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 Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:46 pm

Jimpy wrote:
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.

That is a joke right?
Surely you're not serious.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:48 pm

The crux of the argument against Payne not seeing Goode is that he supposedly ran into a 'zone' where jumping players are to be expected.

This is just not in the rule book. Payne does not have to predict a player will jump anymore than a jumping player has to predict another player will not jump.

Its utter tripe. This was not a dangerous tackle because it was not a tackle. There is no rule stating 'go slow in case a player jumps'. Both players were equally entitled to occupy the same space. They did not have to (by law) anticipate anything other than where the ball would drop. And in Paynes mind, it was going to drop into the basket. Nothing else was on Paynes mind. Nor should it have been by the law.

The danger of jumping - Page 9 Bkjh8m12

by Cyril Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:52 pm

clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent Wink

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:56 pm

clivemcl wrote:The crux of the argument against Payne not seeing Goode is that he supposedly ran into a 'zone' where jumping players are to be expected.

This is just not in the rule book. Payne does not have to predict a player will jump anymore than a jumping player has to predict another player will not jump.

Its utter tripe. This was not a dangerous tackle because it was not a tackle. There is no rule stating 'go slow in case a player jumps'. Both players were equally entitled to occupy the same space. They did not have to (by law) anticipate anything other than where the ball would drop. And in Paynes mind, it was going to drop into the basket. Nothing else was on Paynes mind. Nor should it have been by the law.

Exactly Clive.
It's just getting that logical explanation through to the Ulsterphobes and Anglocentrics.

Payne had every right to collect that ball and was his only intention. It's just so blatantly obvious even down to the heavy impact he took himself. Goode was definately poleaxed and it was dangerous but the danger wasn't down to Payne's intentions and for the last time folks THERE WAS NO TACKLE, IT WAS A COLLISION.

Ulster fans feel robbed by a terrible decision and quite rightly so somewhat like how all Irish fans felt robbed when Wayne Barnes penalised 1F's tackle in the dying moments against Wales. Another decision the haters ranted about being the right one only for it to be proven how wrong it actually had been. As will this.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:56 pm

Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:57 pm

clivemcl wrote:The crux of the argument against Payne not seeing Goode is that he supposedly ran into a 'zone' where jumping players are to be expected.

This is just not in the rule book. Payne does not have to predict a player will jump anymore than a jumping player has to predict another player will not jump.

Its utter tripe. This was not a dangerous tackle because it was not a tackle. There is no rule stating 'go slow in case a player jumps'. Both players were equally entitled to occupy the same space. They did not have to (by law) anticipate anything other than where the ball would drop. And in Paynes mind, it was going to drop into the basket. Nothing else was on Paynes mind. Nor should it have been by the law.

?

10.4
(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

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

If the left one don't get you, the right one will.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 2:57 pm

First exemple in this, surely the jumping player would have been given a red by Garces' reasoning?

The point is a jumping player is as dangerous as a non jumping player.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:00 pm

10.4
(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

He didn't charge him or attempt to knock him down, he was trying to catch the ball whilst being unaware of the oncoming aerial threat

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

There was no tackle made, Payne was hit pretty forcefully in the face, the laws of physics took care of the rest

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:01 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.

He can avoid putting himself in that position by looking where he's going. While Payne clearly wasn't trying to take Goode out in the air, you could argue that he was negligent simply by virtue of the fact he wasn't looking where he was running - particularly at a time when he could reasonably have expected a guy to be challenging for the ball in the air. I think the red card was harsh, but I don't see how "he didn't see Goode" is a valid excuse.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:04 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

But this isn't football! 50/50 lol.

Goode or any defender was always going to jump for that ball, why didn't Payne Jump? oh thats right he wasn't close enough to jump yet ran into the player already in the air as he was reckless and wasn't looking.

Justice was done, Sarries won, end of.

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:06 pm

VinceWLB wrote:First exemple in this, surely the jumping player would have been given a red by Garces' reasoning?

The point is a jumping player is as dangerous as a non jumping player.

Garces woudn't give any one a red there.
They weren't playing rugby.

by Toohey Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:07 pm

I wonder how Ulster fans would have felt if the situation was reversed and not even a yellow card gets issued? i.e. Payne makes a perfectly timed textbook take in the 4th minute but gets injured by Goodes attempt. Goodes fine, Sarries carry on with 15 men and a full bench. Gilroy comes on so now on the bench you only have 1 back to cover the next 76 minutes. Piennar injured in the 49th minute so on comes Marshall. Trimble injured in the 64th minute so on comes...a prop?

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:07 pm

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
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.

He can avoid putting himself in that position by looking where he's going. While Payne clearly wasn't trying to take Goode out in the air, you could argue that he was negligent simply by virtue of the fact he wasn't looking where he was running - particularly at a time when he could reasonably have expected a guy to be challenging for the ball in the air. I think the red card was harsh, but I don't see how "he didn't see Goode" is a valid excuse.

Was Goode? Truth is - players do not consider other players when catching - its a mark of talent and commitments to stay focused on the ball alone.

Not looking where you are running? It happens all the time in all aspects of the game. The only problem this time was that whilst Payne was unaware, Goode chose to jump in front of him.

My argument is still this in summary.

Jumping creates dangerous possibilities. Accidents will happen. Red cards won't stop future accidents. There is no law to say you have to predict players might jump.

by **George Carlin** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:07 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
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.

That is a joke right?
Surely you're not serious.

Lieutenant Frank Drebin wrote:"I am serious. And don't call me Shirley."

I'm sorry. I just *had* to. Run

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:11 pm

Pete wrote:10.4
(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

He didn't charge him or attempt to knock him down, he was trying to catch the ball whilst being unaware of the oncoming aerial threat

But he did knock him down.
'Intent' is not in this clause.
Whether he intended to or not, that's where he (recklessly imo) transgressed. And he paid the price ultimately.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:12 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

But this isn't football! 50/50 lol.

Goode or any defender was always going to jump for that ball, why didn't Payne Jump? ~~oh thats right he wasn't close enough to jump yet ran into the player already in the air as he was reckless and wasn't looking.~~ He didn't think Goode was going to get to the ball, and was attempting a catch at full speed in order to break the defence.

ok, so because players nearly always do a certain thing, we penalise players for failing to make predictions (read minds).

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:14 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
Garces woudn't give any one a red there.
They weren't playing rugby.

Doesn't change my point.

by quinsforever Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:15 pm

those videos are horrific.

show that goode wasnt faking the bang to his head and knockout though - his arms were classic "fencing response"

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:17 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

But this isn't football! 50/50 lol.

Goode or any defender was always going to jump for that ball, why didn't Payne Jump? oh thats right he wasn't close enough to jump yet ran into the player already in the air as he was reckless and wasn't looking. ~~He didn't think Goode was going to get to the ball, and was attempting a catch at full speed in order to break the defence.~~

~~ok, so because players nearly always do a certain thing, we penalise players for failing to make predictions (read minds).~~

How is Goode btw?

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:20 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
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.

That is a joke right?
Surely you're not serious.

Of course I am.

You're just jealous because Moore is paid to write biased rubbish, and you're not, despite doing an even better job...

non of this will change the result.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:24 pm

clivemcl wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
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.

He can avoid putting himself in that position by looking where he's going. While Payne clearly wasn't trying to take Goode out in the air, you could argue that he was negligent simply by virtue of the fact he wasn't looking where he was running - particularly at a time when he could reasonably have expected a guy to be challenging for the ball in the air. I think the red card was harsh, but I don't see how "he didn't see Goode" is a valid excuse.

Was Goode? Truth is - players do not consider other players when catching - its a mark of talent and commitments to stay focused on the ball alone.

Not looking where you are running? It happens all the time in all aspects of the game. The only problem this time was that whilst Payne was unaware, Goode chose to jump in front of him.

My argument is still this in summary.

Jumping creates dangerous possibilities. Accidents will happen. Red cards won't stop future accidents. There is no law to say you have to predict players might jump.

But there is a law to say that you can't take players out in the air. Nowhere in that law is intent mentioned.

I suspect Goode was far more aware of the players around him than Payne was. His body position suggests that he was preparing to be smashed. Just as you say Payne can't predict whether Goode will jump, how can Goode predict that Payne will take his feet away?

There are a great many aspects of rugby that create 'dangerous possibilities'. Jumping is least among them. I really don't see the benefit of outlawing jumping. What would become of lineouts, for a start?

by Portnoy's Complaint Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:25 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

But this isn't football! 50/50 lol.

Goode or any defender was always going to jump for that ball, why didn't Payne Jump? ~~oh thats right he wasn't close enough to jump yet ran into the player already in the air as he was reckless and wasn't looking.~~ He didn't think Goode was going to get to the ball, and was attempting a catch at full speed in order to break the defence.

ok, so because players nearly always do a certain thing, we penalise players for failing to make predictions (read minds).

So he's reckless then. Payne had no care even for his own safety.
If he's portended correctly, he'd be a hero.
He portended wrongly and he lost the game for his side. Single-handedly.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:29 pm

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
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.

He can avoid putting himself in that position by looking where he's going. While Payne clearly wasn't trying to take Goode out in the air, you could argue that he was negligent simply by virtue of the fact he wasn't looking where he was running - particularly at a time when he could reasonably have expected a guy to be challenging for the ball in the air. I think the red card was harsh, but I don't see how "he didn't see Goode" is a valid excuse.

Was Goode? Truth is - players do not consider other players when catching - its a mark of talent and commitments to stay focused on the ball alone.

Not looking where you are running? It happens all the time in all aspects of the game. The only problem this time was that whilst Payne was unaware, Goode chose to jump in front of him.

My argument is still this in summary.

Jumping creates dangerous possibilities. Accidents will happen. Red cards won't stop future accidents. There is no law to say you have to predict players might jump.

But there is a law to say that you can't take players out in the air. Nowhere in that law is intent mentioned.

I suspect Goode was far more aware of the players around him than Payne was. His body position suggests that he was preparing to be smashed. Just as you say Payne can't predict whether Goode will jump, how can Goode predict that Payne will take his feet away?

There are a great many aspects of rugby that create 'dangerous possibilities'. Jumping is least among them. I really don't see the benefit of outlawing jumping. What would become of lineouts, for a start?

There is no speed involved in lineouts - static up down jumps. Truth is, there have been many many many horrific clashes that could have lead to injury in instances where both players jumped. Its just a serious injury waiting to happen. And for all on here who are so concerned with what might have happened to Goode, there is very little concern for the risk of injury as a result of jumping on the whole.

Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:30 pm

quinsforever wrote:those videos are horrific.

show that goode wasnt faking the bang to his head and knockout though - his arms were classic "fencing response"

True Quins, the fencing response is a classic sign and how I knew immediately Goode was out for the count.

As for the rest, I stand by what I've said, Payne will not receive a ban and Garces will (indirectly as is always the case) be told that he made the wrong decision as with Barnes in the Ireland v Wales game changing decision.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:31 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Cyril wrote:clive, can you teach me how to read minds too? That's an incredible talent

Thats my point, You expect Payne to read the mind of Goode? You can see in the image how late in the run Payne realised Goode was going aerial. It was 50/50 as they would say in football, until Goode left the ground leaving Payne with little he could do.

Some suggest Payne should have 'known' Goode was going to jump. Its not a law to predict jumpers in front of you.

But this isn't football! 50/50 lol.

Goode or any defender was always going to jump for that ball, why didn't Payne Jump? ~~oh thats right he wasn't close enough to jump yet ran into the player already in the air as he was reckless and wasn't looking.~~ He didn't think Goode was going to get to the ball, and was attempting a catch at full speed in order to break the defence.

ok, so because players nearly always do a certain thing, we penalise players for failing to make predictions (read minds).

So he's reckless then. Payne had no care even for his own safety.
If he's portended correctly, he'd be a hero.
He portended wrongly and he lost the game for his side. Single-handedly.

At least we can agree the result was nothing to do with Saracens abilities. Wink

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:35 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:36 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:39 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:40 pm

Jimpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

Try a counter argument

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:44 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yes it works well ~~in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages~~...

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:45 pm

Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yes it works well ~~in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages~~...

Well reasoned... clever cookie

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:46 pm

What isn't clever is wanting to ban jumping in Rugby!

Erm

At least I didn't use a big Type Face Laugh

by clivemcl Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:47 pm

Scrumpy wrote:What isn't clever is wanting to ban jumping in Rugby!

You are getting the hang of it now. Now you just have to clarify your stance with some points.

I'll get a debate out of you yet...

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:48 pm

HA HA HA HAAAA

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:49 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

Try a counter argument

I already have done, perhaps you should try this instead:

http://myblindsight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/coping-with-blindness.html

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:51 pm

Jimpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

Jimpy you're starting to grow on me but believe me Ulster fans could write many volumes of books on dealing with loss. We have had more experience of it over the years than I care to remember. Dealing with being beaten by refereeing error in judgement is somewhat different and I bet you'll find no books on it.

Apart maybe one penned by Brian Moore Wink

by whocares Mon 07 Apr 2014, 3:51 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject Wink

by Jimpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:00 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

Jimpy you're starting to grow on me but believe me Ulster fans could write many volumes of books on dealing with loss. We have had more experience of it over the years than I care to remember. Dealing with being beaten by refereeing error in judgement is somewhat different and I bet you'll find no books on it.

Apart maybe one penned by Brian Moore

Hey, Ulster havent got the monopoly on being on the rough end of refereeing decisions you know. Every time Wales loose, the referee was at fault.

by VinceWLB Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:02 pm

whocares wrote:
so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject

It shows it wasn't treated the same in other similar clashes and that ultimately Garces got it wrong.

The more i see it the more i think it's not even a penalty like in those other clashes, Payne didn't get his timing wrong actually and would have taken that ball but Goode jumped ahead of him and could easily have ko'ed Payne like in the video i posted, that he felt on his shoulder and get ko'ed himself shouldn't even be discussed.

One of the softest red card you will ever see.

by **rodders** Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:03 pm

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck - just because said duck thinks its a swan amounts to no more than a red herring if you ask me.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:04 pm

Jimpy wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

Try this old chap:

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/emotionalhealth/Pages/Dealingwithloss.aspx

Jimpy you're starting to grow on me but believe me Ulster fans could write many volumes of books on dealing with loss. We have had more experience of it over the years than I care to remember. Dealing with being beaten by refereeing error in judgement is somewhat different and I bet you'll find no books on it.

Apart maybe one penned by Brian Moore

Hey, Ulster havent got the monopoly on being on the rough end of refereeing decisions you know. Every time Wales loose, the referee was at fault.

Now don't pick on Wales, it's surely only Scarlets fans that claim that.

by Pete330v2 Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:05 pm

VinceWLB wrote:
whocares wrote:
so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject

It shows it wasn't treated the same in other similar clashes and that ultimately Garces got it wrong.

The more i see it the more i think it's not even a penalty like in those other clashes, Payne didn't get his timing wrong actually and would have taken that ball but Goode jumped ahead of him and could easily have ko'ed Payne like in the video i posted, that he felt on his shoulder and get ko'ed himself shouldn't even be discussed.

One of the softest red card you will ever see.

This is true and if Goode had gotten straight up and Jared was out of it I wonder what Garces the Farce would have decided.

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:11 pm

Who'd be a Ref these days.

Our once great game is getting more like soccer everyday, the Refs decision is final and in this case he got it bang on the money.

by MrsP Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:17 pm

rodders wrote:If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck - just because said duck thinks its a swan amounts to no more than a red herring if you ask me.

Come off if Rodders! Poor Rob was still on the bench when this incident occured! Bit unfair to blame him!

by Guest Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:18 pm

whocares wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Why wait until somebody is paralysed and has their life ruined and another player riddled with guilt before we make the best decisions for ensuring safety???

Or we could just stick to the rule of not taking the player out in the air, as in most cases it seems to work!

This is a clear case of the occasion getting to the player and him losing his head.

Yea worked well in the countless videos posted throughout these 9 pages...

so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject

Of course it is. What other refs do help set a precedent on how letter of the law, and spirit of the law, is applied, or not. There is an argument here about whether intent should be a factor in determining an application of the law. In this case it can be argued intent is not a factor according to the letter of the law, yet ref's make value judgements all the time with similar incidents. The clips shown demonstrate that not all refs act according to the letter of the law, but do appear to take intent into consideration. The result being a yellow card, or no card at all. What actions did the IRB take against these maverick ref's? None. Why? Because the ref's understand the spirit of the law.
Garces did not need to gave Payne a red card. It was an accident. Payne could have, and should have been issued no more than a yellow, which is in keeping with precedent set by other of his colleague's. Nobody would have complained in this particular instance.
Garces got it wrong.

by jelly Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:19 pm

I think the poll has it about right, it was reckless play that endangered another player and deserved a card. My personal view was that a red card was right but I would have understood if he had given a yellow as I don't think it was intentional but it was dangerous.

In the ref's defence, he certainly didn't rush his decision. He took all the time he had available to him as a result of Goode being treated and he used it to make the call he thought was most appropriate.

by whocares Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:30 pm

Munchkin wrote:

so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject

Of course it is. What other refs do help set a precedent on how letter of the law, and spirit of the law, is applied, or not. There is an argument here about whether intent should be a factor in determining an application of the law. In this case it can be argued intent is not a factor according to the letter of the law, yet ref's make value judgements all the time with similar incidents. The clips shown demonstrate that not all refs act according to the letter of the law, but do appear to take intent into consideration. The result being a yellow card, or no card at all. What actions did the IRB take against these maverick ref's? None. Why? Because the ref's understand the spirit of the law.
Garces did not need to gave Payne a red card. It was an accident. Payne could have, and should have been issued no more than a yellow, which is in keeping with precedent set by other of his colleague's. Nobody would have complained in this particular instance.
Garces got it wrong.

interesting view which brings out some cultural differences (at least with us frogs).

the IRB took no action against those maverick refs because 1) no one complained and 2) they are lazy and know too well that the application of their law is open to interpretation.
I am strongly against that nonsense of "spirit of the law" . if a law is written it is for a good reason (none of this english common law rubbish acting on precedents). if it needs to be clarified/changed so be it but amendments have to be in writting. Garces is french so he does not act on precedent Smile

dura lex, sed lex...

by GunsGerms Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:31 pm

Just dont think an injury should influence a decision yet it has in this case. Hopefully, it doesnt set a precident for players feigning injury which happens after every tackle in football.

It was clear that Payne didnt see Goode until the last second when it was too late otherwise he wouldnt have run face first into a pair of dangling legs. He also doesnt wrap his arms around Goode which you would if you wanted to take someone out in the air.

Based on that and the fact that there are any number of similar incidents that havent even been carded I cant understand how this was a red card. Doesnt make any sense at all and it ruined the match.

by Guest Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:37 pm

whocares wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

so because in some cases the ref didnt award a penalty and/or a card, it is fine? what kind of argument is that? either you are discussing the rules and how they are applied or you are not. what other refs decided is not relevant here. if you want to make a case for changing the rules, fine, please clarify which one and how. then we can maybe move on to another less "Ulstercentric" subject

Of course it is. What other refs do help set a precedent on how letter of the law, and spirit of the law, is applied, or not. There is an argument here about whether intent should be a factor in determining an application of the law. In this case it can be argued intent is not a factor according to the letter of the law, yet ref's make value judgements all the time with similar incidents. The clips shown demonstrate that not all refs act according to the letter of the law, but do appear to take intent into consideration. The result being a yellow card, or no card at all. What actions did the IRB take against these maverick ref's? None. Why? Because the ref's understand the spirit of the law.
Garces did not need to gave Payne a red card. It was an accident. Payne could have, and should have been issued no more than a yellow, which is in keeping with precedent set by other of his colleague's. Nobody would have complained in this particular instance.
Garces got it wrong.

interesting view which brings out some cultural differences (at least with us frogs).

the IRB took no action against those maverick refs because 1) no one complained and 2) they are lazy and know too well that the application of their law is open to interpretation.
I am strongly against that nonsense of "spirit of the law" . if a law is written it is for a good reason (none of this english common law rubbish acting on precedents). if it needs to be clarified/changed so be it but amendments have to be in writting. Garces is french so he does not act on precedent
dura lex, sed lex...

The application of the law is open to interpretation. Absolutely, and that's exactly where the spirit of the law becomes active. Without the spirit of the law, the law is dead. Nonsense?

by Scrumpy Mon 07 Apr 2014, 4:41 pm

GunsGerms wrote:Just dont think an injury should influence a decision yet it has in this case. Hopefully, it doesnt set a precident for players feigning injury which happens after every tackle in football.

It was clear that Payne didnt see Goode until the last second when it was too late otherwise he wouldnt have run face first into a pair of dangling legs. He also doesnt wrap his arms around Goode which you would if you wanted to take someone out in the air.

Based on that and the fact that there are any number of similar incidents that havent even been carded I cant understand how this was a red card. Doesnt make any sense at all and it ruined the match.

It was a Red ~~deal with it~~ suck it up, so are you saying that in the early minutes of a game no player should be sent off just in case it ruins the game?

What Payne did was wrong, whether he meant it or not doesn't come into it as the only person who knows is Payne himself, the Ref had to make a judgement and imo and many others he made the right call in this case as Payne was out of control.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?