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

Good call George, however this is Ulster we're all talking about. I'm sure the Ulster squad additions thread from 2 seasons ago is still running...  

Ha, I think that Ulster squad is now just a general Ulster chat thread. We are too lazy to create specific topic threads. I would also suggest this thread has run its course... but only until we hear about a citing. It will undoubtedly flare up agin!

True Portnoy! I changed the title and will repost the original post

Original Post wrote: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.

The idea that a player should 'just know' when somebody is likely to jump doesn't wash with me.

You cannot legislate to avoid accidents.

Very serious injury can still occur from jumping regardless of what the law would call foul play.

Serious injury can occur from the following:

- A player jumping above a static player who is facing the other way.
- When two players both jump and collide
- Two players can jump - getting the timings wrong and one may return to the ground in time to 'take out' the other still aerial player.


When a player is taken out in the air, we all get VERY upset. Why? The story goes that we are all very very concerned thats somebody could have had a life threatening injury.

If that is truly your concern. Lets have a discussion about how to fully and effectively eliminate the chance of a player landing on their head/neck.

Go.

clive wrote:You cannot legislate to avoid accidents.

Bugger.
That's a cracking way to restart a debate, clive.

I'd have a new law in 10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct which specifically states any activity in the field of play governing players' conduct - something along the lines of:

'It is the responsibility of all players to avoid the endangerment of other players by intent or recklessness, which causes or may cause personal injury to himself or another"

[ed] i.e. A 'duty of care' clause.

Sorry Ulster fans if you guys are hoping for some sort of vindication from Paynes hearing. With all the controversy around that decision the panel will definitely back up the ref with their decision. Even though I don't think he deserves one I would be shocked if he doesn't get a ban

clivemcl wrote:True Portnoy! I changed the title and will repost the original post

Original Post wrote: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.

The idea that a player should 'just know' when somebody is likely to jump doesn't wash with me.

You cannot legislate to avoid accidents.

Very serious injury can still occur from jumping regardless of what the law would call foul play.

Serious injury can occur from the following:

- A player jumping above a static player who is facing the other way.
- When two players both jump and collide
- Two players can jump - getting the timings wrong and one may return to the ground in time to 'take out' the other still aerial player.


When a player is taken out in the air, we all get VERY upset. Why? The story goes that we are all very very concerned thats somebody could have had a life threatening injury.

If that is truly your concern. Lets have a discussion about how to fully and effectively eliminate the chance of a player landing on their head/neck.

Go.

 
You can't eliminate the chance of it happening, rugby is inherently dangerous. Therefore, you cannot fully or effectively eliminate the possibility of it happening either - even if you 'ban' jumping, which is absolute rubbish.
 
What you can do, is mitigate the risk by disuading players from playing in a dangerous, reckless or stupid manner under threat of sanction. Like Payne did. like he was red carded for.
 
You'll be suggesting front row players wear HANS devices in the scrum next.

Rugby is a contact sport in the true sense of the word and players will put themselves at great risk for their team. It's something we do so often celebrate about our player, I don't know how many times I've heard BOD being heralded for putting his body on the line for club and country. If we took all risk from the sport it wouldn't be the game we adore so much. I mean everyone loves the big hits etc. Even Jimpy

Maybe the 1/2p way of tackling should be banned too.

As should Scrums.

Competing in the lineouts

in fact lets just play touch rugby and be done with it.

I would say most of the time the mods do let discussions grow - sometimes too much. It's a difficult balancing act for them.

I understand George Carlin wanting to close the thread because it's one stubborn poster not agreeing with another stubborn poster over this. Clivemcl for example is not going to change his stance on this ever. It's pretty futile to discuss it with him - why I gave up 100 posts ago.

Most interesting thing on this thread is the poll. I am sure it will intepreted in different ways too.

Red and Yellow being very close just tells you the difficult decision that Garces faced. It also tells you that most posters are in agreement that a card was warranted but the colour was highly debatable.

clivemcl wrote:
1) The idea that a player should 'just know' when somebody is likely to jump doesn't wash with me.

2) You cannot legislate to avoid accidents.

3) Very serious injury can still occur from jumping regardless of what the law would call foul play.

4) Serious injury can occur from the following:

a- A player jumping above a static player who is facing the other way.
b- When two players both jump and collide
c- Two players can jump - getting the timings wrong and one may return to the ground in time to 'take out' the other still aerial player.


5) When a player is taken out in the air, we all get VERY upset. Why? The story goes that we are all very very concerned thats somebody could have had a life threatening injury.

If that is truly your concern. Lets have a discussion about how to fully and effectively eliminate the chance of a player landing on their head/neck.

Go.

Ok, I'll bite. To deal with your points one at a time:

1) "just knowing when someone will jump" is making a specific argument out of a general point. You don't need to know when someone is going to jump to know that if you charge at full tilt into the area where the ball will land you are likely to run into someone in the air. If you are knowingly going into that situation (and it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that Payne could not have known that there would probably be a jumper there) and you don't exercise a duty of care, that's recklessness.

2) Actually, you can. You can't legislate away all accidents, but you can legislate away situations that are likely to cause an accident. That's why you're not allowed to collapse mauls or jump into a tackle, and it's why there's specific protection for the man in the air. If two guys are competing equally, whether both in the air or both on the ground, accidents will happen and I'd agree that you can't legislate them away and still have a game. When one player is more vulnerable than another, you can and should legislate to reduce the risk.

3) I think you are applying too much emotion to the words "foul play". The Foul Play law includes four categories of offence - Obstruction, Unfair Play, Repeated Infringements and Dangerous Play. "Intent" is only used three times in relation to Dangerous Play - twice in the section on scrums and in respect of late charging the kicker. It is not mentioned anywhere else - i.e. the law covers accidental (or reckless) dangerous play as well as intentional and - more importantly - it allows for identical sanctions if the referee sees fit.

4) a) Yes, and in this situation it would probably not be a penalty unless the static player does something to increase the risk to the jumper.
b) Yes, and in this situation both players are deemed to be equally vulnerable so one does not need additional protection from the other and vice versa as long as they are both going for the ball. That's where the "eyes on the ball" element becomes important. If one of them has eyes on the man and not the ball, he's deemed to be making a tackle on an aerial player.
c) This is essentially a variant on (b) - if the player who lands first was focused on the ball and wasn't recklessly increasing the risk for the other player it may not be an infringement. But it's a tricky one for the ref to judge.

5) I believe you will get more serious injuries if you ban jumping for the ball than if you enforce the rules as they are. Why? Because it will enable tacklers to time their runs to hit the catcher at maximum speed the moment they catch the ball. The timing gets easier because you only have to consider one factor (trajectory of the ball, instead of trajectory of ball and jumper), and the sanction for getting it wrong and hitting slightly early is likely to be a penalty rather than a card. That will lead to a lot of knee and ankle injuries as players set to catch a ball get clobbered by tacklers at full speed. It's unlikely to lead to as many head and neck injuries, but the overall injury rate would probably be higher.

Pete330v2 wrote:Rugby is a contact sport in the true sense of the word and players will put themselves at great risk for their team. It's something we do so often celebrate about our player, I don't know how many times I've heard BOD being heralded for putting his body on the line for club and country. If we took all risk from the sport it wouldn't be the game we adore so much. I mean everyone loves the big hits etc. Even Jimpy

Doesn't the statement 'putting his body on the line' imply its his risk to take. Rightly admirable.

But when you put you body on the line by jumping in the air you are absolved of all risk. But thats the point - it is risky. Injuries will happen. Just the same as BOD may well injure himself while putting his body on the line in various other admirable ways.

Here, whilst I have no objections to the thread continuing, I'm going to have to call it a day. I got very little work done yesterday!

Very valid and well written response Poorfour, but sorry I can't afford the time to continue!

 

clivemcl wrote:Here, whilst I have no objections to the thread continuing, I'm going to have to call it a day. I got very little work done yesterday!

Very valid and well written response Poorfour, but sorry I can't afford the time to continue!

 
You mean your fundamentally flawed opinion/argument has been well and truly torpedoed and exposed for the (expletive) it is by a sensible, cognitive and logical response that not even you can think of an answer to, and you've decided to quit whilst you can still climb out of the hole you dug, albeit by using a very long ladder?

clivemcl wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Rugby is a contact sport in the true sense of the word and players will put themselves at great risk for their team. It's something we do so often celebrate about our player, I don't know how many times I've heard BOD being heralded for putting his body on the line for club and country. If we took all risk from the sport it wouldn't be the game we adore so much. I mean everyone loves the big hits etc. Even Jimpy

Doesn't the statement 'putting his body on the line' imply its his risk to take. Rightly admirable.

But when you put you body on the line by jumping in the air you are absolved of all risk. But thats the point - it is risky. Injuries will happen. Just the same as BOD may well injure himself while putting his body on the line in various other admirable ways.

This'll probably have to be my last post as well, but I think the bold text is too much of an exaggeration. No, you're not. By jumping in the air you are taking on additional risks (e.g. the risk of landing badly). The Laws do not protect you from these. What they do protect you from is another player introducing even more risk by making contact while you are in the air.

1) "just knowing when someone will jump" is making a specific argument out of a general point. You don't need to know when someone is going to jump to know that if you charge at full tilt into the area where the ball will land you are likely to run into someone in the air. If you are knowingly going into that situation (and it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that Payne could not have known that there would probably be a jumper there) and you don't exercise a duty of care, that's recklessness.

Personally I believe you have every right to charge at full tilt to win the ball, if you cannot then the kick-chase game part of the sport is gone. Nobody can say whether Payne knew that Goode was going to launch himself at his head but then again nobody can say that he did, apart from the man himself. Is it not also up to a jumper to excercise a duty of care in not lauching himself skyward towards a player who is running onto the ball.

None of us can say what either player was thinking but I know Payne didn't want someones hips ramming him in his face and Goode didn't want to upend himself and land on his head. I dope it doesn't change Payne's kick-chase game or Goode's aerial tactics. On a different day there would have been a collision and Goode would have won the ball and fell to the floor, landing correctly and laying it back. It occurs all the time and it a world away from a spear tackle. If you purposely ram a players head into the ground then it's off with you. If a collision causes someones head into the turf then it's a tough time for the ref. I do think the bar has been set now and we'll see more action taken for collisions unfortunately.

Pete330v2 wrote:1) "just knowing when someone will jump" is making a specific argument out of a general point. You don't need to know when someone is going to jump to know that if you charge at full tilt into the area where the ball will land you are likely to run into someone in the air. If you are knowingly going into that situation (and it's disingenuous in the extreme to claim that Payne could not have known that there would probably be a jumper there) and you don't exercise a duty of care, that's recklessness.

Personally I believe you have every right to charge at full tilt to win the ball, if you cannot then the kick-chase game part of the sport is gone. Nobody can say whether Payne knew that Goode was going to launch himself at his head but then again nobody can say that he did, apart from the man himself. Is it not also up to a jumper to excercise a duty of care in not lauching himself skyward towards a player who is running onto the ball.

None of us can say what either player was thinking but I know Payne didn't want someones hips ramming him in his face and Goode didn't want to upend himself and land on his head. I dope it doesn't change Payne's kick-chase game or Goode's aerial tactics. On a different day there would have been a collision and Goode would have won the ball and fell to the floor, landing correctly and laying it back. It occurs all the time and it a world away from a spear tackle. If you purposely ram a players head into the ground then it's off with you. If a collision causes someones head into the turf then it's a tough time for the ref. I do think the bar has been set now and we'll see more action taken for collisions unfortunately.

I spotted the Freudian slip in the second sentence of the last paragraph.... do i win £5?

Can anyone explain to me why, in all the other cases of players colliding when one was in the air and one was on the ground and only a penalty or a scrum was awarded, there was never a citing?

If these were all RCs according to the IRB why were none of them referred?

Pete. You're entitled to your beliefs but the laws of rugby as currently written are clear. The man in the air gets extra protection. Intent is not considered. If you make contact with man in the air you are liable to a penalty and more if the ref judges that your actions were dangerous.

Yes, you are entitled to run full tilt for the ball, but if you do so and make contact with a player in the air then you are liable to get carded and that's all there is to it.

Restating what you believe won't change that. If you think things should be different, it'd be more constructive to set out what you'd change and why, like Clive has tried to do.

MrsP wrote:Can anyone explain to me why, in all the other cases of players colliding when one was in the air and one was on the ground and only a penalty or a scrum was awarded, there was never a citing?

If these were all RCs according to the IRB why were none of them referred?

Because they weren't RCs. I am not sure what specific incidents you're referring to but the laws are clear. Tackle, tap, push or pull the man in the air and it's a penalty, and the referee is asked to consider whether a more severe sanction is warranted, generally based on how dangerous the offending players' actions were, regardless of intent. In Payne's case, I assume that Garces was considering the speed of his run and the lack of any real attempt to avoid a contact as reckless.

Poorfour wrote:Pete. You're entitled to your beliefs but the laws of rugby as currently written are clear. The man in the air gets extra protection. Intent is not considered. If you make contact with man in the air you are liable to a penalty and more if the ref judges that your actions were dangerous.

Yes, you are entitled to run full tilt for the ball, but if you do so and make contact with a player in the air then you are liable to get carded and that's all there is to it.

Restating what you believe won't change that. If you think things should be different, it'd be more constructive to set out what you'd change and why, like Clive has tried to do.

Indeed we are all entitled to our opinions and who's to say who is correct. I have seen exactly the same kind of collisions occur time and time again usually resulting in little more than a penalty, sometimes nothing at all. Refereeing the injury is a kneejerk reaction IMO.
I simply believe it would be better if the officials were allowed to take their view of the intention into the equation and not simply leave it up to the laws of physics and resilience of players bodies. The fact that the collision (not tackle) in question here has raised so much debate it proof in itself of the ambiguity of the laws involved.

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.

Why was this case different?

Jimpy wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

MrsP wrote:Can anyone explain to me why, in all the other cases of players colliding when one was in the air and one was on the ground and only a penalty or a scrum was awarded, there was never a citing?

If these were all RCs according to the IRB why were none of them referred?

Because they weren't RCs. I am not sure what specific incidents you're referring to but the laws are clear. Tackle, tap, push or pull the man in the air and it's a penalty, and the referee is asked to consider whether a more severe sanction is warranted, generally based on how dangerous the offending players' actions were, regardless of intent. In Payne's case, I assume that Garces was considering the speed of his run and the lack of any real attempt to avoid a contact as reckless.

I think you'd have to be in some way retarded to argue against that, or to argue the legitimacy of Payne's actions.

Less of it jimpy, no need for such comments just because someone's opinion differs from yours. You aren't necessarily right. As I've stated the fact that this has raised such a debate proves the ambiguity of these cases and the refree's objectivity when this kind of thing happens which it will time and time again.

I will also refer to Rob Kearney's actions early on in the game against Toulon where he took to the air in ordre that he would make contact with a Toulon player in a penalty gaining attempt. Who's to say this wasn't on the mind of Goode when he went skyward and it all went a little wrong for him. I mean if we are to be mind readers as to Payne's intentions why can't I do a Derren Brown on Goode

MrsP wrote:

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.

Why was this case different?

Because refs bottle it in the face of "it ruins the game as entertainment". The attitude that was displayed by all the pundits following Warburton's red, even though it was a clear case of a technical red card, which was swiftly changed once it became apparant that Rolland had done exactly the right thing.

You get cited for red card offences. Therefore if you get banned it was a red card offence. If not banned then the red was at least enough (or overkill). I've never known a red to not get a ban.

If a stamp is enough for a ban, you should have been red carded. If a punch was enough for a ban then you should have been red carded. That's the system. Some may think you should only get yellow and a ban but that's changing the system (which is fine and a worthy discussion point). Another option is the red card where the player can be replaced after 10 min.

My point is that if the refs bottled it or got it wrong all those other times why were the incidents not referred to the citing panel?

They would have been clear to see and if they were so far from the IRB guidelines then surely at least one of them would have been picked up by the citing officer?

MrsP wrote:Can anyone explain to me why, in all the other cases of players colliding when one was in the air and one was on the ground and only a penalty or a scrum was awarded, there was never a citing?

If these were all RCs according to the IRB why were none of them referred?

Because of inconsistencies. That's the exact argument used by some posters following Warburton's red. Events differ, refs differ, none are identical. We know there are a lot of things that don't get cited that some people at least think they should. Why did Botha get banned for charging into a ruck without his arms when Burger didn't get cited against Ulster? And Muller who did the very same thing later in the game?

At the moment we can only speculate. I wait the report with interest because they usually have the refs report to explain their decision.

MrsP wrote:My point is that if the refs bottled it or got it wrong all those other times why were the incidents not referred to the citing panel?

They would have been clear to see and if they were so far from the IRB guidelines then surely at least one of them would have been picked up by the citing officer?

Speaking of citing officers etc, when is Payne's citing to take place?

HammerofThunor wrote:Another option is the red card where the player can be replaced after 10 min.

By jeebus that is a genius idea. Punish the offender foremost rather than the team. Take a bow sir.

kingjohn7 wrote:Sorry Ulster fans if you guys are hoping for some sort of vindication from Paynes hearing. With all the controversy around that decision the panel will definitely back up the ref with their decision. Even though I don't think he deserves one I would be shocked if he doesn't get a ban

I don't think any seriously believe that the hearing will vindicate Payne. It could happen, but the overwhelming odds are against that happening. By issuing a red Garces has more or less taken that decision out of their hands. Payne will most likely be advised to admit guilt, and the board will most likely pass down a reduced ban. Maybe a couple of weeks. Actually I don't have an issue with that. It was within the remit of Garces to hand out a red. Just that he didn't have to issue red, and I believe was wrong to do so.

rodders wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Another option is the red card where the player can be replaced after 10 min.

By jeebus that is a genius idea. Punish the offender foremost rather than the team. Take a bow sir.

Not my idea.  The only thing 'against' it, is the idea that a team could sacrifice a replacement to 'take out' an opposition player deliberately. Which is pretty heavily suggestion. Any player/team for guilty of that should be permenantly banned from playing the game. Can't really see it.

In this case Ulster could have started with an academy player to deliberately take Goode out in the air, then after 10 mins bring Payne on to replace him...can anyone really see any team doing that?

But if it did get introduced I would have it used for every single deliberate dirty act. Stamp? Red. Punch? Red. Kick/trip? Red. EDIT: and keep yellow for technical/repeat infringements

But in the Warburton case there had been a specific edict from the IRB about Tip Tackles so there was a change in the handling of those type of incidents asked for by the IRB

There was no change in the recommendations from the IRB in handling collisions that I am aware of.

Pete330v2 wrote:

MrsP wrote:My point is that if the refs bottled it or got it wrong all those other times why were the incidents not referred to the citing panel?

They would have been clear to see and if they were so far from the IRB guidelines then surely at least one of them would have been picked up by the citing officer?

Speaking of citing officers etc, when is Payne's citing to take place?

Tomorrow, Pete.

MrsP wrote:But in the Warburton case there had been a specific edict from the IRB about Tip Tackles so there was a change in the handling of those type of incidents asked for by the IRB

There was no change in the recommendations from the IRB in handling collisions that I am aware of.

Even after the recommendations changed people still weren't getting the same treatment Warburton got. In the world cup itself there was a similar tackle.

Do you remember if that other tip in the RWC was cited?

"At worst the action of Payne was reckless as he perhaps could have taken his eyes off the ball to see where his opponent was. But reckless, more often than not, is not equal to red. The salient point is that this was accidental. If you think it was premeditated or done by design, then the red card would be absolutely justified."
"I have looked at the incident again and again and, after careful consideration, feel a yellow card for a reckless challenge would have been a far better outcome in the micro sense, and for the game in general too."

The words of Mr Kaplan a ref who does like to court contraversy and obviously according to jimpy, retarded.

MrsP wrote:Do you remember if that other tip in the RWC was cited?

No idea, I never bothered looking at it as it was irrelevant to the point at the time (as you say it was different because of the IRB recommendations so it was a clear cut-and-dry red. This case was a judgement call from the ref.

Quick search and it looks like there for 4 players cited for tip-tackles during the WC (including Warburton). Not sure if one of these was the referenced one but probably. However that was due to the IRB recommendations. You still could/should have red carded a player before those recommendation came out for a spear-tackle. It wasn't happening so they issued their statement.

Just because players aren't being red/yellow carded for similar events (or even cited as the citing officials are no different to the refs) doesn't mean they shouldn't been. It was 6 years between O'Driscoll being tipped and the recommendations for a red to come in.

And I'm not even saying it should have been a red, just that it's not clear that it shouldn't be (if that makes sense). As with many posters on here, the red seems harsh but not crazy.

Agree with Kaplan. 61% on the poll reckon it wasnt a red card too. A yellow would have been fine. I think its fairly conclusive at this stage.

I get you Hammer.

I do think it is so out of kilter with other cases and common sense that a red for an accidental collision could possibly be in the realms of "crazy".

HammerofThunor wrote:In this case Ulster could have started with an academy player to deliberately take Goode out in the air, then after 10 mins bring Payne on to replace him...can anyone really see any team doing that?

I could see Burger doing it for Sarries for sure....

MrsP wrote:I get you Hammer.

I do think it is so out of kilter with other cases and common sense that a red for an accidental collision could possibly be in the realms of "crazy".

That all depends on how accidental is defined and how it fits with reckless.

Rodders, Burger plays on the edge and I think what thinks of as fair game is over the line (for at least the IRB). But I don't think he's dirty. I've never seen him punch or lash out at anyone. But his tackles are high and often hits with his shoulder. But I doubt he would have any complaints if someone did it back to him, to him that's rugby...but deliberately taking out a player? No, can't see it.

That would be Calum Clark

Hammer it was a joke..... if Dean Richards was coach though.....

Rugby Fan wrote: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.

Thanks for that but i don't buy for a second that Nigel Owens didn't get to see the incident considering the buzz around it. Fair enough, but it pretty much confirms to me that he wouldn't have issued a red.

GunsGerms wrote:Agree with Kaplan. 61% on the poll reckon it wasnt a red card too. A yellow would have been fine. I think its fairly conclusive at this stage.

Great use of statistics there guns.

Alternatively, you could have said:-

- 57% of people don't believe it should have been a yellow

Of more relevance (imo) is that 82% (a significant majority) felt that a card, either red or yellow, was warranted. That suggests that the correct decision, in the view of those who voted, was that a card was justified.

Once you accept that premise, you then find that of those who thought a card was necessary 47.5% thought a red was correct, while 52.5% thought a yellow was right. That suggests that it was a very close call and so either decision would have been perfectly understandable. It certainly doesn't suggest that it is "fairly conclusive" that a yellow would have been fine.

jelly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Agree with Kaplan. 61% on the poll reckon it wasnt a red card too. A yellow would have been fine. I think its fairly conclusive at this stage.

Great use of statistics there guns.

Alternatively, you could have said:-

- 57% of people don't believe it should have been a yellow

Of more relevance (imo) is that 82% (a significant majority) felt that a card, either red or yellow, was warranted. That suggests that the correct decision, in the view of those who voted, was that a card was justified.

Once you accept that premise, you then find that of those who thought a card was necessary 47.5% thought a red was correct, while 52.5% thought a yellow was right. That suggests that it was a very close call and so either decision would have been perfectly understandable. It certainly doesn't suggest that it is "fairly conclusive" that  a yellow would have been fine.

  Well said.

jelly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Agree with Kaplan. 61% on the poll reckon it wasnt a red card too. A yellow would have been fine. I think its fairly conclusive at this stage.

Great use of statistics there guns.

Alternatively, you could have said:-

- 57% of people don't believe it should have been a yellow

Of more relevance (imo) is that 82% (a significant majority) felt that a card, either red or yellow, was warranted. That suggests that the correct decision, in the view of those who voted, was that a card was justified.

A yellow is very different to a red.

Could have been either a yellow or a red for me but personally saw it more as a yellow. I'd agree with the view above that the injury to Goode should have no bearing whatsoever to which colour card it should be. The ref did seem to be indicating that because he was injured it was red. Don't believe this is stated in the laws is it?

A poll of opinions on here is hardly indicative of what the wider rugby community think of such incidents and for that matter our differing opinions don't mean much either.
We will see what the citing panel has to say, hopefully containing more members capable of coming to a rational decision based on objective thought. What's the betting on ban length or absolvment, can we start the bidding?

Where's the insulting bit?

GunsGerms wrote: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.

injury shouldnt influence the colour of card decision.

but whether the player landed on his head or on somewhere not dangerous (feet, arse), IS important because it affects how dangerous the contact was. the refs didnt ask if the player was injured to the tmo, they asked whether his head struck the ground.

Pete330v2 wrote:"At worst the action of Payne was reckless as he perhaps could have taken his eyes off the ball to see where his opponent was. But reckless, more often than not, is not equal to red. The salient point is that this was accidental. If you think it was premeditated or done by design, then the red card would be absolutely justified."
"I have looked at the incident again and again and, after careful consideration, feel a yellow card for a reckless challenge would have been a far better outcome in the micro sense, and for the game in general too."

The words of Mr Kaplan a ref who does like to court contraversy and obviously according to jimpy, retarded.

fair enough opinion of Kaplan, but note that he does NOT say Garces made a mistake. "reckless, more often than not, does not equal red". well this would be one of those times when it did, in the eyes of the only people who mattered, the ref, TJ and tmo with 5 mins and plenty of video replays.

it is a racing certainty the decision will be upheld at the hearing and payne will receive a ban. why? because garces did not make a mistake. he had the leeway under the rules to award a red for that if he thought it necessary, and trust me it would have been an awful lot easier for him to just award a yellow on 4th minute. So he clearly felt he had absolutely no alternative.