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

VinceWLB wrote:
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.

http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/Code_of_Conduct.pdf

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MATCH OFFICIALS
3.1 A match official shall not make any public criticism in any medium (including via social networking websites) of any Club or any match official, team manager, Club official or Player or any other Person.

So I wouldn't expect any comment on the incident from Nigel Owens

PenfroPete wrote:
http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/Code_of_Conduct.pdf

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MATCH OFFICIALS
3.1 A match official shall not make any public criticism in any medium (including via social networking websites) of any Club or any match official, team manager, Club official or Player or any other Person.

So I wouldn't expect any comment on the incident from Nigel Owens

That's fair enough i guess.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

Did you even bother to read the whole post, or just selectively highlight one part of it even though it still doesn't support the argument you are desperately trying to make?

Haha. It was a fairly pointless post.

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. It was a fairly pointless post.

Thanks   

Guns, you could also say that 57% think that a yellow card was the wrong call

broadlandboy wrote:Guns, you could also say that 57% think that a yellow card was the wrong call

and what would that prove? Again another fairly pointless post. Nice one lads.

So your original post was pointless as well Guns.

Sorry Guns didn't see where your tongue was, so didn't realise that you were talking about your own post.

quinsforever wrote:

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.

He does go on to say that he disagrees with Garces' decision Quins so does claim that he was wrong. I just didn't quote that bit. Sorry.

It also reads as though he's taking into account that it was in the first 5 mins of a QF, which should have no baring on the decision.

I love the way there is a lot of verbatum quoting of laws in this thread. If officials were to follow the laws in that way we'd never see a good game of rugby. I mean under the laws most mauls would be illegal as would a lot of turnovers at the breakdown. What about being in front of the kicker at kick off which could be officiated by the TMO who could call play back etc etc etc etc. Quoting laws is fine but they need to be in context with the incident itself before they have any meaning.

HammerofThunor wrote:It also reads as though he's taking into account that it was in the first 5 mins of a QF, which should have no baring on the decision.

Absolutely Thunor but how many matches do you see foul play and other incidents treated with more caution in the opening minutes that become more serious in the views of a referee as the game goes on. It's human nature.....unless you're totally inhumane like Garces the Farce.

The refereeing decision is terrible for Ulster, especially since to get another crack next year, they're going to have to actually play for qualification to enter the competition...

And on the contrary, Garces is not a farce. I applaud him for having the moral courage to take a stand, and to make the right decision in an atmosphere he knew would be universally hostile.

Pete330v2 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:It also reads as though he's taking into account that it was in the first 5 mins of a QF, which should have no baring on the decision.

Absolutely Thunor but how many matches do you see foul play and other incidents treated with more caution in the opening minutes that become more serious in the views of a referee as the game goes on. It's human nature.....unless you're totally inhumane like Garces the Farce.

Humane doesn't come into it. If it's a red card offence it's a red card offence. The idea we should let players get away with more in the early stages is, to me, ridiculous. It's a sport first and foremost, and part of that is playing within the laws of the game. If the ref deems you stepped outside you take the consequences. Regardless of whether it ruins the entertainment (and, strangely, the contest).

That's a completely different argument to whther this specific case was a red. But injury shouldn't affect it, time shouldn't affect it, reputation shouldn't affect it. Just what happened. IMO.

Pete330v2 wrote:I love the way there is a lot of verbatum quoting of laws in this thread. If officials were to follow the laws in that way we'd never see a good game of rugby. I mean under the laws most mauls would be illegal as would a lot of turnovers at the breakdown. What about being in front of the kicker at kick off which could be officiated by the TMO who could call play back etc etc etc etc. Quoting laws is fine but they need to be in context with the incident itself before they have any meaning.

Rugby is the kind of game where in any given situation - especially at the breakdown - there are likely to be multiple infringements. As a ref, you are taught to look at the materiality of what's happening and balance fairness with letting the game flow. If Richie McCaw is offside at the breakdown but not impeding quick ball, you are encouraged to ignore it because it is not material. The best example of this is after the tackle. If the tackler hasn't released and the ball carrier is hanging onto the ball, who gets penalised? My preferred way to deal with that is in a sequence: has the tackler released? If no, is he competing for the ball or interfering with the release? If so, penalty to the attackers. If not, his involvement isn't material, so penalty to the defenders? Roman Poite follows this sort of thought process very consistently, if you want a good example.

However, the foul play laws are a bit different - as indicated by the fact that the TMO can be asked to go back and look at foul play and can alert the referee to foul play he hasn't seen.

Anyway, I don't think I have seen anyone quoting laws without being sensitive to the context of the incident. The laws are very clear anyway: they don't give a stuff about context in terms of judging whether an offence has happened: if there was a tackle, tap, push or pull on the man in the air, a penalty offense has been committed.

The only place context comes into it is in deciding whether any additional sanction is needed, and then only selectively. For dangerous play intent and outcome (in terms of whether an injury actually occurred) are not considered. What is considered is what the offending player did and whether it increased the risk of injury.

Dylan Hartley tackled a player who jumped to catch a ball when both players were already in position for a tackle. Hartley didn't increase the risk to Faletau, since Faletau would have hit him anyway. Penalty only.

Garces' judgement (which I happen to agree with) seems to have been (and I am doing my best to leave out intent on the part of both the player and the ref here) that in opting to run, at top speed, without looking or jumping, into an area where he could reasonably expect to come into contact with an airborne player, Payne increased the risk of injury to Goode (and to himself). That Goode was tipped beyond the horizontal was taken into account (we know that because it was discussed), I don't believe the injury was; it certainly didn't need to be as there was enough in the action itself. Doesn't matter that contact was accidental, doesn't matter whether Payne was expecting it or not, doesn't matter what his disciplinary record was.

p.s. it's "verbatim", by the way.

You may agree with Garces but it doesn't mean you're right any more than my disagreement make me right. Opinions are like.....well we know the end of that one.

"that in opting to run, at top speed, without looking or jumping"

What are players meant to do? Skillset basics dictate that you should keep your eye on the ball. For that matter players who keep their eye on the ball under pressure from opposition are hailed for their commitment. Take your eye off the ball to watch the player and you'll never make the catch. So now, using that logic we'll have players leaping into the air at oncoming opposition in order to get someone sent off.
The fact that Goode was tipped beyond the horizontal is, if we are being consistent with our thinking (in that both players saw eachother coming) every bit as much Goode's fault as the laws of physics. Payne, in my old fashioned opinion, had every right to run at the space into which the ball was going to land and had no requirement to jump.

Accidents happen, blame doesn't always have to be laid upon an individual

p.s. It's verbatim by the way - there fixed that for you, there's no need for the inaccurate punctuation.

Jimpy wrote:The refereeing decision is terrible for Ulster, especially since to get another crack next year, they're going to have to actually play for qualification to enter the competition...

And on the contrary, Garces is not a farce. I applaud him for having the moral courage to take a stand, and to make the right decision in an atmosphere he knew would be universally hostile.

Usual brainless comment from someone who obviously doesn't follow Ulster, or understand the effort they, and the other Provinces, put into actually competing for the top. The fact that the top three Provinces finish at, or near, the top consistently is proof enough. To here this nonsense from AP fans you would think AP teams never rest players.....

If you agree that Payne's action (accidental or not is irrelevant) took Goode beyond the horizontal then IRB directive is that it is Payne's responsibility for Goode to be returned to the ground safely. If Payne doesn't then it is a red card. How many tip tackles are intended(knowing they stand a large chance of being sent off)but become so due to the tackled player's action? It is still the tacklers responsibility to return the player to the ground safely.

broadlandboy wrote:If you agree that Payne's action (accidental or not is irrelevant) took Goode beyond the horizontal then IRB directive is that it is Payne's responsibility for Goode to be returned to the ground safely. If Payne doesn't then it is a red card. How many tip tackles are intended(knowing they stand a large chance of being sent off)but become so due to the tackled player's action? It is still the tacklers responsibility to return the player to the ground safely.

There was no tackle.

Never said there was a tackle,have always said Payne's action.

Payne was not responsible for Goode being off the ground.

The IRB's directive applies specifically to a player who was lifted.

broadlandboy wrote:Never said there was a tackle,have always said Payne's action.

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that you did. Just that to bring someone down safely, as in a tip tackle for example, a tackle, or at least some purpose to deliberately physically engage with the opponent, would first need to take place. In this particular instance there was no deliberate attempt at tackling, or to hold on to, the opposition player, obviously no awareness that a collision was about to happen, and no time to consider, or act, in the interest of safety for that opponent.

Munchkin wrote:

Jimpy wrote:The refereeing decision is terrible for Ulster, especially since to get another crack next year, they're going to have to actually play for qualification to enter the competition...

And on the contrary, Garces is not a farce. I applaud him for having the moral courage to take a stand, and to make the right decision in an atmosphere he knew would be universally hostile.

Usual brainless comment from someone who obviously doesn't follow Ulster, or understand the effort they, and the other Provinces, put into actually competing for the top. The fact that the top three Provinces finish at, or near, the top consistently is proof enough. To here this nonsense from AP fans you would think AP teams never rest players.....

They don't. They rotate

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Jimpy wrote:The refereeing decision is terrible for Ulster, especially since to get another crack next year, they're going to have to actually play for qualification to enter the competition...

And on the contrary, Garces is not a farce. I applaud him for having the moral courage to take a stand, and to make the right decision in an atmosphere he knew would be universally hostile.

Usual brainless comment from someone who obviously doesn't follow Ulster, or understand the effort they, and the other Provinces, put into actually competing for the top. The fact that the top three Provinces finish at, or near, the top consistently is proof enough. To here this nonsense from AP fans you would think AP teams never rest players.....

They don't. They rotate

Darn! There goes my argument   

I don't know how Payne was supposed to bring Goode to ground safely when he had been hammered in the face and was flat on his back. There will have to be a lot of soul searching done on the panel tomorrow because if they are to set the precedent that any player chasing a garryowen has to be very careful and watch out for anyone jumping then it will be a sad day for rugby union. I know I was always taught to keep my eyes on the ball and was berated if I attempted to pay attention to what the opposition was doing.

Payne did not effect a tackle and did not perpetrate a dangerous act IMO.

Pete, fine to keep your eyes on the ball if you are competing for the ball. However Payne was not competing so has a duty of care for other players. A question for those who have watched Payne more than myself,has Payne never jumped to compete for a high ball?

Payne WAS competing for the ball, actually if it wasn't for Goode he would have been exactly where he needed to be to catch the ball.

Where does the assumption come from that you need to jump to compete for the ball? If neither player had jumped, would neither of them have been competing for the ball?

Obviously if one player jumps, the one in the air will compete more effectively, but keeping feet on the ground doesn't rule the other player out of the competition.

Jimpy wrote:The refereeing decision is terrible for Ulster, especially since to get another crack next year, they're going to have to actually play for qualification to enter the competition...

When did you last look at a Pro 12 league table. I don't think we will be too worried.

You also sound like you are questioning If Ulster should/will be there on merit.

Knockout stages three years running. Topped group this year and last. Finalists the year before...

Good thing the european qualification changed so teams like that aren't guaranteed entry! ha!

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Where does the assumption come from that you need to jump to compete for the ball? If neither player had jumped, would neither of them have been competing for the ball?

Obviously if one player jumps, the one in the air will compete more effectively, but keeping feet on the ground doesn't rule the other player out of the competition.

You are of course correct. I'm been in this debate from the start.

Allow me to clarify. The only argument left which holds ANY weight is that Payne apparantly HAS to be aware when he is running into a zone which is likely to have jumping players.

Thats all they got. It may be correct. I feel it is enough to argue for recklessness. But even at that, I don't believe it should be red. Red should be reserved for malice or intent, of which there was none.

clivemcl wrote:You are of course correct. I'm been in this debate from the start.

Allow me to clarify. The only argument left which holds ANY weight is that Payne apparantly HAS to be aware when he is running into a zone which is likely to have jumping players.

Thats all they got. It may be correct. I feel it is enough to argue for recklessness. But even at that, I don't believe it should be red. Red should be reserved for malice or intent, of which there was none.

Likewise Goode has to be aware of his surrounding, he was being reckless for his own good and others too.

Rugby is a contact sport and what happened was unfortunate and down to BOTH players.

Handling of the situation was garcical.

Is that a typo or a pun?

Only Garces could handle the situation this badly

clivemcl wrote:

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Where does the assumption come from that you need to jump to compete for the ball? If neither player had jumped, would neither of them have been competing for the ball?

Obviously if one player jumps, the one in the air will compete more effectively, but keeping feet on the ground doesn't rule the other player out of the competition.

You are of course correct. I'm been in this debate from the start.

Allow me to clarify. The only argument left which holds ANY weight is that Payne apparantly HAS to be aware when he is running into a zone which is likely to have jumping players.

Thats all they got. It may be correct. I feel it is enough to argue for recklessness. But even at that, I don't believe it should be red. Red should be reserved for malice or intent, of which there was none.

...and that's where we disagree. I was with you up until that point, but the laws specifically leave intent out of it for dangerous play. The colour of the card relates to how dangerous the player's action was, not to any assessment of intent. That's a judgement call for the ref, but it's still better than him having to try to guess the player's intent in mid-game.

The point at which intent is addressed is the citing hearing. I fully expect that Payne will be found innocent of any intent, that the hearing will still conclude that it was dangerous play, and that he will receive a minimum ban for the offence reduced for previous good record and contrition.

Poorfour wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Where does the assumption come from that you need to jump to compete for the ball? If neither player had jumped, would neither of them have been competing for the ball?

Obviously if one player jumps, the one in the air will compete more effectively, but keeping feet on the ground doesn't rule the other player out of the competition.

You are of course correct. I'm been in this debate from the start.

Allow me to clarify. The only argument left which holds ANY weight is that Payne apparantly HAS to be aware when he is running into a zone which is likely to have jumping players.

Thats all they got. It may be correct. I feel it is enough to argue for recklessness. But even at that, I don't believe it should be red. Red should be reserved for malice or intent, of which there was none.

...and that's where we disagree. I was with you up until that point, but the laws specifically leave intent out of it for dangerous play. The colour of the card relates to how dangerous the player's action was, not to any assessment of intent. That's a judgement call for the ref, but it's still better than him having to try to guess the player's intent in mid-game.

The point at which intent is addressed is the citing hearing. I fully expect that Payne will be found innocent of any intent, that the hearing will still conclude that it was dangerous play, and that he will receive a minimum ban for the offence reduced for previous good record and contrition.

The fact that it's a judgement call for the ref allows for consideration of intent. Ref's obviously consider intent when deciding appropriate action.

Why obviously?

HammerofThunor wrote:Why obviously?

The evidence is in viewing the many similar incidents. They were all incidents that may be considered for a red card, yet no red card, or no card at all, was issued. If any of those ref's believed that the intent was to injure, then obviously the ref is at serious fault.

Did Garces ref any of them? Could it not be a technical thing? Considered a penalty due to recklessness and dye to how Goode landed it was a red? To Garces.

Edit: or it could be those other refs took intend into account where as Garces didn't

HammerofThunor wrote:Did Garces ref any of them? Could it not be a technical thing? Considered a penalty due to recklessness and dye to how Goode landed it was a red? To Garces.

Edit: or it could be those other refs took intend into account where as Garces didn't

On a technical basis I think most of those incidents could have been considered for a red card. The only other incident involving Garces that I viewed was the one with Hogg in which he issued a red.

I do think Garces may have taken the injury of Goode, how he landed, into account, which again is a value judgement, but one based regardless of intent. Again, I think that would be a very harsh call, and an unjust one.

Poorfour wrote:Anyway, I don't think I have seen anyone quoting laws without being sensitive to the context of the incident. The laws are very clear anyway: they don't give a stuff about context in terms of judging whether an offence has happened: if there was a tackle, tap, push or pull on the man in the air, a penalty offense has been committed.

The only place context comes into it is in deciding whether any additional sanction is needed, and then only selectively. For dangerous play intent and outcome (in terms of whether an injury actually occurred) are not considered. What is considered is what the offending player did and whether it increased the risk of injury.

Dylan Hartley tackled a player who jumped to catch a ball when both players were already in position for a tackle. Hartley didn't increase the risk to Faletau, since Faletau would have hit him anyway. Penalty only.

Garces' judgement (which I happen to agree with) seems to have been (and I am doing my best to leave out intent on the part of both the player and the ref here) that in opting to run, at top speed, without looking or jumping, into an area where he could reasonably expect to come into contact with an airborne player, Payne increased the risk of injury to Goode (and to himself). That Goode was tipped beyond the horizontal was taken into account (we know that because it was discussed), I don't believe the injury was; it certainly didn't need to be as there was enough in the action itself. Doesn't matter that contact was accidental, doesn't matter whether Payne was expecting it or not, doesn't matter what his disciplinary record was.

p.s. it's "verbatim", by the way.

You are saying that if a player doesn't see another player - that has no bearing on context but the speed a player runs at does. In other words if a player accidentally runs into someone that is just as bad as a player deliberately running into someone. It doesn't seem very fair.

If a player running into someone slows a bit but still follows through and causes them to fall deliberately that is somehow a better context that someone who didn't see the player and therefore didn't slow down. So the accident is treated more harshly than the deliberate foul. That doesn't seem very fair either.

Dangerous play is obviously different to foul play, but how does the referee judge dangerous play? For example when Ashton scored his second try, Bowe tried to get over to stop him. TB found he was too late, couldn't stop and hurdled over CA - just as Ashton was straightening up. The result was that Ashton had a push on Bowe in the air so surely by the letter of the Law, a penalty yet there was no penalty or card from Mr Garces. Surely that's inconsistency?
What about the other penalties in the Clermont/Leicester and Reds/Force games - players were running at speed and took players out in the air. They were given as penalties but not deemed "dangerous" enough to warrant cards of any colour. Again inconsistency.

A friend of mine died by falling off a chair. It is the act of falling and the luck of the draw on the landing that is the real dangerous part. When one person is in the air and the other isn't, someone stationary could just as easily cause a serious injury as someone running. Every aerial collision is potentially dangerous but it is how the players hit the ground that determine whether the situation was actually dangerous or not, and referees can only work backwards from the outcome to decide what they are going to do. So despite not supposedly looking at the outcome, that is the only real way to determine how dangerous a challenge was and because every outcome is different, then every referee deals with the situation differently.

The evidence clearly shows that referees are massively inconsistent in their interpretation of what is "dangerous". That is the real issue here - if referees can be so inconsistent in their interpretation of the Laws, how on earth are the players supposed to know what is OK and modify their behaviour accordingly? Why are referees so inconsistent - the Law must be hard to interpret and so doesn't drive the desired outcomes on the rugby pitch.

The Law allows aerial collisions so it is the cause of these dangerous situations, perhaps the citing commissioner should put the IRB in the dock for willful endangerment and negligence for not changing an unworkable Law.

VinceWLB wrote:Payne WAS competing for the ball, actually if it wasn't for Goode he would have been exactly where he needed to be to catch the ball.

nope. check out the video slowmo. he wasnt going to get there in time even running full tilt. which is why he couldnt jump as that would have meant he got nowhere even close to it.

seriously. check out the slowmo video replay frame by frame. he was not going to get to the ball in time

Aukster.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I believe Garces took the view that Payne's speed in that situation was dangerous whether he saw Goode or not. That's not true in all situations, but I think it's the right interpretation of that one. Running was important here because Payne ran into a space where he could reasonably expect to collide with players in the air. If he'd arrived first and been static or had come in more slowly or checked and adjusted earlier he would almost certainly not have been found at fault, but he chose to run in in a way that the ref felt created a dangerous situation. Is that so hard to understand, or so unreasonable? I know people are disappointed he was carded, but it's hard to argue that he didn't put himself in a position where a card was an option or that, after Hogg's red, he shouldn't have expected at strong response having done that. Yes, he probably didn't mean to collide,but he also didn't think of the likely consequence of running in like that, which are, frankly, bleedin' obvious. Brain fart is not an acceptable excuse.

The intent point is a purely practical one. It is very hard to accurately judge intent in a very charged situation on the pitch, so the IRB asks referees to take only the action into account and not try to guess the intent. The citing process deals with intent in an environment where both sides can put their case. An intentional act will be treated more harshly than an unintentional one. Example: de Wet Barry received a red card for a clothesline tackle on Mat Tait in a game where a video replay was not available. It was a definite red. No question. On replay, though, it became clear that Tait had slipped, turning an otherwise safe tackle into a high one. No ban was handed down, and Barry had the red removed from his record, but the red was still the right call at the time.

Dangerous play is a subset of Foul play under the laws. Foul means something different in the laws to our everyday usage and I think not grasping that is skewing people's opinions.

Don't remember the Ashton-Bowe moment, but didn't sound dangerous and crucially Ashton did nothing to cause the contact or make it more dangerous, whereas Payne did.

Consistency is an issue and will be until we replace all refs with robot versions of Clive Norling. See my repeated comments on Mr Walsh's "interpretation" of the scrum, passim. But it's always been a problem and if a given ref is consistent in his own interpretation then top class pros should be able to adapt. And that does broadly hold true - Poite and Barnes are generally technical sticklers, Garces prioritises safety (eg Hogg), Walsh goes with momentum and has no clue what a legal bind looks like. Ironically one of the least consistent refs is probably Owens, who adapts his style to the tone of the game.

Whatever. I'm not going to change anyone's views here, but nothing we say is going to overturn the red. Only the citing commission can do that, and I'm confident they won't

Does anyone have a link to a full replay of the incident from the 'tackle' (sic) to the red card please?

I suppose it was at least an unintentional tackle anyway as he did wrap his arms. Accidentally or not.

quinsforever wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:Payne WAS competing for the ball, actually if it wasn't for Goode he would have been exactly where he needed to be to catch the ball.

nope. check out the video slowmo. he wasnt going to get there in time even running full tilt. which is why he couldnt jump as that would have meant he got nowhere even close to it.

seriously. check out the slowmo video replay frame by frame. he was not going to get to the ball in time

I don't know how you have come to that conclusion, quins? He was primed, and in place to catch. I did watch it in slow motion. It doesn't change the fact. He would have caught it.

http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9251679/ulster-v-saracens-highlights
http://balls.ie/rugby/gif-jared-payne-red-carded-ulster-4-minutes/
Try these Port

broadlandboy wrote:http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9251679/ulster-v-saracens-highlights
http://balls.ie/rugby/gif-jared-payne-red-carded-ulster-4-minutes/
Try these Port

Exact same result   

Munchkin wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9251679/ulster-v-saracens-highlights
http://balls.ie/rugby/gif-jared-payne-red-carded-ulster-4-minutes/
Try these Port

Exact same result   

Edit: Sorry, blb. Getting my wires crossed   

broadlandboy wrote:http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/9251679/ulster-v-saracens-highlights
http://balls.ie/rugby/gif-jared-payne-red-carded-ulster-4-minutes/
Try these Port

Thanks mate , but unfortunately they are both just the collision and the card. 

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Does anyone have a link to a full replay of the incident from the 'tackle' (sic) to the red card please?

I suppose it was at least an unintentional tackle anyway as he did wrap his arms. Accidentally or not.

You think one hand instinctively hold the leg as he goes down is a tackle?