical' penalty for pushing the opponants feet but considered just accidental and therefore merited no card (not saying this was the 'right' call but I can it as a possibility now, and under that interpretaion it couldn't not be a penalty).

Interesting comparison with Hartley's penalty against Falatau in the 6 nations. Falatau runs on to a ball off a lineout, Hartley sets for the tackle, Falatau jumps for the ball and gets taken out in the air. Penalty Wales. Hartley didn't know Falatau would jump, jumping isn't even the norm for taking the ball off a line out. If Falatau had landed on his head, neck, upper back I wouldn't have been surprised to see Hartley red carded. You can't jump into a tackle but if you jump without the ball you can't be tackled.

One 'good' thing from this is that we will have a discipline panel discuss it and hand out a sanction or not. If he gets any ban at all then it's fair red, he gets nothing then it's probably very very harsh (I've never known a 'red card offence' get no ban at all). And this is before reductions due to mitigating factors (good behaviour, remorse, etc).

HoT - Worth reading Law 10 in its entirety, it's not that long. It's basically set up in three parts: a preamble that covers the "letter and spirit" point, a list of breaches of Law 10 and a discussion of sanctions. The Law is very clear that penalty is the minimum sanction but that the referee must consider what sanction is merited, with the minimum being a talking to and the maximum a red, but it is very much the ref's discretion.

Would Hartley have been carded if Faletau had been injured? I very much doubt it. Hartley was aware of where Faletau was, had set himself to make a legal tackle and Faletau jumped - unexpectedly - for the ball on a trajectory that took him into the place where Hartley was already standing. At this point, Hartley has already conceded the penalty, because whatever contact he makes will be in breach of 10.4. His only option, I guess, would be to try to get out of the way and allow Faletau a clear run for the line, but I am not sure there was time for that.

The critical difference between Hartley and Payne is that Hartley did nothing to make the situation more dangerous. He was in a legal position and it was only Faletau's unpredictable leap that turned it from a legal tackle into a penalty. If Hartley had jumped into the air to make the tackle or had driven forward and made a chop tackle around the legs, it might have been different, but all he did was absorb the impact of a player who jumped into him. The penalty was technically correct, but Hartley didn't make it worse than it was so I doubt that Poite would have moved to a card even in the case of an injury.

Payne, on the other hand, chose to run into a space where players might be in the air at a speed that didn't leave him an option to avoid it.

by GunsGerms Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:20 pm

Personally becuase it was clear as day it was unintentional for me a penalty would have been more than enough. I wouldnt even have given him a yellow. Complete accident. Dont think you should be sanctioned just because there was an injury if it is an accident and it is clear the red card was completely influenced by there being an injury or what looked like an injury at the time. He is ok isnt he?

by VinceWLB Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:21 pm

Have those who are calling for a straight red seen the similar incident to this? i'm not sure they have.
Actually this is the first time i have seen a red for something similar to this, a disgusting one in the context of the game.

Garces badly overreacted and reffed the fall, not the incident.

by clivemcl Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:21 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:There is one thing I can't stand and that is a sore loser! No jumping indeed!

Its a game there are winners and losers get over it there is always next time, as long as you qualify that is!

Your whole argument is based on the risk of serious injury to Goode, yet you aren't interested in debating eradicating the chance of said injury? You are just interested in allowing accidents and risk to continue with red card accordingly?

So you want to take the risk of broken necks then.

Lets not forget the type of guilt a man could have if he was at fault for another players paralysis.

The danger COULD be taken away completely.

its worth consideration surely?

To be fair most players don't ~~run round like a headless chicken~~ run in straight line ~~looking skywards~~ keeping their eye on the ball whilst chasing the ball, there will always be someone jumping for the ball, its crazy and reckless to think otherwise, the defended is more than likely to be standing his ground and jumping as the ball is coming to them and not the guy chasing the ball. Red was the right call.

I'm a Shoe Size 12 (uk mens)

Fixed that for you. Wink

Still though, you have declined to consider eradicating the danger completely. Very bad neck injuries WILL happen - red cards will not help that.

by Scrumpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:23 pm

If you don't want to be put in danger then go and play Lawn Bowls!

No jumping! LOL...

by GunsGerms Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:25 pm

VinceWLB wrote:Have those who are calling for a straight red seen the similar incident to this? i'm not sure they have.
Actually this is the first time i have seen a red for something similar to this, a disgusting one in the context of the game.

Garces badly overreacted and reffed the fall, not the incident.

100% agree. The outraged should look at the ROG incident in the 2nd Lions test. Rog didnt even get a yellow yet the collision was just as dangerous. Decisions should be based on precident unless there is a law change and incidents like this are never red cards. The ref panicked.

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:26 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Didn't see the match so can't comment on that only the incident which I saw on reply just now.

However referees can overrule TMOs and often do. They use them purely as a guide not a law into themselves.

Did you think it was a red, yellow, penalty or nothing?

Had said earlier Guns I think it was a straight red from the reply.

by Scrumpy Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:27 pm

"The Ref panicked"

In your opinion, he was spot on imo.

by GunsGerms Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:27 pm

For what reason?

by Pete330v2 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:28 pm

Most players don't run in a straight line with their eyes on the ball.....frequently leading to knock ons Smile

Actually Jared Payne does play like this and takes the ball at full pelt in order to ghost through defences and score. It's just a little hobby and a man shouldn't be red carded for his hobbies. Smile

Actually this whole debate should never be about what it says in the laws, as we all know laws can be interpreted in far too many ways. What the question actually is:

DID GARCES OFFICIATE ON THE COLLISION OR THE INJURY?

by Poorfour Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:34 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Personally becuase it was clear as day it was unintentional for me a penalty would have been more than enough. I wouldnt even have given him a yellow. Complete accident. Dont think you should be sanctioned just because there was an injury if it is an accident and it is clear the red card was completely influenced by there being an injury or what looked like an injury at the time. He is ok isnt he?

1) The Laws don't have a get-out for unintentional acts.
2) It wasn't a "complete accident". Payne's running line was always likely to bring him into contact with someone in the air. To reuse an example I've used above somewhere: if I am driving down a busy street and I hit a cyclist who turns across my path because I am going too fast for the conditions, I'm not going to be let off because I didn't mean to hit them. The definition of "too fast for the conditions" (or more accurately, what constitutes reckless and dangerous play) is somewhat higher in rugby because everyone's chosen to play a contact sport, but it's not suspended completely. Under these circumstances the referee decided - as he's entitled to do - that "too fast to jump for the ball" crossed the line of dangerous play.
3) The "as he's entitled to do" above is important. The Laws are clear enough that Garces was outside neither his remit nor the spirit of his role (which, lest we forget, includes player safety as his first job).

by HammerofThunor Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:34 pm

VinceWLB wrote:Have those who are calling for a straight red seen the similar incident to this? i'm not sure they have.
Actually this is the first time i have seen a red for something similar to this, a disgusting one in the context of the game.

Garces badly overreacted and reffed the fall, not the incident.

Not sure if that's a typo or not but yes, that's exactly what Garces did. He gave the card based on how Goode fell. If he had landed on his feet/uprightish it probably would have been a penalty, then the more tilted Goode would have been the worse the sanction. Because Goode had been deemed to land on his upper back area (shoulder I think it was) then it was given as a red. How the player lands is exactly what deems the card (if a card is being given).

by fa0019 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:35 pm

GunsGerms wrote:For what reason?

if thats for me GG, IMO because it was a very dangerous challenge. I've seen some players get away with slightly less but to cause a collision in such a manner where the player falls uncontrollably from a height at speed is very dangerous and should be punished with a red.

Ruined the game sure but you can't have things go on like that, intentional or not. Intent for me should never be a determining factor to a card... only a ban. His ban should be less than that of someone looking to take out a player yes but the card should be determined on the merits of the challenge alone.

I like Ulster as a team, had the shirt when I was growing up and especially now given they have chaps like Ruan now but its simply a dangerous tackle.

by marty2086 Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:35 pm

VinceWLB wrote:Have those who are calling for a straight red seen the similar incident to this? i'm not sure they have.
Actually this is the first time i have seen a red for something similar to this, a disgusting one in the context of the game.

Garces badly overreacted and reffed the fall, not the incident.

Garces said it himself when Muller questioned him, he showed the red because Goode hit is head

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:36 pm

Vince wrote:Have those who are calling for a straight red seen the similar incident to this? i'm not sure they have.
Actually this is the first time i have seen a red for something similar to this, a disgusting one in the context of the game.

Garces badly overreacted and reffed the fall, not the incident.

Garces clearly decided that law 10.4 (g) had been breached. He decided that it was reckless rather than accidental. So he had to go.

If (say) Ashton had done that, the baying for maximum bans would be rife from Ulster, methinks.

And I say that as a dyed in the wool Sarries-sceptic.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?