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 Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:37 pm

I thought it was a stunning attempt of mix and match of the laws.

Taking a player out in the air is dangerous and a penalty offence automatically, so that's almost certainly a yellow card straight away. Then Garces was quite clever, he considered the way Goode had been allowed to fall to the ground on his head, which is a bit of a mish mash of the tackling laws, duty of care and all that. Still, I think he got it right - a dangerous and reckless tackle (yellow), followed through by the Payne with no attempt to either a) make a tackle, or b) consider his opponent's safety (red).

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:38 pm

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

No jumping! LOL...

Bigger writing does not equal an argument Scrumpy. You (and many others) are outraged about the tackle because of how dangerous it was. Am I right? But at the same time, you don't want to eliminate the danger in the only ensured way?

That doesn't make sense.

Accidents cannot be eliminated by laws and red cards. The danger can be eliminated in the first place though.

and lawn bowls comment - you guys are the ones saying payne is running too fast in order to get under a ball!

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:42 pm

Unfortunately no hypothetical laws were in place last Saturday, clive.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:43 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Garces said it himself when Muller questioned him, he showed the red because Goode hit is head

Sure he did.

Then again when someone wants to make a low tackle and because of poor technique get ko'ed by his opponent's knee, is the ball carrier red carded?!

The problem i have with the incident is both player had as much momentum and one was arguably more dangerous than the other by deciding to jump.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:46 pm

VinceWLB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Garces said it himself when Muller questioned him, he showed the red because Goode hit is head

Sure he did.

Then again when someone wants to make a low tackle and because of poor technique get ko'ed by his opponent's knee, is the ball carrier red carded?!

The problem i have with the incident is both player had as much momentum and one was arguably more dangerous than the other by deciding to jump.

Its true - somebody new to rugby, unaware of the rules could easily have interpreted it this way
'that one guy launched himself at the face of his opponent just to get to the ball before him! He got smashed in the face while trying to make a catch!' Wink

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:47 pm

Not jumping would have the effect off nullifying the inherent GAA/Oz rules advantage that Ireland and Oz have under the high ball.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:47 pm

clivemcl wrote:
VinceWLB wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Garces said it himself when Muller questioned him, he showed the red because Goode hit is head

Sure he did.

Then again when someone wants to make a low tackle and because of poor technique get ko'ed by his opponent's knee, is the ball carrier red carded?!

The problem i have with the incident is both player had as much momentum and one was arguably more dangerous than the other by deciding to jump.

Its true - somebody new to rugby, unaware of the rules could easily have interpreted it this way
'that one guy launched himself at the face of his opponent just to get to the ball before him! He got smashed in the face while trying to make a catch!'

It's funny cause it's true mind you Smile

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:50 pm

A yellow card should have been issued and in case that wasn't enough for some, a 2 or 3 weeks ban would have make everyone happy.

Nobody would have complained, instead a great game of rugby was ruined.

by Guest Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:51 pm

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 don't think it is 70% red card, rodders. Reading the ref forum, and most of them are saying they would not have given a red card.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:56 pm

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

No jumping! LOL...

Bigger writing does not equal an argument Scrumpy. You (and many others) are outraged about the tackle because of how dangerous it was. Am I right? But at the same time, you don't want to eliminate the danger in the only ensured way?

That doesn't make sense.

Accidents cannot be eliminated by laws and red cards. The danger can be eliminated in the first place though.

and lawn bowls comment - you guys are the ones saying payne is running too fast in order to get under a ball!

But no other player this weekend did what Payne did!

Most players are aware of their surroundings and wait for the player to hit the ground before tackling, watch another game and you'll see it time and time again, sometimes a player mistime's the tackle (that can happen as we are all human) but this guy didn't attempt to tackle and disregarded the rules by running flat out into someone in the air. To say a player shouldn't jump is missing the point and imo shows you don't truly understand the game!

Payne was reckless and got what he deserved, as for the incident ruining the game so what, that has nothing to do with the Ref he did what he thought was right which is what he is there to do, he should be applauded for showing the courage to do the right thing in a game like this.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 12:57 pm

VinceWLB wrote:A yellow card should have been issued and in case that wasn't enough for some, a 2 or 3 weeks ban would have make everyone happy.

Nobody would have complained, instead a great game of rugby was ruined.

A YC would have had the effect of Jared returning after ten minutes.

The innocent guy was off for the full 75.

by geoff998rugby Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:06 pm

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

No jumping! LOL...

Bigger writing does not equal an argument Scrumpy. You (and many others) are outraged about the tackle because of how dangerous it was. Am I right? But at the same time, you don't want to eliminate the danger in the only ensured way?

That doesn't make sense.

Accidents cannot be eliminated by laws and red cards. The danger can be eliminated in the first place though.

and lawn bowls comment - you guys are the ones saying payne is running too fast in order to get under a ball!

But no other player this weekend did what Payne did!

Most players are aware of their surroundings and wait for the player to hit the ground before tackling, watch another game and you'll see it time and time again, sometimes a player mistime's the tackle (that can happen as we are all human) but this guy didn't attempt to tackle and disregarded the rules by running flat out into someone in the air. To say a player shouldn't jump is missing the point and imo shows you don't truly understand the game!

If you thing Payne was tackling Goode, or deliverately ran into him, you are the one who doesn't understand the game

He was intent on catching the ball and afraid a fraction of a second later than Goode.
Nothing more nothing less

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:08 pm

VinceWLB wrote:A yellow card should have been issued and in case that wasn't enough for some, a 2 or 3 weeks ban would have make everyone happy.

Nobody would have complained, instead a great game of rugby was ruined.

that doesn't make any sense. Bans are for issues that either weren't dealt with on the field or Red card not enough. Any player banned should have had a red (under the current IRB framework), except for getting multiple yellow cards over a few games, obviously.

You might want to downgrade certain offenses that are currently deemed red to yellow plus a ban but that's more a case of the general discipline framework rather than this specific case.

Also, as a neutral I thought the game was pretty great.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:11 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
A YC would have had the effect of Jared returning after ten minutes.

The innocent guy was off for the full 75.

A red card wasn't a sensible decision. It proves to me that Garces has no respect for the game and supporters.
Heck yellow card him and ban him for life if necessary, penalise the individual not the whole team.

Last saturday saw a disgusting and outrageous decision and that was a sad moment for rugby union.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:13 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
Also, as a neutral I thought the game was pretty great.

I take it you haven't seen Ulster's back line in full flight this season.[/quote]

by **George Carlin** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:14 pm

365 posts! The danger of jumping - Page 8 Cancan17

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:15 pm

366 actually

by Guest Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:15 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
VinceWLB wrote:A yellow card should have been issued and in case that wasn't enough for some, a 2 or 3 weeks ban would have make everyone happy.

Nobody would have complained, instead a great game of rugby was ruined.

A YC would have had the effect of Jared returning after ten minutes.

The innocent guy was off for the full 75.

A yellow card would have allowed two full teams competing.

Both were innocent.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:17 pm

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

No jumping! LOL...

Bigger writing does not equal an argument Scrumpy. You (and many others) are outraged about the tackle because of how dangerous it was. Am I right? But at the same time, you don't want to eliminate the danger in the only ensured way?

That doesn't make sense.

Accidents cannot be eliminated by laws and red cards. The danger can be eliminated in the first place though.

and lawn bowls comment - you guys are the ones saying payne is running too fast in order to get under a ball!

But no other player this weekend did what Payne did!

Most players are aware of their surroundings and wait for the player to hit the ground before tackling, watch another game and you'll see it time and time again, sometimes a player mistime's the tackle (that can happen as we are all human) but this guy didn't attempt to tackle and disregarded the rules by running flat out into someone in the air. To say a player shouldn't jump is missing the point and imo shows you don't truly understand the game!

Payne was reckless and got what he deserved, as for the incident ruining the game so what, that has nothing to do with the Ref he did what he thought was right which is what he is there to do, he should be applauded for showing the courage to do the right thing in a game like this.

Scrumpy!

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

Result? Penalty.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:17 pm

In my opinion, Vince, you are completely wrong in almost every respect.

In my opinion It proves that Garces was not at fault here - it was Jared for putting himself in a situation which resulted in a reckless charge.

In my opinion It was Payne, not the ref that "has no respect for the game and supporters.".

Imo.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:18 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:If you don't want to be put in danger then go and play Lawn Bowls!

No jumping! LOL...

Bigger writing does not equal an argument Scrumpy. You (and many others) are outraged about the tackle because of how dangerous it was. Am I right? But at the same time, you don't want to eliminate the danger in the only ensured way?

That doesn't make sense.

Accidents cannot be eliminated by laws and red cards. The danger can be eliminated in the first place though.

and lawn bowls comment - you guys are the ones saying payne is running too fast in order to get under a ball!

But no other player this weekend did what Payne did!

Most players are aware of their surroundings and wait for the player to hit the ground before tackling, watch another game and you'll see it time and time again, sometimes a player mistime's the tackle (that can happen as we are all human) but this guy didn't attempt to tackle and disregarded the rules by running flat out into someone in the air. To say a player shouldn't jump is missing the point and imo shows you don't truly understand the game!

If you thing Payne was tackling Goode, or deliverately ran into him, you are the one who doesn't understand the game

He was intent on catching the ball and afraid a fraction of a second later than Goode.
Nothing more nothing less

So you say!

But he was reckless and to be honest a bit of a clown to think he could do that.

I would expect to see a kid do that in a school game not a Pro in a HC QF! Erm

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:18 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
that doesn't make any sense. Bans are for issues that either weren't dealt with on the field or Red card not enough. Any player banned should have had a red (under the current IRB framework), except for getting multiple yellow cards over a few games, obviously.

You might want to downgrade certain offenses that are currently deemed red to yellow plus a ban but that's more a case of the general discipline framework rather than this specific case.

How many times do we see a yellow + x weeks ban though? a lot

And i said ban him if necessary which i think wasn't even the case here.

by Guest Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:20 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:In my opinion, Vince, you are completely wrong in almost every respect.

In my opinion It proves that Garces was not at fault here - it was Jared for putting himself in a situation which resulted in a reckless charge.

In my opinion It was Payne, not the ref that "has no respect for the game and supporters.".

Imo.

In my opinion, that's b@!!@x

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:22 pm

I wonder how long the argument is going to go on over an incident that is now history, can't be altered and therefore the result will stand...

Better luck next year Ulster.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:23 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:In my opinion, Vince, you are completely wrong in almost every respect.

In my opinion It proves that Garces was not at fault here - it was Jared for putting himself in a situation which resulted in a reckless charge.

In my opinion It was Payne, not the ref that "has no respect for the game and supporters.".

Imo.

Did you see other videos of similar collisions? this is the 1st time a ref overreacted this badly and issued a red.

Garces must be one of those refs with no rugby background.

by HammerofThunor Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:23 pm

VinceWLB wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
that doesn't make any sense. Bans are for issues that either weren't dealt with on the field or Red card not enough. Any player banned should have had a red (under the current IRB framework), except for getting multiple yellow cards over a few games, obviously.

You might want to downgrade certain offenses that are currently deemed red to yellow plus a ban but that's more a case of the general discipline framework rather than this specific case.

How many times do we see a yellow + x weeks ban though? a lot

And i said ban him if necessary which i think wasn't even the case here.

And every single one of those cases should have been red cards under the current IRB discipline framework.

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:24 pm

VinceWLB wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:In my opinion, Vince, you are completely wrong in almost every respect.

In my opinion It proves that Garces was not at fault here - it was Jared for putting himself in a situation which resulted in a reckless charge.

In my opinion It was Payne, not the ref that "has no respect for the game and supporters.".

Imo.

Did you see other videos of similar collisions? this is the 1st time a ref overreacted this badly and issued a red.

Garces must be one of those refs with no rugby background.

Yeah, and Ulster must be one of those teams without a Heineken Cup... Run

by **Notch** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:33 pm

Except we do have a Heineken Cup... wasn't called the Heineken Cup when we won it though.

by geoff998rugby Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:36 pm

We have a European cup thank you very much

Only 10 teams have ever won it and only 4 teams have been in more finals - a record to be proud of thanks

by **Biltong** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:40 pm

Amazing to think this is still going when each has their own interpretation of what they deem dangerous, just as the referee did, in his case he ruled red card.

Not much else to debate, is there?

by **Notch** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:43 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
VinceWLB wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
that doesn't make any sense. Bans are for issues that either weren't dealt with on the field or Red card not enough. Any player banned should have had a red (under the current IRB framework), except for getting multiple yellow cards over a few games, obviously.

You might want to downgrade certain offenses that are currently deemed red to yellow plus a ban but that's more a case of the general discipline framework rather than this specific case.

How many times do we see a yellow + x weeks ban though? a lot

And i said ban him if necessary which i think wasn't even the case here.

And every single one of those cases should have been red cards under the current IRB discipline framework.

I think if they were, people would complain the red card was overused and they'd be right.

I think the red card is a real last resort that should be reserved for players who are guilty of violent play or deliberately putting players into dangerous situations. The debate will rage on about this specific incident with reference to those who think Payne was deliberately or knowingly putting Goode into a dangerous situation or completely unknowingly running into a very unlucky collision.

But thats beside the wider point. If every time a yellow card was issued and a short ban imposed in retrospect a red card was give instead, then many more games would be ruined than are now. The referee has to enforce the law but he also has to manage the game. If there is doubt, then let the citing commissioner decide. Justice delayed is still justice, unless the player is a danger to other players on the pitch.

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:44 pm

You're joking, there's loads more mileage out of this one...

The danger of jumping - Page 8 1347041234

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:45 pm

Notch wrote:Except we do have a Heineken Cup... wasn't called the Heineken Cup when we won it though.

Then it wasn't, ehem, a Heineken cup ....

by **Notch** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:47 pm

Well, we beat the two best teams in Europe at that time in the quarter and semi and then we had a big Final and we won and we were European Champions. I grieve for the absence of a title sponsor though Whistle

Fate can be a capricious thing. If Goode hadn't landed as badly as he did we would probably be dreaming of the same. Maybe not, you can never know for sure. We had fate on our side that year, we had luck. This year we had bad luck. The curse of six! No team that has ever won every pool game has won the title.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:52 pm

US Colomiers whatever happened to them?

Didn't Ulster win it when no English clubs took part, a little devalued me thinks also it was a shame Bath never got to defend their title.

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:53 pm

Biltong wrote:Amazing to think this is still going when each has their own interpretation of what they deem dangerous, just as the referee did, in his case he ruled red card.

Not much else to debate, is there?

+ 1 ...lock the thread Bilts!

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:53 pm

Biltong wrote:Amazing to think this is still going

Not much else to debate, is there?

Not that you've ever been one to bang a point home to the point of suffocation re questionable ref decisions then, eh Bilt?

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 1:57 pm

Scrumpy wrote:US Colomiers whatever happened to them?

Didn't Ulster win it when no English clubs took part, a little devalued me thinks also it was a shame Bath never got to defend their title.

Ah yes the english who featured in just 3 of the last nine heineken cup finals.

by **Notch** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:00 pm

Guys, don't do this here. It'll end in tears for all parties.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:02 pm

Never fear Clive I'm sure Sarries will win it for Harry, England, and Saint George!'
Laugh

Some of you really don't understand the English domestic game!

by quinsforever Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:02 pm

Notch wrote:Except we do have a Heineken Cup... wasn't called the Heineken Cup when we won it though.

and there weren't any english teams in it that season either Wink

by quinsforever Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:04 pm

back on topic...when will the hearing take place for the red card?

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:05 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:US Colomiers whatever happened to them?

Didn't Ulster win it when no English clubs took part, a little devalued me thinks also it was a shame Bath never got to defend their title.

Ah yes the english who featured in just 3 of the last nine heineken cup finals.

And Ulster, who won't feature in this year's either...

So what, it's been done to death this one.

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:05 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Notch wrote:Except we do have a Heineken Cup... wasn't called the Heineken Cup when we won it though.
and there weren't any english teams in it that season either

I suppose if you ignore the group stages you might say that's the case most seasons anyways angel

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:06 pm

rodders wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Notch wrote:Except we do have a Heineken Cup... wasn't called the Heineken Cup when we won it though.
and there weren't any english teams in it that season either

I suppose if you ignore the group stages you might say that's the case most seasons anyways

Factually almost 100% incorrect.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:17 pm

Scrumpy wrote:US Colomiers whatever happened to them?

It went from bad to worse after the death of Chairman Michel Bendichou. They were always considered to be too close to Toulouse to stay competitive with all the money Professional rugby requires.

They are doing reasonably ok these days in the Prod2 though.

by **George Carlin** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:18 pm

Then, just as the thread risked flagging, Brian Moore turned up in the Torygraph (irrelevant copy redacted):

More red cards like Jared Payne’s in Ulster's defeat by Saracens can help to improve the game
If decision to dismiss the full-back was followed more widely, and it should be, it might make kicking a less effective weapon

By Brian Moore
11:00PM BST 06 Apr 2014
...
Inevitably the post-game debate over Saracens’ narrow 17-15 win at Ulster was dominated by the sending-off of Ulster’s full-back, Jared Payne, in the fourth minute of the game for taking out his Saracens counterpart Alex Goode in the air.

So high were the emotions around the decision that it felt like all semblance of sense left many fans and commenters. “The referee ruined the game”; “He kept his eyes on the ball”; “He couldn’t avoid the collision because he didn’t see Goode”; all manner of irrelevant nonsense was parroted.

To start with, the offence is the same whenever it is committed; that it occurred so early makes it no less punishable than an offence committed later.

I am certain that the referee, Jérôme Garcès, would rather not have had to make such a call at any point in the game and that he had to do so was not his fault. I am also sure Payne did not want to hurt Goode but many people averred that he, in effect, could have done nothing to avoid the collision.

It is quite simple. A chasing player is solely in charge of deciding how he goes after the ball. He can keep his eyes on the ball and jump for it; he can watch it and glance at any player likely to contest it and wait for that player to catch it and then flatten him; what he cannot do is put himself in a position where he does neither and is not in a position to avoid taking out a jumping catcher.

The law in this regard is rightly there to protect catchers who are very vulnerable, not least because there is nothing they or the offender can do to minimise the consequences of a fall from height.

That only a small percentage of such offences result in major injury is no reason to downgrade its severity; the potential effects are catastrophic. Further, the fact that this type of challenge has attracted less severe sanctions elsewhere makes those decisions wrong – not this one.

I have more sympathy with the claim that Garcès penalised on outcome – that Goode was stretchered off, but that is not supposed to be a factor and, if it was, it was an error.

If this decision was followed more widely, and it should be, the game would not be ruined as some suggest. It might make kicking a less effective weapon and we might see less of it, which would not be a bad thing.

There would still be room for well-executed kicks and well-timed chases and challenges but the almost default option of sticking it in the air and running after it would diminish.

That said, Ulster were magnificent in defeat and had they taken the game Saracens could not have complained.

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:21 pm

Wise words from the great man.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:34 pm

Wise words from the Anglocentric great man who is well known for spouting pure tripe when commentating so why should he reserve it only for our televisions.

Is that not what you meant Jimpy Wink

The fact remains that if it's entirely unintentional and if the chasing player in unaware of the player in the air how exactly can he avoid putting himself in that position? Are we to forget playing a kick-chase game or should it be deemed that it will now be a penalty offence if you catch the ball with your feet on the ground?

Brian Moore is entitled to his opinion but his playing days and punditry doesn't make him any less wrong......as usual.

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:44 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:Wise words from the Anglocentric great man who is well known for spouting pure tripe when commentating so why should he reserve it only for our televisions.

Is that not what you meant Jimpy

The fact remains that if it's entirely unintentional and if the chasing player in unaware of the player in the air how exactly can he avoid putting himself in that position? Are we to forget playing a kick-chase game or should it be deemed that it will now be a penalty offence if you catch the ball with your feet on the ground?

Brian Moore is entitled to his opinion but his playing days and punditry doesn't make him any less wrong......as usual.

Er no, I think it fairly obvious I agree with what he's said. And, the difference between what he says and what we say, is that whether he's right or wrong, people care about what he has to say.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?