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

If anyone interested - Alan Quinlans take on it...

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/payne-of-this-defeat-set-to-linger-for-ulster-1.1754672?page=1

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.

According the BBC - Payne is charged with contravening two separate laws and could face a suspension of at least five weeks if found guilty of both offences

FULL STORY - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26948489

That's fair enough (the Quinlan article).

But an English journo could easily make a parallel case for the red.

I don't know which is correct. That's why I abstained from the poll.

ME-109 wrote:If anyone interested - Alan Quinlans take on it...

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/payne-of-this-defeat-set-to-linger-for-ulster-1.1754672?page=1

A really balanced, well reasoned point of view.

He doesn't really make a case for yellow, does he? He comments that both Sarries and Ulster would have 'probably' been content with yellow. It's a piece about Garces' demeanour post match and about Goode's well-being?

PenfroPete 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.

According the BBC - Payne is charged with contravening two separate laws and could face a suspension of at least five weeks if found guilty of both offences

FULL STORY - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26948489

Two charges?
They are chucking the book at him.

As they were simultaneous, maybe they can find a fudge for any punishments handed down to be served simultaneously.
Five weeks seems disproportionate for one foolhardy act.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote: Two charges?
They are chucking the book at him.

Well as long as he competes for it (not in a reckless manner mind you !!) he should be alright  

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

PenfroPete 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.

According the BBC - Payne is charged with contravening two separate laws and could face a suspension of at least five weeks if found guilty of both offences

FULL STORY - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26948489

Two charges?
They are chucking the book at him.

As they were simultaneous, maybe they can find a fudge for any punishments handed down to be served simultaneously.
Five weeks seems disproportionate for one foolhardy act.

Well the hearing is in Dublin so according to the PRL the outcome will more than likely be biased.

Awlwrite, Pete. to you an' all.   

Two week ban. Ban was given at the entry point and reduced by one week for his clean record and good conduct at the hearing. I think if they were going to issue a ban, this was the smallest possible ban they could give.

Low end for the offence he was found guilty of is three weeks- thats the entry point. Apparently one week is the most they can take off that.

Yep. http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/221311.html

About right for a marginal red/yellow.

Marginally fuller version here. ERC site

The details are sketchy but the decision is pretty much what I predicted. The Disciplinary Officer's comment about how it was a difficult case to decide reflects how contentious the issue is, and he's confirmed that it was "a reckless act" rather than intentional.

Personally, I am glad that it's been upheld. Nothing against Payne per se, but it sends an important message that players do need to consider whether they are making an already fairly dangerous sport more dangerous still.

I shall refrain from using to many W's by saying simply this:

This panel of -ankers haven't a ball bet-een them.

Accidents happen but blame needn't always be attributed.

Can of -orms is now open.

So, potentially losing your team the chance of a home semi and 2 week ban for... not jumping?

Fair? Right? License for anyone to do anything so long as they are airborne.

I will add that I am not suggesting Goode had anything on his mind other than catching the ball (mind you, neither did Payne) but it might lead to all sorts of antics if players feel they can get a player banned for an accidental collision so long as they take their feet off the ground.

Guess it's signalling that you should be aware if your actions are putting others in danger. Eyes on ball is no longer an excuse.

Maybe you should change the title to,

"The danger of NOT jumping!"

MrsP wrote:So, potentially losing your team the chance of a home semi and 2 week ban for... not jumping?

Fair? Right? License for anyone to do anything so long as they are airborne.

I will add that I am not suggesting Goode had anything on his mind other than catching the ball (mind you, neither did Payne) but it might lead to all sorts of antics if players feel they can get a player banned for an accidental collision so long as they take their feet off the ground.

Hi Mrs P, not sure whether you will remember this, a few years ago Shane Williams jumped in the air to receive a pass and he was taken out in the tackle, the referee ruled it a fair tackle as the ball was not kicked.

I doubt it will ever get that far, otherwise as you suggest everyone will start doing jumping jacks waiting for a pass.

I don't remember that one although I do remember someone being penalised for jumping to avoid a tackle.

Surely it is too much to expect players to correctly navigate this mine field?

This episode was anywhere between "play-on" and "lose the game and a 3 week ban"?

I know this is a game of small margins but it would be good if those margins were at least clearly marked.

Biltong that makes sense however Hartley was penalised (just a penalty) for tackling Welsh No 8 in the air after he jumped to catch a pass in this years 6N.

broadlandboy wrote:Biltong that makes sense however Hartley was penalised (just a penalty) for tackling Welsh No 8 in the air after he jumped to catch a pass in this years 6N.

Well that is what Mrs P is eluding to, interpretation on this is as wide open as that in a tip tackle, high tackle and anywhere else you may think of.

MrsP wrote:So, potentially losing your team the chance of a home semi and 2 week ban for... not jumping?

Fair? Right? License for anyone to do anything so long as they are airborne.

I will add that I am not suggesting Goode had anything on his mind other than catching the ball (mind you, neither did Payne) but it might lead to all sorts of antics if players feel they can get a player banned for an accidental collision so long as they take their feet off the ground.

Then the law's an ass, MrsP?

I think that a player not paying attention to his environment and behaving without care for himself and his fellow players is extremely reckless.

I noted before that Goode went up - high up - in the air yet positioned himself in a way such as any incoming challenger would not be injured.
i.e. he used his experience and peripheral vision.

I'm disappointed but not surprised that you don't see what is pretty clear to me.
If he was aware of his environment he'd have either jumped to compete or he'd have aborted his attempt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess it's signalling that you should be aware if your actions are putting others in danger. Eyes on ball is no longer an excuse.

....unless you lift your feet!

MrsP wrote:I don't remember that one although I do remember someone being penalised for jumping to avoid a tackle.

Surely it is too much to expect players to correctly navigate this mine field?

This episode was anywhere between "play-on" and "lose the game and a 3 week ban"?

I know this is a game of small margins but it would be good if those margins were at least clearly marked.

Oh for goodness sake that's ridiculous. Payne took a player out in the air. However he did it, that's a penalty offence.

If Payne had jumped there would have been less chance of him causing Goode to go beyond the horizontal as should contact with Goode above the waist.Hopefully this will send the message that if you are unable to compete for the ball better to slow down & tackle the player on the ground.

We had the exact same scenario in SUper rugby a few weeks ago, can't remember who the players involved were, but one jumped, the other hit him, and the referee ruled him to be responsible for the player in the air as the other one was airborne, and penalised him, but there was no card.

INterpretations of referees will range widely on this, and that in itself is where fans get angry and upset.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess it's signalling that you should be aware if your actions are putting others in danger. Eyes on ball is no longer an excuse.

But that isn't anything new is it?

Surely it's the same as having to be aware of where your feet are landing in a ruck, for example - you can't use the excuse that you didn't see someones head if you have just trodden on it.

jelly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess it's signalling that you should be aware if your actions are putting others in danger. Eyes on ball is no longer an excuse.

But that isn't anything new is it?

Surely it's the same as having to be aware of where your feet are landing in a ruck, for example - you can't use the excuse that you didn't see someones head if you have just trodden on it.

I agree. Just find it amusing that so many people want to paint a picture that Payne did nothing wrong and are now trying to say Goode was dangerous as well.

Biltong wrote:We had the exact same scenario in SUper rugby a few weeks ago, can't remember who the players involved were, but one jumped, the other hit him, and the referee ruled him to be responsible for the player in the air as the other one was airborne, and penalised him, but there was no card.

INterpretations of referees will range widely on this, and that in itself is where fans get angry and upset.

Guess we're about to see a few taking player out in air/jumping into tackles discussions!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

jelly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess it's signalling that you should be aware if your actions are putting others in danger. Eyes on ball is no longer an excuse.

But that isn't anything new is it?

Surely it's the same as having to be aware of where your feet are landing in a ruck, for example - you can't use the excuse that you didn't see someones head if you have just trodden on it.

I agree. Just find it amusing that so many people want to paint a picture that Payne did nothing wrong and are now trying to say Goode was dangerous as well.

Why would you find that amusing?

It's strange that the panel seemed to find things a lot less clear cut than a lot of the "experts" on here.

"He commented that the case had been a particularly challenging one and conveyed his thanks to the Ulster Rugby representatives for the quality of their defence during the hearing"

Also there have been discussions between refs from across the world whose views have varied as widely as I mentioned. It is not just Ulster fans who are not sure if he did anything wrong.

Under the laws could a ref send of a lineout lifer for dropping his jumper on his head? I know it wouldn't happen but could it under the laws?

MrsP wrote:It's strange that the panel seemed to find things a lot less clear cut than a lot of the "experts" on here.

"He commented that the case had been a particularly challenging one and conveyed his thanks to the Ulster Rugby representatives for the quality of their defence during the hearing"

Also there have been discussions between refs from across the world whose views have varied as widely as I mentioned. It is not just Ulster fans who are not sure if he did anything wrong.

MrsP I wish they would clarify how Payne was reckless, the time between Goode leaving the ground and and contact was less than a second. If Payne went up in the air we'd probably have seen both coming down hard which is still dangerous, if Goode didn't jump we'd have probably seen a nasty collision still so would be good to know what is expected of players

It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and not see how it could be construed as reckless.

marty2086 wrote:

MrsP wrote:It's strange that the panel seemed to find things a lot less clear cut than a lot of the "experts" on here.

"He commented that the case had been a particularly challenging one and conveyed his thanks to the Ulster Rugby representatives for the quality of their defence during the hearing"

Also there have been discussions between refs from across the world whose views have varied as widely as I mentioned. It is not just Ulster fans who are not sure if he did anything wrong.

MrsP I wish they would clarify how Payne was reckless, the time between Goode leaving the ground and and contact was less than a second. If Payne went up in the air we'd probably have seen both coming down hard which is still dangerous, if Goode didn't jump we'd have probably seen a nasty collision still so would be good to know what is expected of players

Exactly. I don't know what they expect of players to be honest. How much time do they think Payne had to realise 'oops I am in a position that may give away a penalty here'. I reckon that at not point did he even realise anyone was going to collide with him so how is running being reckless (Portnoys there was no W this time )

I already mentioned about Rob Kearney's attempt at getting a player penalised quite early on in the game against Toulon. He completely misjudged it so the ref ignored it.

I do think the whole thing will be forgotten soon enough as is the way with these things. I'm just surprised at the ERC panel being so flippin ambiguous as usual.

jelly wrote:It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and not see how it could be construed as reckless.

It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and conclude it to have been reckless. Reckless suggests Payne was aware that he was putting someone in harms way.

Given that he poleaxed himself and seemed completely unaware until it was too late that Goode was flying through the air I think we can quite categorically conclude that it wasnt reckless.

jelly wrote:It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and not see how it could be construed as reckless.

I think we can see how it could be construed that way but some of us think it was not the only or best way to construe it.

Can anyone try to convince me ( & others) how running flat out while not looking where you are going is not reckless?

In criminal law for example a a person cannot be guilty of an offence for one's actions alone. The prosecution must be able to prove someone is acting with intent aware that they are acting recklessly.

If Payne didnt realise Goode was there which I dont believe he did they I dont see how this can be proven.

broadlandboy wrote:Can anyone try to convince me ( & others) how running flat out while not looking where you are going is not reckless?

By the same logic you could ban Goode. Did he deserve a ban too?

MrsP wrote:

jelly wrote:It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and not see how it could be construed as reckless.

I think we can see how it could be construed that way but some of us think it was not the only or best way to construe it.

I actually agree - however, to suggest (as you have) that Payne may have done 'nothing wrong' is just plain wrong. The bottom line is that, however he did it, Payne took a player out in the air. That is a penalty offence. Regardless.

Jimpy wrote:

MrsP wrote:

jelly wrote:It genuinely staggers me that anyone can watch the incident and not see how it could be construed as reckless.

I think we can see how it could be construed that way but some of us think it was not the only or best way to construe it.

I actually agree - however, to suggest (as you have) that Payne may have done 'nothing wrong' is just plain wrong. The bottom line is that, however he did it, Payne took a player out in the air. That is a penalty offence. Regardless.

It is a penalty offense because there are lots of things in rugby that you can do by accident that result in a penalty like accidental offside. However, a red card should only be given where reckless intent is clear.

Intent is not needed on a rugby pitch for a foul to be committed. Do you think players intend to knock on. Fairly sure that if you were running flat out not looking where you were going & ran into someone you would be liable. Most road crashes are accidental & not intended doesn't mean that no one is to blame.
You can't blame Goode as his action did not take Payne beyond the horizontal which is why Payne got a red card, if he hadn't then it would have been a yellow or just a penalty but his actions took Goode beyond so a red card.

broadlandboy wrote:Intent is not needed on a rugby pitch for a foul to be committed. Do you think players intend to knock on. Fairly sure that if you were running flat out not looking where you were going & ran into someone you would be liable. Most road crashes are accidental & not intended doesn't mean that no one is to blame.
You can't blame Goode as his action did not take Payne beyond the horizontal which is why Payne got a red card, if he hadn't then it would have been a yellow or just a penalty but his actions took Goode beyond so a red card.

Never seen anyone get a red card for a knock on. Surely proving intent is very much a part of deciding whether a player merits being removed from the pitch for the duration of the game and a two week ban?

Goode did knee Payne in the chest/head and knock him on his back though. Is that allowed in rugby? By your logic Goode also comitted a reckless act and therefore should have been banned. Unless Goode didnt mean to do it?

broadlandboy wrote:Intent is not needed on a rugby pitch for a foul to be committed. Do you think players intend to knock on. Fairly sure that if you were running flat out not looking where you were going & ran into someone you would be liable. Most road crashes are accidental & not intended doesn't mean that no one is to blame.
You can't blame Goode as his action did not take Payne beyond the horizontal which is why Payne got a red card, if he hadn't then it would have been a yellow or just a penalty but his actions took Goode beyond so a red card.

By that logic Chris Ashton should have received a yellow at least for sending Bowe beyond the horizontal when Bowe skipped over him following his try

If it was as clear cut as some people are trying to imply why did the panel describe it as,

"particularly challenging"?

From some of the comments on here you think they would have just handed him the ban at the door.

Maybe, just maybe it was not a "clear red" at all?

But, of course, to accknowledge that would require more balance than some seem capable of showing.

If people want to talk about reckless there are 2 perfect examples in the game with Burger, he first tackled Rory Best who was being pinned down behind the ruck by a Saracens player, Brits I think, which led to his injury. He followed that up with flying through a ruck with his forearm just missing Mullers head

Try reading this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/biting-back/ulster-rugby-fans-wrong-over-jared-payne-red-card-30167546.html
As for the Ashton/Bowe incident Ashton was getting up from scoring a try, so was stationary relevant to position on pitch, Bowe jumped over Ashton to try and avoid clattering into Ashton, Bowe was not competing for the ball, so if anybody was in the wrong it was Bowe.
Just because the ref may have got other things wrong doesn't mean he got this wrong

Payne was incredibly unlucky to be sent off, and now to be banned on top of it, but I hope now we can draw a line under this. The pain of losing last year to Saracens was very different. We didn't deserve anything from the game. That hurts but we deserved nothing, Sarries were the better team at Twickenham- we just had to say well done to them and move on. This year is obviously different. The game was won and lost on that big call by Jerome Garces and thats much harder to take- especially because this was the game we've been dreaming of for 15 years. This was an historic fixture, and it meant the world to me to put it simply. As an Ulster fan, wining this game meant everything and I'm sure other Ulster fans feel the same. If we lost because we weren't good enough maybe I could accept that easier. What happened devastates me.

But bad luck happens in sport and in life. Sometimes you just get dealt a bad hand, Payne and Ulster were on Saturday and there is nothing that can be done about it. I feel that what happened to Payne could happen to any player, which is he made a mistake in judging where his opposite number was going to be. He wrongly (he'll say foolishly in retrospect) didn't anticipate that Goode would get there and when he did, he wasn't able to react in time to avoid a collision. I wish Goode a speedy recovery and hope there are no long term effects from his injury, I wish Saracens fans well for the rest of the season but it's time we moved on from this incident and say one unlucky collision and a harsh interpretation of the laws isn't what our season should be remembered for. We still have a chance to win a trophy.

There's no point in going over this for me (your own mileage may vary of course) because right or wrong it happened and it can't be changed. All I can do is get behind my team in a massive way when Connacht come to Ravenhill and hope the guys who survived the game uninjured are able to bounce back from this.

I want to also say fair play to Jerome Garces for having the balls to make the big decision. Even if you disagree with him it took a lot of courage, it illustrates the mental strength you need to be a top ref. I'm sure the consequences of the decision weigh heavily on him. No referee wants to be the main talking point of the game but unfortunately he was put in a situation where he had to make a really, really hard call.

In discussion of whether this was reckless, remember that the law about not 'tackling' players in the air is a safety-based law, , and as such intent has much less impact on how it is enforced.

There is certainly an element that the original red card was in part awarded because of the consequence of the collision, with Goode being tipped well beyond horizontal and falling in an uncontrolled manner from a significant height. Had Payne slowed his approach and tried to actually tackle (i.e. wrap arms) Goode while he was still in the air, the consequence of the collision would likely have been much less even though the intent of committing he offence greater.

I think I agree with the consensus of the neutrals here, that a red was harsh under the circumstances, but not clearly unreasonable. I think the disciplinary panel decision really comes to the same conclusion, hence upholding the decision and giving the minimum ban.

For those arguing that Payne had insufficient time to react, he had run about 40 yards while chasing the kick - at some point he made the decision that he would keep going flat out in an attempt to collect the kick rather than slowing and hanging back to tackle the opposing player who collected the ball. A bad decision, as he was not in the right position to challenge Goode in the air - reckless is the right word, as opposed to dangerous.

Absolutely great catch from Goode as well, given the speed and height. And without the Lee Byrne 'leading with the boot' approach

broadlandboy wrote:Try reading this http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/biting-back/ulster-rugby-fans-wrong-over-jared-payne-red-card-30167546.html
As for the Ashton/Bowe incident Ashton was getting up from scoring a try, so was stationary relevant to position on pitch, Bowe jumped over Ashton to try and avoid clattering into Ashton, Bowe was not competing for the ball, so if anybody was in the wrong it was Bowe.
Just because the ref may have got other things wrong doesn't mean he got this wrong

The columnist is wrong becuase if Payne was reckless and deserved a red card then by the exact same logic so did Goode because Goode also comitted an act which isnt normally permitted in rugby kneeing someone in the chest/face and knock them flat on their back. Of course it would have been ridiculous to give Goode a red card because it he unequivocably did not intend to knock Payne on his back because he was looking at the ball at all times.

The exact same can be said for Payne regardless of whether Paynes act was potentially more dangerous or not.