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

Port try this still not complete but longer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOW2r4i671I

No. Two arms fly around the hips under the impact momentum of the collision.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:No. Two arms fly around the hips under the impact momentum of the collision.

The left arm doesn't wrap around at all, and the right hand only takes hold of the leg on going down. Stretching it a bit to call that a tackle. Not that it matters. The powers that be will decide tomorrow.

broadlandboy wrote:Port try this still not complete but longer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOW2r4i671I

Thanks mate. That was the best I could find as well.

I was intending to listen to and transcribe the Garces/TMO conversation.
As best I could with my fair-to-middling French...

Munchkin wrote:

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.

no way. even at full tilt with his arms in front of him he wouldnt have got there. compare the relative trajectories in slowmom frame by frame. and certainly not if he had jumped. which was why he didnt. which is why goode got knocked out. which is why he got a red card. if you're not going to get there in time to be able to "compete" for it, and risk taking out a player who arrived earlier and jumped, and you don't check, then it's reckless, and if he the catcher hits the ground with his head, then payne deserves a red. every single time. 4th minute is complete red herring.

look what happens to goode's arms after. that's called a "fencing response" and happens with severe knockouts, and will lead to very severe concussion. the repercussions of that impact may not be known for days, weeks or years. now the injury or severity of it shouldnt and didnt influence the card, but the fact he landed on his head showed how dangerous the contact was.

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

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.

no way. even at full tilt with his arms in front of him he wouldnt have got there. compare the relative trajectories in slowmom frame by frame. and certainly not if he had jumped. which was why he didnt. which is why goode got knocked out. which is why he got a red card. if you're not going to get there in time to be able to "compete" for it, and risk taking out a player who arrived earlier and jumped, and you don't check, then it's reckless, and if he the catcher hits the ground with his head, then payne deserves a red. every single time. 4th minute is complete red herring.

look what happens to goode's arms after. that's called a "fencing response" and happens with severe knockouts, and will lead to very severe concussion. the repercussions of that impact may not be known for days, weeks or years. now the injury or severity of it shouldnt and didnt influence the card, but the fact he landed on his head showed how dangerous the contact was.

Hmmm....we're talking about whether Payne would have been able to catch the ball. Not sure Goode getting knocked out comes into it, as unfortunate and potentially serious as that could have been.
Nope, really don't know how you can come to that conclusion. No point in arguing over it though. I don't think you are going to have a change of mind.

Munchkin wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:No. Two arms fly around the hips under the impact momentum of the collision.

The left arm doesn't wrap around at all, and the right hand only takes hold of the leg on going down. Stretching it a bit to call that a tackle. Not that it matters. The powers that be will decide tomorrow.

Agreed, Munch (I did put tackle in inverted commas!).

Anyway, that's why I want to find a full replay of the whole incident from kick through ref/tmo debate to card.

That presumably will be the main evidence before the panel.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:No. Two arms fly around the hips under the impact momentum of the collision.

The left arm doesn't wrap around at all, and the right hand only takes hold of the leg on going down. Stretching it a bit to call that a tackle. Not that it matters. The powers that be will decide tomorrow.

Agreed, Munch (I did put tackle in inverted commas!).

Anyway, that's why I want to find a full replay of the whole incident from kick through ref/tmo debate to card.

That presumably will be the main evidence before the panel.

Sorry, I'm a bit dim.

I've been looking for one since you asked, but not a thing. Bit odd considering the debate surrounding the incident.

on the topic of the fencing response and automatic arms going in the air. i wonder if those posters who accused Goode of making a meal out of his fall and overacting in order to get Payne carded are feeling suitably embarrassed. probably not i suppose, but here's hoping.

quinsforever wrote:on the topic of the fencing response and automatic arms going in the air. i wonder if those posters who accused Goode of making a meal out of his fall and overacting in order to get Payne carded are feeling suitably embarrassed. probably not i suppose, but here's hoping.

Did any 606 posters claim this?

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:on the topic of the fencing response and automatic arms going in the air. i wonder if those posters who accused Goode of making a meal out of his fall and overacting in order to get Payne carded are feeling suitably embarrassed. probably not i suppose, but here's hoping.

Did any 606 posters claim this?

I only recall one half-hearted attempt at that pretty dire accusation.

I personally haven't seen any here, but I have elsewhere just the once, and also half hearted. It was shot down. In the heat of the moment I guess people say things they wouldn't normally. Even me sometimes. Hard to believe, but true.... although rarely

Poorfour wrote: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.

It's easy enough to find - it was Ashton's second try, and yes Ashton made contact with Bowe whilst he was in the air. Bowe wasn't hurt and therefore it wasn't deemed dangerous but by the application of the Law it should have been a penalty.

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.....

  

Way, way too easy.

clivemcl 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...

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!

I'm really not that hard up, but like i said before - way, way too easy...

quinsforever wrote:on the topic of the fencing response and automatic arms going in the air. i wonder if those posters who accused Goode of making a meal out of his fall and overacting in order to get Payne carded are feeling suitably embarrassed. probably not i suppose, but here's hoping.

Quins,

Who said that?

Would you quote the post that said that please?

Certainly some people were saying that part of the problem with the ref being influenced by the injury caused rather than the incident itself is that it could encourage players, in the future to roll around on the floor in the hope of either getting a less severe sanction or of encouraging the ref to give their opponent a more severe sanction.

I have not seen anyone doubt that Goode was KO'd and most if not all posters have expressed their concern and and relief that he was not even more seriously injured.

Why would you try to suggest that Ulster fans are posting such things on here?

Would you agree, MrsP, that in an ideal world that there ought to be a duty of care law written into the appropriate section (10.4) of the laws?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote: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.

It's easy enough to find - it was Ashton's second try, and yes Ashton made contact with Bowe whilst he was in the air. Bowe wasn't hurt and therefore it wasn't deemed dangerous but by the application of the Law it should have been a penalty.

I'm mostly responding at work and on mobile, so searching for video isn't an option for me. I'm not denying that Ashton made contact, but I am assuming from your description that it's Bowe's jump that causes the contact, not Ashton's line. That's equivalent to a catcher jumping into a gaggle of players and bumping into one of them. The jumper's action led to the contact and not the other way round

There's a big materiality point here - it sounds like the contact wasn't dangerous in itself and Ashton didn't pick a line that made him likely to hit a player in the air, so yes, while the ref could technically decide to award a penalty it would be disproportionate to the significance of the incident.

Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

Portnoy's.

I think there should be a duty of care implicit on everyone on a rugby pitch.

I do not think that having your feet off the ground should remove that duty of care.

Did anyone listen to what the ref says at the end of the clip I posted from the same incident which also occured last weekend?

This is the incident.

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

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

There aren't any minimum sanctions. There is a lower entry level, a medium entry level, a higher entry level and a maximum......at least that's what it was.

http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/19/120531gfirbhandbook2012freg17eng.pdf

Appendix 1 to Regulation 17
10.4(i) Tackling, tapping, pushing or pulling an Opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play
LE – 3 weeks
MR – 6 weeks
TE – 12+ weeks
Max - 52 weeks

So I suppose if you apply the 'up to 50% reduction' it would be 1.5 weeks, so probably 2 weeks minimum. Perhaps that's where it comes from.

Also if they contest it and lose then he won't get the full reduction (33% reduction would still be 2 weeks).

I've got no idea how it will go as from I've seen it could have been given nothing. Very interesting one.

I would expect Jared's name to be cleared unless the panel are all Sarries fans or members of the Goode family

MrsP, what is in the content of that link, our IT boffins have that blocked

Very similar incident to ours. Both players running from deep to take a high ball except they are more directly in front of each other. Defending FB (blue) jumps to take the ball and red FB doesn't. Blue falls, both players injured.

At the end the ref sounds like he says to red captain,

" ....but he's got a responsibility not to clatter into him in the air. That's why it's only a penalty."

I was wondering if he means that the player in the air has responsibilities too?

Noticably there were two significant differences.

a. Goode did not lead his knee directly into the body of the opponent. Likely as not he saw the big hit coming in via his peripheral vision, plus some nous and experience I guess.

b. Payne did not have an opposing player illegally impeding his progress whilst the ball was in flight.

But they were definitely very similar incidents.

In my opinion the Payne case was marginally worse. But both would be tacklers/challengers found themselves penalised.

I reckon Payne was unlucky but the red card was justifiable.

Anyway, it's not for me to decide, let's wait for the panel's decision.

Maybe the moral is that if you are going to challenge for the high ball, you'd better be sure that you're in the air contesting the ball at the point of impact. Sure as hell you can't control matters when you are airborne.

That's clive's point in the OP isn't it?
Only he suggests that jumping should be illegal, which I find faintly ridiculous.

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

That's interesting. I'm glad they are going fight this as red was simply wrong in this instance, and hopefully if Payne is cleared.

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

That's interesting. I'm glad they are going fight this as red was simply wrong in this instance, and hopefully if Payne is cleared.

Does rather open a can of worms if Payne is cleared ...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

That's interesting. I'm glad they are going fight this as red was simply wrong in this instance, and hopefully if Payne is cleared.

Does rather open a can of worms if Payne is cleared ...

In what way Asbo?

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Maybe the moral is that if you are going to challenge for the high ball, you'd better be sure that you're in the air contesting the ball at the point of impact. Sure as hell you can't control matters when you are airborne.

That's clive's point in the OP isn't it?
Only he suggests that jumping should be illegal, which I find faintly ridiculous.

So all players should jump into the air when catching a ball? Would make for interesting viewing I suppose.

Pete330v2 wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

That's interesting. I'm glad they are going fight this as red was simply wrong in this instance, and hopefully if Payne is cleared.

Does rather open a can of worms if Payne is cleared ...

In what way Asbo?

Well, results obvs can't be overturned, but there's no question that the decision at the time was game-changing in nature

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Notch wrote:Ulster expect Paynes name to be cleared after todays hearing, apparently.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/heineken-cup/ulster-expect-paynes-name-to-be-cleared-after-hearing-30168298.html

Rather than eating the biscuits and hoping they go easy on us "(Payne) and his Ulster representatives will vigorously attest that the decision to award a red card was wrong in the first instance."

Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. Apparently the minimum sanction is 2 weeks, the maximum is a year. I don't expect them to clear him entirely but I think they will look at it and say he had no intent and has a nearly perfect disciplinary record and give him the minimum sanction, possibly with a week lopped off on top of that.

That's interesting. I'm glad they are going fight this as red was simply wrong in this instance, and hopefully if Payne is cleared.

Does rather open a can of worms if Payne is cleared ...

It does in different ways, but the most interesting would be how IRB respond to it.

In a way it would almost be better now if it wasn't overturned. If it is overturned that is essentially saying that it's a yellow card and, well, this will keep the issue rumbling on for a longer time.

I pretty much want to see the back of this red card chat.

I think it is important for the IRB to have another look at this. Of course player in the air are extrenmely vulnerable and must be protected but there are difficulties in the current situation where they seem to be absolved of all responsibility for the weel being of themselves and others.

They also need to clarify if there can really be 2mm of air between RC and play on.

Yeah Notch.

In one way I agree. The game is over and the result is set.

I would like clarification though for the future.

Notch wrote:In a way it would almost be better now if it wasn't overturned. If it is overturned that is essentially saying that it's a yellow card and, well, this will keep the issue rumbling on for a longer time.

I pretty much want to see the back of this red card chat.

This issue is dead now because the result stands and wont be overturned. However, I'd like to think Payne will be cleared because I dont think accidents should be sanctioned with red cards. I do agree with citing incidents like this though as it gives the citing panel the opportunity to ask the individual involved to state their case where any doubts may lie re intention. Personally I reckon it was very clear from the footage that it was an accident but no harm in asking the question.

Results can't be overturned and replays can't be requested of course but I do want consistency in this area. I know it's not a word synonymous with rugby refs and I'm not sure clarification will even help in future decisions as ambiguity will always be at large. I simply want to see Jared Payne cleared of wrongdoing so his record isn't tainted with this forever. He does not deserve to be banned even for a week IMO.

It's true that Jared would be harshly done by to have a stain on his disciplinary record- we'll wait and see.

Notch wrote:In a way it would almost be better now if it wasn't overturned. If it is overturned that is essentially saying that it's a yellow card and, well, this will keep the issue rumbling on for a longer time.

I pretty much want to see the back of this red card chat.

A number of Mods' comments have been expressed now in line with your view.

Unfortunately the posts keep rolling in and the interest doesn't see to fade.

I feel that there is an underlying issue of how rugby law is written and enforced which is at the core of a reasoned debate.

This has been especially true since George's 500th post.

So why express a personal view as a Moderator? It can't be taking a disproportionate amount of Moderation time.
The debate will end when the interest fades.

MrsP wrote:Quins,

Who said that?

Would you quote the post that said that please?

Certainly some people were saying that part of the problem with the ref being influenced by the injury caused rather than the incident itself is that it could encourage players, in the future to roll around on the floor in the hope of either getting a less severe sanction or of encouraging the ref to give their opponent a more severe sanction.

I have not seen anyone doubt that Goode was KO'd and most if not all posters have expressed their concern and and relief that he was not even more seriously injured.

Why would you try to suggest that Ulster fans are posting such things on here?

I did say that if Referees starts to give sanctions based on the injury that rugby could very quickly become soccer with players exaggerating the injury.

But at no point did i question Goode's injury who clearly suffered a severe case of concussion.

quinsforever wrote: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

He would have been there.. or thereabout probably would have knocked it on...

My point is that it's wrong to say he didn't compete for the ball, seriously don't you think at worst that's a yellow?

There is a difference between accidental and unintentional but reckless. The Kaplan quote from early, which was supported by some who want to see Payne cleared, was that it was reckless. And you DO see things that were unintential but reckless given significant bans. Usually related to contact with eye area and things like that.

If the panel see Payne's actions as unintential but reckless I would expect to see a ban. If they see them as completely accidental I expect no ban. If they see they as intentially we can all go home and cry.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Notch wrote:In a way it would almost be better now if it wasn't overturned. If it is overturned that is essentially saying that it's a yellow card and, well, this will keep the issue rumbling on for a longer time.

I pretty much want to see the back of this red card chat.

A number of Mods' comments have been expressed now in line with your view.

Unfortunately the posts keep rolling in and the interest doesn't see to fade.

I feel that there is an underlying issue of how rugby law is written and enforced which is at the core of a reasoned debate.

This has been especially true since George's 500th post.

So why express a personal view as a Moderator? It can't be taking a disproportionate amount of Moderation time.
The debate will end when the interest fades.

Thats NOT my view as a moderator, thats my view as a fan.

I know the word wreckless has been well used regarding this but I would ask how can you be wreckless towards another player if you have no knowledge of him taking to the air because you have your eyes 100% focused on the ball.

No case to answer Jared now go have a coffee and get ready for friday night (I Hope)

HammerofThunor wrote:There is a difference between accidental and unintentional but reckless.  The Kaplan quote from early, which was supported by some who want to see Payne cleared, was that it was reckless. And you DO see things that were unintential but reckless given significant bans.  Usually related to contact with eye area and things like that.

If the panel see Payne's actions as unintential but reckless I would expect to see a ban. If they see them as completely accidental I expect no ban.  If they see they as intentially we can all go home and cry.

I strongly suspect that the panel might judge that it was unintended, but reckless. I would be really interested in how they decide it was reckless though.

For Paynes sake it would be great if they at least clear him of the red card.

No idea. But if Kaplan used in the same way the discipline panel use it then you can probably expect a ban.

I've said a few times that I have no idea.  It seems that any contact with a player in the air is penalty (it seems) so penalty minimum in theory. After that I haven't a clue.

EDIT: Munchkin, I really hope they release the full report. I've looked for ERC ones in the past and they seem to take an age to come out. They're often very good at explaining the decision making of the panel (and the ref if he saw it) and have the TMO comments.

Pete330v2 wrote:I know the word wreckless has been well used regarding this but I would ask how can you be wreckless towards another player if you have no knowledge of him taking to the air because you have your eyes 100% focused on the ball.

No case to answer Jared now go have a coffee and get ready for friday night (I Hope)

I sincerely hope that he doesn't get recklessly wrecked tonight if he gets cleared by the panel.

Sorry I've been putting w's were there shouldn't be any, how reckless of me

Pete330v2 wrote:Sorry I've been putting w's were there shouldn't be any, how reckless of me