The danger of jumping

First topic message reminder :

Lets leave the match thread and talk about this particular scenario by itself.

Here's my take on it.

In days gone by, everybody stayed on the ground to catch balls.


Then one day somebody decided to jump to make catches - here's the benefits.

- You get the ball before the opposition player who is still on the ground
- (and this came later) IF they tackle you, they are penalised.

So, the tackle in the air rule was created because obviously it can lead to very serious injury.

But, why didn't they just outlaw jumping instead? Does that sound boring? Maybe, but its safe. We still aren't allowed to jump tackles as far as I know - for similar reasons.

The chasing team -  will want to run as fast as they can to challange for the kicked ball. Whilst running fast, they need to both watch the ball, and keep an eye on who they will be challenging for the ball.
The defending team - doesn't have to run too fast, more time, and the protection of the rules if they are in the air.

What's the problem?

If the defending team player does not jump, and the attacking player does - we get boots, hip, knees in the face.
If the attacking player does not jump, but the defender does - the defender gets taken out by the other players upper body.


In this particular case, I simply cannot see why Jared Payne who is running full tilt in order to get underneath the ball can be expected to be responsible for a player who left the ground when he was only meters away.

a) he does not HAVE TO jump
b) he did not have enough time to react
c) he didn't see Goode had jumped anyway
d) he was completely focused on catching a ball
e) a player MUST accept the risk involved if they jump into the air in a contact sport



Ultimately, what's the message? What does the IRB want to say to players in these situations?

a) don't try to get under a ball?
b) ALWAYS jump, the other guy probably will
c) don't run so fast when you are chasing kicks

A few other ponderings -
a) if Payne had got injured, would he still have seen red
b) If Goode hadn't been injured would he have seen red


Discuss

Scrumpy wrote: 

It was a Red deal with it, 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.

It shouldnt have been a red based on precident, you deal with it. Haha

Scrumpy, is there any need for the 'deal with it' part of that sentence? Comes across as confrontational rather than discussing or debating. This thread has gone along nicely (ish) and I'd like it to stay that way please.

I've changed it to 'Suck it up then!'

It didn't help that Payne had a smug look and a little smile on his face as the Sarries players pushed him around after the incident.

Scrumpy wrote:I've changed it to 'Suck it up then!'

Did you have to use a thesaurus?

Do you really want to play that game with me Scrumpy. I've asked you nicely as a fellow poster not to post in a manner that could be construed as confrontational. I can put on my moderator hat if you really want me to.

What game Oz?

Some people need to man up and accept the Refs decision, like many of us have had to do over the years whilst playing the game, he didn't rush into it and had time to replay it though in his mind before making the tough (correct) call.

Does anyone have any examples of mid air incidents such as this that were clearly unintentional that were sanctioned by a red card? If there are any youtube clips etc. Id be interested in seeing them.

Scrumpy wrote:

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.
 

  

Many others?

25 at present. About a third of those surveyed.

Scrumpy wrote:What game Oz?

Some people need to man up and accept the Refs decision, like many of us have had to do over the years whilst playing the game, he didn't rush into it and had time to replay it though in his mind before making the tough (correct) call.

Man up? You do realise that refs dont always get it right dont you? Do you have any examples of similar incidents that resulted in red cards?

Scrumpy

Nobody needs to 'man up' it's a debating forum and people are allowed to disagree with the decision.  My comment to you is not about whether the ref was right or wrong, it was about your manner of posting which I've already had one report about today.  Your options are simple, heed my friendly advice and moderate your tone or continue in the manner you are.  I am sure a person of your intellect can work out the possible consequences of your decision.

 



Respect the Refs decision, he got it right at the end of the day and nothing will change my mind, I really wonder if anyone hear has actually played the game sometimes?

Scrumpy wrote: 

Respect the Refs decision, he got it right at the end of the day and nothing will change my mind, I really wonder if anyone hear has actually played the game sometimes?

Nobody here was playing on Saturday so we dont have to "respect" the referees decision. Consistency in officiating is important. Generally incidents like this are sanctioned with a penalty or a yellow. Precident suggests you are completely wrong and have dug yourself into a hole you cant get out of.

Why, because they disagree with you? This isn't about respecting the referees decision. It's a forum for discussion and the application of the laws of the game are most definitely a discussion point. If you disagree and don't want to discuss this topic, by continue posting on the thread. Nobody is seeking to force you to change your mind, but similarly, others will not be forced to change theirs by you.

Well I've only played once but I have no idea why that makes my opinion any less valid.

We can respect the decision and still discuss if it was correct or not.

You would seem to be in the minority of posters on here who felt a Red Card was correct and yet you act like it was the only outcome possible.

Munchkin wrote:

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?

 
too much interpretation of the law kill the law as well... Garces gave a red card as the law let him do that. at the end of the day, what yall really want is to amend the law so that in the event of so-called accidental collision the referee cannot chose to give a red card.

GunsGerms wrote:we dont have to "respect" the referees decision.

 
I had noticed!
 
The lack of respect shown towards Refs is becoming a serious issue for our game.

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:we dont have to "respect" the referees decision.

 
I had noticed!
 
The lack of respect shown towards Refs is becoming a serious issue for our game.

Its only an issue if players or management disrespect the referees. Fans can debate whatever decision they like. We dont live in a world where you have to accept everything even if it appears unfair. If thats what you are after then you should consider moving to North Korea. I think you'd like it there.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:we dont have to "respect" the referees decision.

 
I had noticed!
 
The lack of respect shown towards Refs is becoming a serious issue for our game.

Its only an issue if players or management disrespect the referees. Fans can debate whatever decision they like. We dont live in a world where you have to accept everything even if it appears unfair. If thats what you are after then you should consider moving to North Korea. I think you'd like it there.

 
Fans!
 
I haven't seen anyone here condem Payne for what his actions did or show concern towards Goode, All I've seen is that the Ref ruined a game of rugby and that he made the wrong call, which is open to debate unless you use a certain tone it seems.

oh and the wrong team won!

If you have not seen anyone express concern for Goode then you need to read more carefully.

All 400+ comments of this nonsense, hmm?

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:we dont have to "respect" the referees decision.

 
I had noticed!
 
The lack of respect shown towards Refs is becoming a serious issue for our game.

Its only an issue if players or management disrespect the referees. Fans can debate whatever decision they like. We dont live in a world where you have to accept everything even if it appears unfair. If thats what you are after then you should consider moving to North Korea. I think you'd like it there.

 
Fans!
 
I haven't seen anyone here condem Payne for what his actions did or show concern towards Goode, All I've seen is that the Ref ruined a game of rugby and that he made the wrong call, which is open to debate unless you use a certain tone it seems.

oh and the wrong team won!

So you choose to ignore the fans here who expressed how happy they were that Goode was OK and also the fact that Jared Payne went to the Sarries dugout to check how Goode was doing and apologise to him during the match? You simply ignored all that did you?

I think pretty much everyone unanimously showed concern for Goode at the time. That said I dont believe an injury should infulence refs decisions. What next players getting red cards for legitimate tackles if the player tackled gets injured?

IRB laws are open to interpretation and therefore as an observer of the game precident dictates whether fans agree with refereeing decisions. Intent being another factor. Accordingly I see no reason why Ulster fans shouldnt feel a little hard done by.

Injuries shouldn't affect decisions in the game but consequences do. Goode was deemed to land in a way that is considered dangerous. If it had been a lift-and-drop tackle it would have been red. Garces decided that Payne was culpable and due to how Goode landed, deemed it a red. The injury is irrelevant and doesn't necessarily have an impact in this case. People are assuming it did because they disagree with the decision and it strengthen's their argument. But it's suggesting Garces only made the decision based on the injury is no different that people saying Payne knew what he was doing.

I look forward to reading the Discipline Panel report (ERC do publish them don't they?)

Another one, yellow (and thats after 74 minutes of play...):

MrsP wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

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.
 

  

Many others?

25 at present. About a third of those surveyed.

I haven't voted at all.

New post by whocares Today at 5:11 pm

"too much interpretation of the law kill the law as well... Garces gave a red card as the law let him do that. at the end of the day, what yall really want is to amend the law so that in the event of so-called accidental collision the referee cannot chose to give a red card."

Too much interpretation? A precedent has been set. Garces has acted contrary to that precedent. It has nothing to do with 'too much interpretation'.

No, we don't want to amend the law. So far, from all matches I have witnessed, the ref's have acted according to the spirit of the law, and on which that particular law was founded. The exception being Garces....

Anyone know what happened to peaches geldof? RIP

GunsGerms wrote:Anyone  know what happened to peaches geldof? RIP

That's very sad news. Devastating for the family. Hopefully the media will allow them some space to grieve.

Terrible. Two young children have lost their mother. Kind of puts the 10 pages of debate here into context.

Rest In Peace

Yeah it definately puts all our rantings today into perspective ladies and gents. Poor young girl must have been living in a very dark place. RIP

Eh... Is this heat magazine online?puts nothing in perspective tbh as this is a sports forum.

Anyhoo....having just seen the incident,it's just poor timing by Payne. Goode jumps and catches and JP runs into him. No real attempt to compete for the ball, just to tackle Goode once he caught it. Poor timing, yellow card. I guess the unfortunate way he landed influenced the refs call.

Breadvan wrote:Eh... Is this heat magazine online?puts nothing in perspective tbh as this is a sports forum.

Anyhoo....having just seen the incident,it's just poor timing by Payne. Goode jumps and catches and JP runs into him. No real attempt to compete for the ball, just to tackle Goode once he caught it. Poor timing, yellow card. I guess the unfortunate way he landed influenced the refs call.

Why would he compete with Goode for the ball, and where in the clips does it show Payne attempting to tackle Goode?

Noticed the poll for red has just shot up. Very mysterious   

Munchkin, it doesn't but I believe that's what he meant to do. My opinion is that Payne wasn't going to jump with Goode for the ball but tackle him when he landed. With Goode jumping forward and Payne running in so fast it resulted in said collision. A bit reckless but unfortunate.

Munchkin wrote:Noticed the poll for red has just shot up. Very mysterious   

Shot up indeed. Majority still say no red though. We can't all be ulster supporters... there only is like 10 of us I think.

Breadvan wrote:Munchkin, it doesn't but I believe that's what he meant to do. My opinion is that Payne wasn't going to jump with Goode for the ball but tackle him when he landed. With Goode jumping forward and Payne running in so fast it resulted in said collision. A bit reckless but unfortunate.

I think Payne was simply running to catch the ball, with no intention to jump, but there's also merit in what you say. Another theory I read on the ref's forum was that Payne intended to jump, but pulled short at the last second when he had just spotted Goode. Not sure about that one.

Intentional ? No.
dangerous and badly timed ? yes.
Worsened by Goode's full commitment to catching the ball regardless - bravery ?
Xavier Rush got a red card for a similar badly timed tackle a few years ago in heineken cup where he took Courtney lawes head off.
Under current refereeing protocols its red, but I feel where there is no intent to injure it should be yellow card offence where a player fully commits to a tackle but executes it badly.

clivemcl wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Noticed the poll for red has just shot up. Very mysterious   

Shot up indeed. Majority still say no red though. We can't all be ulster supporters... there only is like 10 of us I think.

No, can't all be Ulster supporters. Has to mean that there is other reasonable, fair minded, considerate, wise and intelligent posters on here, besides us Ulster folk   

Red card. Fact.

(ooh that felt good, actually using the word 'fact' correctly)

Given that both Payne AND Goode are moving, at what point would Payne have had to stop/change direction to avoid the collision? Goode is going to continue to move if he is airborne so all the "stopping" has to be done by Payne. There was no time for that.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Red card. Fact.

(ooh that felt good, actually using the word 'fact' correctly)

Well......you spelt it correctly..... Well done   

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Red card. Fact.

(ooh that felt good, actually using the word 'fact' correctly)

Its true. I saw it too. The card the ref was holding was definitely red.

Guys I want to say, there is an off-topic forum where things like Peaches Geldof can be discussed. I agree with the comments about perspective. Always sad to hear of someone dying young. That said, this isn't the best place on the site to discuss it.

I’ve gone full circle on this and more.

I was at the game and my gut instinct straight after the whistle blew was that Payne would be lucky to stay on. After watching the replays I thought yellow.

Was there intent? No. Did it ruin the game as a contest? Yes. These points however are irrelevant. The easy call would have been a yellow and I don’t think there would have been any major complaints from either side. It was however dangerous play and the ref had every right to show the red.

Don’t get me wrong, it hurts like hell right now wondering ‘what if’ but that’s rugby and sport in general for you. I’ve played on both sides of decisions like this one and as tough as they are to accept you have to move on.

The decision is most definitely a grey area though, clearly demonstrated by the continued debate. I can see both arguments and have been on both sides of them since Saturday evening. The ref however called it as he saw it and technically probably made the correct call.

I've watched it again. He got the red because Goode looked badly injured, not because of what he actually did. What he actually did was not see someone running towards the same spot until it was too late. Very harsh to send him off because of a complete accident. Ulster fans would be right to feel hard done by.

The fact that Saracens didn't actually end up playing very well makes you think Ulster would be in a home semi final but for a poor decision by the ref. And I think this was their last chance for a while with this team, since a few big players are leaving. But sometimes you get dealt a harsh hand in life. Oh well.

Disappointing, but at least it looked like Goode was actually ok. I think we can all agree on that being a good thing.

Definately Feckless. For everyone's sake we can be very glad that no-one was more seriously injured.

When you see how that young lad from the RL game has been affected it certainly makes us all very relieved that both Payne and Goode were both up and about by half time.

We I look at that RL tackle I actually do not see anything which would be considered foul play in RU but the lad still broke his neck and I am sure the players involved in that tackle will also be suffering although in a different way.

Payne got Red because his reckless action took Goode beyond the horizontal(which IMHO is why the ref said Goode's head hit), & we all know that IRB have said taking the player beyond the horizontal & not ensuring the safe return to ground is a red. If Goode not gone beyond the horizontal but landed on hips or arms, IMHO, it would have been Yellow. If Goode had landed on his feet then only a penalty. Lack ofIntent did not(& rightly so) come into the decision on the pitch

broadlandboy wrote:Payne got Red because his reckless action took Goode beyond the horizontal(which IMHO is why the ref said Goode's head hit), & we all know that IRB have said taking the player beyond the horizontal & not ensuring the safe return to ground is a red. If Goode not gone beyond the horizontal but  landed on hips or arms, IMHO, it would have been Yellow. If Goode had landed on his feet then only a penalty.  Lack ofIntent did not(& rightly so) come into the decision on the pitch

How in the name of god did Payne take Goode beyond the horizontal? Haveyou watched it? Can you work out the physics of what happened i.e. an accidental collision?

Oh why bother......some people will always see what they want to even if it's as ridiculous as what you just described.

Would Goode have gone beyond the horizontal without the accidental collision with Payne? As said intent didn't come into it. It was reckless of Payne,anyone who says that running flat out while looking up is not reckless have a different definition to alot of people. I haven't seen anyone say that Payne intended the outcome but that it was reckless.

The Talksport recording is up:

http://talksport.com/rugby-union/full-contact-sunday-april-6-14040786442

Wigglesworth is on in the first few minutes. He says he was behind Payne and could see he was watching the ball. He went on to say that if you find yourself colliding with a man in the air "you know you've done something wrong". He thinks no-one would have complained about a yellow but that a red was by no means a travesty. I doubt any Ulster fans will agree, but the scrum half felt the referee was affected by making such a big decision, and was inclined to give the home side more favourable decisions from that point.

John Taylor thought it was a red but faulted the referee for taking into account that Goode hit his head, which he said wasn't relevant.

Owens was on the line (from about the 58th minute). He said he hadn't see the incident and just outlined the law. Moore asked him whether a collision should be classed as a tackle. Owen said you don't have to classify it as a tackle, you could just call a collision dangerous or reckless play. Ultimately, he talked around the incident, so it wasn't especially illuminating.