The danger of jumping

by clivemcl Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:27 am

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

by marty2086 Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:47 pm

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

I read it and its wrong because what was Payne meant to do differently? Run slower? The IRB have brought in a litany of rules to speed up the game over the last few years so how can they now ask players to go slower?

The fact is that Payne did what he is meant to do and thats chase down the ball his fly half put up for him, Goode jumped late and Payne could do nothing to change the outcome.

dummy_half wrote: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.

Payne couldn't wrap his arms as he took Goodes hip in his face sending him flying back, which is also deemed dangerous

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:51 pm

Can't see where Goode could have jumped any earlier
If Payne had been stationary then yes Goode would have been liable for a card,but unlikely to be a red as Payne was on the ground so unlikely to go beyond the horizontal.

by marty2086 Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:53 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Can't see where Goode could have jumped any earlier
If Payne had been stationary then yes Goode would have been liable for a card,but unlikely to be a red as Payne was on the ground so unlikely to go beyond the horizontal.

Its not about Payne going beyond the horizontal its about Goode using his knee/hip against an opposition player whos running at him

by HammerofThunor Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:56 pm

Goode jumped late? Previously the excuse was Goode jumped early. Now it's late. Which is it?

by marty2086 Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:58 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Goode jumped late? Previously the excuse was Goode jumped early. Now it's late. Which is it?

Where did I say he jumped early?

The time between him jumping and contact was less than a second its hardly plenty of time for Payne to avoid him

by GunsGerms Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:59 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Can't see where Goode could have jumped any earlier
If Payne had been stationary then yes Goode would have been liable for a card,but unlikely to be a red as Payne was on the ground so unlikely to go beyond the horizontal.

Neither player was stationary. They both did exactly the same thing except one jumped and the other didnt. Neither player knew the other player was there yet both collided with the other in a manner potentially dangerous to either player. The outcome (injury) isn't relevant, the fact that both did something dangerous does though.

I dont see how you can conclude that one player deserves a red and the other doesnt deserve anything when they both are guilty of identical levels of recklessness and intent.

The decision punished the outcome rather than the act or intent. There lies the issue.

by dummy_half Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:59 pm

Marty

Mis-understanding my point - yes, given how Payne arrived in the collision area, he had no chance to wrap his arms.

However, I was suggesting a hypothetical where Payne had realised Goode was coming and was going to beat him to the ball. Under such a circumstance Payne should have slowed and waited for Goode to land before nailing him. Now, taking it a stage further, consider the case where Payne THEN mis-times the tackle and, with a certain amount of intent, tackled Goode before landing. Chances are, Goode would have not been tipped anything like as much and may well have landed safely (having been slowed and supported on Payne's shoulder). The ref would still have awarded a penalty, and Payne would either have had a talking to or a yellow, but I doubt that the consequences of the challenge would have led Garces to give the red card (unless Payne attempted a Stuart Hogg-style challenge). So, with more intent, a less serious (at least in outcome) offence could have occurred.

Your attempt to argue Goode did anything wrong is rather weak - he jumped to collect a ball, which is well within the Laws and normal practice of the game. He did not put his body (knees or feet) in a position where he was intentionally dangerous (unlike e.g. Lee Byrne on Southwell a few years ago - I think Byrne was lucky not to be red carded for dangerous play in that case), and the Laws of the game are written to protect players in the air. Payne was in the wrong, even if it was unintentional.

by HammerofThunor Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:02 pm

marty2086 wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:Goode jumped late? Previously the excuse was Goode jumped early. Now it's late. Which is it?

Where did I say he jumped early?

The time between him jumping and contact was less than a second its hardly plenty of time for Payne to avoid him

Not you. Early one it was that Goode had jumped early and that was why Payne didn't jump for it himself. Now, according to you, he jumped late. I'm curious as to which excuse for the red card, that was upheld by an independent discipline panel, was the most valid?

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:02 pm

But that is why Payne got red. Ref said Goode hit his head IRB directive if you take a player beyond horizontal without ensuring safe return to the ground then it's a red, intential or not.

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:05 pm

marty2086 wrote:
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

I read it and its wrong because what was Payne meant to do differently? Run slower? The IRB have brought in a litany of rules to speed up the game over the last few years so how can they now ask players to go slower?

The fact is that Payne did what he is meant to do and thats chase down the ball his fly half put up for him, Goode jumped late and Payne could do nothing to change the outcome.

dummy_half wrote: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.

Payne couldn't wrap his arms as he took Goodes hip in his face sending him flying back, which is also deemed dangerous

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:06 pm

marty2086 wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:Can't see where Goode could have jumped any earlier
If Payne had been stationary then yes Goode would have been liable for a card,but unlikely to be a red as Payne was on the ground so unlikely to go beyond the horizontal.

Its not about Payne going beyond the horizontal its about Goode using his knee/hip against an opposition player whos running at him

Have you seen any Gaelic football at all?

It's a primary weapon in the Irish defence armoury to have a supply of players who played GAA and learned those skills in their early years.

I loved watching Geordan do it all the time for the Tigers.

by GunsGerms Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:11 pm

broadlandboy wrote:But that is why Payne got red. Ref said Goode hit his head IRB directive if you take a player beyond horizontal without ensuring safe return to the ground then it's a red, intential or not.

Id be confident that it is also against IRB directives to jump on top of someone knee first and poleaxe them. Why didnt Goode get a red by your logic?

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:22 pm

As stated before if Payne had been stationary then Goode would have been liable for penalty but Payne was running flat out not looking where he was going which was deemed reckless. No one has yet tried to convince me that running flat out not looking where you are going is not reckless

by VinceWLB Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:25 pm

An important point some seems to be missing is that Goode wasn't stationary himself but he was going hard for the ball and had as much momentum as Payne which made him fall this badly.

by GunsGerms Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:25 pm

broadlandboy wrote:As stated before if Payne had been stationary then Goode would have been liable for penalty but Payne was running flat out not looking where he was going which was deemed reckless. No one has yet tried to convince me that running flat out not looking where you are going is not reckless

Both players ran into the contact though, they did the exact same thing!!

The only reason being stationary is a factor is because it assumes that the player colliding with the stationary player is aware that they are there. In this case you can be resonably certain that neither player realised they were about to collide with the other.

by quinsforever Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:40 pm

GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:51 pm

quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

All criminal prosecutions concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

by nathan Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:53 pm

Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:53 pm

GunsGerms wrote:I dont see how you can conclude that one player deserves a red and the other doesnt deserve anything when they both are guilty of identical levels of recklessness and intent.

The decision punished the outcome rather than the act or intent. There lies the issue.

I don't think this is correct. Identical levels of intent most certainly, both players had eyes only on the ball. But if an up and under has been hoisted long, it should very much be assumed that competition for the ball will take place in the air, as is almost always the case when there is competition for the ball, and by running under the path of the ball and paying no attention to the competing playing going up for the ball, you are being reckless. I do not think Goode was reckless at all by going up for the ball. As has been pointed out a million times on here, the laws have to protect the player in the air. As soon as Goode went up for the ball, Payne was under a duty of care not to take him out. That duty has nothing to do with intent, and is strict liability. Take a player out who is competing for the ball in the air and you are subject to penalty.

Had both players competed in the air, and Goode suffered the same injury, there should have been no consequences for Payne. So I think your last sentence isn't quite right either. The punishment was for a reckless act, not the consequences.

Whether recklessness deserves a red card, a yellow card or just a penalty is another matter. My opinion is that without clear intent, as was the case here, it should be a yellow.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:56 pm

nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

Comprehension not your strong point then, nathan.

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:59 pm

When a reckless act takes a player beyond the horizontal then IRB dictate that it is red. Intent or not

by marty2086 Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:01 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:I dont see how you can conclude that one player deserves a red and the other doesnt deserve anything when they both are guilty of identical levels of recklessness and intent.

The decision punished the outcome rather than the act or intent. There lies the issue.

I don't think this is correct. Identical levels of intent most certainly, both players had eyes only on the ball. But if an up and under has been hoisted long, it should very much be assumed that competition for the ball will take place in the air, as is almost always the case when there is competition for the ball, and by running under the path of the ball and paying no attention to the competing playing going up for the ball, you are being reckless. I do not think Goode was reckless at all by going up for the ball. As has been pointed out a million times on here, the laws have to protect the player in the air. As soon as Goode went up for the ball, Payne was under a duty of care not to take him out. That duty has nothing to do with intent, and is strict liability. Take a player out who is competing for the ball in the air and you are subject to penalty.

Had both players competed in the air, and Goode suffered the same injury, there should have been no consequences for Payne. So I think your last sentence isn't quite right either. The punishment was for a reckless act, not the consequences.

Whether recklessness deserves a red card, a yellow card or just a penalty is another matter. My opinion is that without clear intent, as was the case here, it should be a yellow.

And if Payne has seen Goode coming towards him and judged that hes getting there first and then taking a tackle from Goode is it still reckless?

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:02 pm

broadlandboy wrote:When a reckless act takes a player beyond the horizontal then IRB dictate that it is red. Intent or not

If that was true there would be many more reds.

by MrsP Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:06 pm

Did Quins ever show us who suggested Goode was faking it?

by funnyExiledScot Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:08 pm

marty2086 wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:I dont see how you can conclude that one player deserves a red and the other doesnt deserve anything when they both are guilty of identical levels of recklessness and intent.

The decision punished the outcome rather than the act or intent. There lies the issue.

I don't think this is correct. Identical levels of intent most certainly, both players had eyes only on the ball. But if an up and under has been hoisted long, it should very much be assumed that competition for the ball will take place in the air, as is almost always the case when there is competition for the ball, and by running under the path of the ball and paying no attention to the competing playing going up for the ball, you are being reckless. I do not think Goode was reckless at all by going up for the ball. As has been pointed out a million times on here, the laws have to protect the player in the air. As soon as Goode went up for the ball, Payne was under a duty of care not to take him out. That duty has nothing to do with intent, and is strict liability. Take a player out who is competing for the ball in the air and you are subject to penalty.

Had both players competed in the air, and Goode suffered the same injury, there should have been no consequences for Payne. So I think your last sentence isn't quite right either. The punishment was for a reckless act, not the consequences.

Whether recklessness deserves a red card, a yellow card or just a penalty is another matter. My opinion is that without clear intent, as was the case here, it should be a yellow.

And if Payne has seen Goode coming towards him and judged that hes getting there first and then taking a tackle from Goode is it still reckless?

I don't understand the question or the scenario you're trying to create.

If you take a player out in the air who is competing for the ball, and you are not competing for the ball in the air, you are adjudged to be reckless and be penalised. Once a player goes up, you either also go up and compete, or you wait until he's landed.

by Poorfour Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:08 pm

As far as I can see, the timing of Goode's jump isn't relevant to why Payne was carded. We've already agreed that Payne had eyes on the ball all the time so didn't see Goode until the collision was imminent.

The point at which Payne earned a card was the point at which he realised that to be anywhere near the ball he'd need to be running at full tilt and kept going. I think Garces' view (ultimately confirmed by the ERC disciplinary panel) was that Payne should reasonably have known at that point that a) someone was likely to jump for the ball; b) that person would be in the air at about the same time he'd arrive and c) that that was likely to lead to illegal contact under the dangerous play laws. And he should have adjusted his tactics accordingly rather than press on and cause (c).

Whether he did know this and carried on or just didn't think it through is irrelevant. One of the reasons we have dangerous play laws is to discourage players from playing dangerously, which includes getting them to think before they act. Well, duh. Except we have several posters on here arguing that players shouldn't have to do that. I am finding it hard to believe that, even after three match officials and a disciplinary panel have concluded that a red card was warranted, even after posts of links to some pretty grim incidents, some posters are advocating that effectively we should allow more dangerous play.

I appreciate your passion guys, but I really think that if you put aside which teams were involved you would see that the right thing for the game is to enforce them more firmly and not less. I agree that different referees are inconsistent with each other (though Garces appears pretty consistent in himself) but that doesn't mean we should referee safety issues to the level of the lowest common denominator.

by funnyExiledScot Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:10 pm

Poorfour - 100% correct.

by quinsforever Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:18 pm

MrsP wrote:Did Quins ever show us who suggested Goode was faking it?

there were various comments relating to "Goode having stayed down on the ground", "Goode was up and about smiling with his teammates 10 minutes later...", etc, etc. I am not going to name names having gone back and found the quotes. They are on the original match thread as well as this one. I also remember but couldnt find, (suspect these may have been deleted, either by individuals or mods) reference to rugby players hamming up injuries to influence the colour of any potential card being awarded. And rugby becoming more like football (in direct reference to Goode/Payne incident).

and i didnt accuse any ulster fans. could have been anyone.

you shouldnt be so defensive. i have seen no-one fiercer in the defense of preventable head injuries than you Mrs P, until this issue came along. i understand you are a fan, but it clashes a bit with most of the rest of your posts on concussion type issues.

by quinsforever Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:24 pm

Munchkin wrote:
nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

Comprehension not your strong point then, nathan.

no. you are wrong munchkin. i'll repeat what i said again for you.

"most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent."

if there was intent then it wasn't an accident, it was attempted murder of GBH or something like that. if it was an accident, and it leads to a criminal prosecution, then it was almost certainly due to recklessness or DUI (a form of reckless behaviour while in charge of a vehicle).

which is the whole point. you can definitely go to jail for doing something accidentally, without intent, that displays recklessness.

in this instance, sorry munchkin but it is you who are having the comprehension issue. but thats okay, i still love and respect you Smile

by clivemcl Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:25 pm

By the definition of the law, you could jump to take any ball, regardless of wther it was kicked - and if any player so much as touches you, the law has shown that they can expect a red card and two week ban.

What will we do if theres a rushed defence and all you have to do is lift your feet from the ground as you take the pass and take the hit.

The law is the law. Happy days, we play the rest of the game against 14 men.

It could become like diving in football. Just jump and get them sent off and banned!

The law is the law, intent is irrelevant so... and supposedly so is the injury.

by quinsforever Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:29 pm

clivemcl wrote:By the definition of the law, you could jump to take any ball, regardless of wther it was kicked - and if any player so much as touches you, the law has shown that they can expect a red card and two week ban.

What will we do if theres a rushed defence and all you have to do is lift your feet from the ground as you take the pass and take the hit.

The law is the law. Happy days, we play the rest of the game against 14 men.

It could become like diving in football. Just jump and get them sent off and banned!

The law is the law, intent is irrelevant so... and supposedly so is the injury.

steady on there.

if you stand still and they jump into you, the penalty will be against the jumper.

regarding passes though it's a really good point. Faletau jumping into hartley as he caught a ball off the top of a lineout (he clearly didnt need to jump imo) is a great example. refs need clear guidance here that any players jumping into the tackle off a PASS will be dealt with harshly the other way. But, the person making the tackle still has the obligation to make sure he doesnt tip/spear.

by broadlandboy Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:35 pm

clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

by MrsP Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:37 pm

No it doesn't Quins.

I see this as an unavoidable accident. They happen in all sports no matter what rules we put in place.

I am a fervent supporter of making the game as safe as we reasonably can as well as how we deal with head injured players but I remain unconvinced that Payne was any more reckless than Goode. The only thing they did differently was lift/not lift their feet.

I do not believe that Payne had enough time to avoid the collision from when he saw Goode to when they collided.

It was an accidental collision between 2 players who were both running full tilt.

The outcome could have been much worse for either player on the pitch but the difference in the refs apportioning of blame for the 2 players was extreme considering their actions were so similar. I fully support the protection of players in the air from tackles but this was not a tackle. And the outcome has been so different in so many other games that I think we have the right to question how 2mm of air takes us from no offence to RC and 3 week ban.

The on field sanction was 7 times what a YC would have been and then a ban also when many other similar incidents have resulted in a penalty.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:41 pm

quinsforever wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

Comprehension not your strong point then, nathan.
no. you are wrong munchkin. i'll repeat what i said again for you.

"most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent."

if there was intent then it wasn't an accident, it was attempted murder of GBH or something like that. if it was an accident, and it leads to a criminal prosecution, then it was almost certainly due to recklessness or DUI (a form of reckless behaviour while in charge of a vehicle).

which is the whole point. you can definitely go to jail for doing something accidentally, without intent, that displays recklessness.

in this instance, sorry munchkin but it is you who are having the comprehension issue. but thats okay, i still love and respect you

Maybe you should have another read of my reply, quins; "that's stretching it a bit", "most accidents are accidents"

Now, what I mean by stretching it a bit is that traffic accidents are probably not the best example, however, intent is still a consideration in certain cases. In an accident were someone is seriously injured or killed, intent will definitely be a consideration.
Then there are cases where a criminal prosecution will claim that the vehicle was used as a weapon to cause injury, or death, to another. Premeditation (intent) will obviously be considered.

Lastly, for any accident to be deemed an accident, an accident must first be considered free of intent.

by **Ozzy3213** Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:46 pm

Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

Comprehension not your strong point then, nathan.
no. you are wrong munchkin. i'll repeat what i said again for you.

"most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent."

if there was intent then it wasn't an accident, it was attempted murder of GBH or something like that. if it was an accident, and it leads to a criminal prosecution, then it was almost certainly due to recklessness or DUI (a form of reckless behaviour while in charge of a vehicle).

which is the whole point. you can definitely go to jail for doing something accidentally, without intent, that displays recklessness.

in this instance, sorry munchkin but it is you who are having the comprehension issue. but thats okay, i still love and respect you

Maybe you should have another read of my reply, quins; "that's stretching it a bit", "most accidents are accidents"

Now, what I mean by stretching it a bit is that traffic accidents are probably not the best example, however, intent is still a consideration in certain cases. In an accident were someone is seriously injured or killed, intent will definitely be a consideration.
Then there are cases where a criminal prosecution will claim that the vehicle was used as a weapon to cause injury, or death, to another. Premeditation (intent) will obviously be considered.

Lastly, for any accident to be deemed an accident, an accident must first be considered free of intent.

No it won't munchkin. Causing death by dangerous driving, and causing death by careless or reckless driving require no intent whatsoever and both carry a substantial custodial sentence.

by The Great Aukster Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:59 pm

Poorfour wrote:
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.

You mentioned before that context had nothing to do with the application of the Law. If a player in the air is pushed etc. then that is a penalty against the person doing the pushing.

If on the other hand the penalty decision is based on the "significance of the incident" then that implies that there is indeed a context. In other words the referee is deciding what to do based on the outcome of the incident rather than the incident itself. This seems to me to be diametrically opposed to there being no context.

What is clear to me is that the Law is open to wide and varied interpretation and cannot be applied consistently, so players have no clear direction as to what is right and what is wrong, therefore the Law isn't fit for purpose and needs modification.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:04 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
nathan wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote: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.

not true. most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent.

That's stretching it a bit, quins. Most driving accidents are accidents. There are instances were the vehicle may be considered a weapon, and intent will be considered then. Common sense.

Many crimes concerning injury against the person will most definitely consider premeditation > 'intent'

Rubbish, thats why people are arrested for driving without due care and attention - they didn't intend to injure anyone, but they still did because they were not taking care.

Comprehension not your strong point then, nathan.
no. you are wrong munchkin. i'll repeat what i said again for you.

"most criminal prosecutions related to driving accidents involve only recklessness and no intent."

if there was intent then it wasn't an accident, it was attempted murder of GBH or something like that. if it was an accident, and it leads to a criminal prosecution, then it was almost certainly due to recklessness or DUI (a form of reckless behaviour while in charge of a vehicle).

which is the whole point. you can definitely go to jail for doing something accidentally, without intent, that displays recklessness.

in this instance, sorry munchkin but it is you who are having the comprehension issue. but thats okay, i still love and respect you

Maybe you should have another read of my reply, quins; "that's stretching it a bit", "most accidents are accidents"

Now, what I mean by stretching it a bit is that traffic accidents are probably not the best example, however, intent is still a consideration in certain cases. In an accident were someone is seriously injured or killed, intent will definitely be a consideration.
Then there are cases where a criminal prosecution will claim that the vehicle was used as a weapon to cause injury, or death, to another. Premeditation (intent) will obviously be considered.

Lastly, for any accident to be deemed an accident, an accident must first be considered free of intent.

No it won't munchkin. Causing death by dangerous driving, and causing death by careless or reckless driving require no intent whatsoever and both carry a substantial custodial sentence.

Of course they don't. You can drive in a reckless/dangerous manner without actually having the intent of causing injury to the person, and so be charged with dangerous driving. You can also be charged with dangerous driving with intent to cause injury:

[2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 61 CA - "Road rage" cases involving furious driving with intent to cause fear or possible injury, but no accident, consumption of alcohol or injury - six to 12 months imprisonment"

In the USA a defendant can be charged with 'Predatory driving'. To prove Predatory driving you first have to establish intent.

Dangerous driving and intent are not mutually exclusive.

Just to add; predatory driving is aggressive driving, not kerb crawling.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:18 pm

clive wrote:clivemcl wrote:By the definition of the law, you could jump to take any ball, regardless of wther it was kicked - and if any player so much as touches you, the law has shown that they can expect a red card and two week ban.

What will we do if theres a rushed defence and all you have to do is lift your feet from the ground as you take the pass and take the hit.

The law is the law. Happy days, we play the rest of the game against 14 men.

It could become like diving in football. Just jump and get them sent off and banned!

The law is the law, intent is irrelevant so... and supposedly so is the injury.

That is pretty much the strategy behind the choke tackle, clive.

Find a loophole and exploit it.

by clivemcl Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:38 pm

broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

by kunu Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:46 pm

I think the driving analogy is interesting. If we could think of Goode's jump as a kind of pedestrian crossing situation - once Goode jumps, he has absolute right of way, much like a pedestrian at a crossing. All Payne did was run in a straight line, which could equate to driving at a moderate speed, not breaking any rules of the road.

But as he ran at speed and approached Goode, he didn't check his surroundings - much like a driver who is focused on traffic lights ahead, rather than the closer pedestrian crossing. The driver doesn't know there's a pedestrian crossing ahead, but will be liable regardless. The rule exists to incentivise drivers to be aware that their actions are potentially dangerous. While running at that speed without checking his surroundings, when a reasonable player would have understood the potential for competition for the ball, Payne became that dangerous vehicle, and Goode was at the crossing.

I think the, 'if Payne had jumped' argument is hard to apply to this incident. Payne could never have jumped while running at the speed he was - he would have had to alter his stride and slow down in order to do so. I don't think that jumping was ever an option for Payne.

I'm not opposed to the ban really. It's fair enough that players are encouraged to be be vigilant in situations where they could do harm. Payne was never going to jump, so there was always the chance he would take out a player dangerously. He should have proceeded with caution.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:48 pm

clivemcl wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

You are in danger there of proposing the banning of running there, clive.
There's a whole Olympic athletic discipline in walking that proscribes the lifting of both feet from the ground.

First it's jumping, now it's running...

by Poorfour Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:54 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Poorfour wrote:
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.

You mentioned before that context had nothing to do with the application of the Law . If a player in the air is pushed etc. then that is a penalty against the person doing the pushing.

If on the other hand the penalty decision is based on the "significance of the incident" then that implies that there is indeed a context. In other words the referee is deciding what to do based on the outcome of the incident rather than the incident itself. This seems to me to be diametrically opposed to there being no context.

What is clear to me is that the Law is open to wide and varied interpretation and cannot be applied consistently, so players have no clear direction as to what is right and what is wrong, therefore the Law isn't fit for purpose and needs modification.

Here we go... I was expecting a response like this. You are playing semantics and you know it. Or if not, you are recklessly playing semantics without due regard to common sense. Either is a cardable offence in my book.

If you read carefully, you'll notice that I didn't talk about context in the post about Ashton & Bowe. I talked about "materiality". Materiality is a concept that referees are actively taught to consider, because if they didn't the game would stop every few seconds for infringements that didn't actually affect the passage of play. There is some subjectivity in it, but we accept that because a) we want to actually watch a game of rugby and not a referee dispensing justice for 80 minutes and b) mostly we can agree what is material (i.e. actually influences the game or the safety of the players).

Players in the air make contact with other players at pretty much every restart, every lineout and a fair number of kicks. Most of these are innocuous in that they don't increase the danger to the jumper, and don't unfairly affect the contest for the ball. What the referee has to judge is whether the contact made a material difference to the game. I think it is pretty obvious that in Payne-Goode it did.

Materiality is not the same as context. One's a fairly straightforward measure of "did it matter?" the other opens the door to a much wider range of considerations, much like trying to consider intent. Ignoring either simplifies the ref's decisions but ignoring materiality renders the game instantly and irrevocably unwatchable.

By the way, two more thoughts on Ashton and Bowe:
1) Payne's red hinged on Garces' view that it was Payne's own actions (i.e. running full tilt into that space) that created the dangerous situation. Payne should have been aware of the likelihood of players in the air, but acted as if there wouldn't be one. In that sense the contact wasn't entirely accidental: he chose a tactic that increased the likelihood of a collision. Ashton's actions didn't lead to the contact: he followed a natural path (I assume he had to turn or he'd have run into the hoardings) and Bowe jumped into that path. It's similar to the basketball rule that effectively says that the space belongs to the person who was in the channel first (you can't step into the path of a runner, but the runner can't run through a blocker who was already there). I say similar because a) rugby's a contact sport and b) we afford more protection to the guy in the air.

2) If it happened after the try was scored, which from your description it did, then play was over and the ball was dead. The referee is entitled to award a penalty under those circumstances (which I believe Ulster would have been allowed to kick from anywhere on or behind their 22, though I'd have to check, and the try would still stand, because it happened first), but it has to influenced play or been dangerous. By definition, it can't have influenced play because the ball was dead. Doesn't sound like it was dangerous.

So if you think the laws are not fit for purpose, what would you suggest instead?

by Poorfour Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:56 pm

kunu wrote:I think the driving analogy is interesting. If we could think of Goode's jump as a kind of pedestrian crossing situation - once Goode jumps, he has absolute right of way, much like a pedestrian at a crossing. All Payne did was run in a straight line, which could equate to driving at a moderate speed, not breaking any rules of the road.

But as he ran at speed and approached Goode, he didn't check his surroundings - much like a driver who is focused on traffic lights ahead, rather than the closer pedestrian crossing. The driver doesn't know there's a pedestrian crossing ahead, but will be liable regardless. The rule exists to incentivise drivers to be aware that their actions are potentially dangerous. While running at that speed without checking his surroundings, when a reasonable player would have understood the potential for competition for the ball, Payne became that dangerous vehicle, and Goode was at the crossing.

I think the, 'if Payne had jumped' argument is hard to apply to this incident. Payne could never have jumped while running at the speed he was - he would have had to alter his stride and slow down in order to do so. I don't think that jumping was ever an option for Payne.

I'm not opposed to the ban really. It's fair enough that players are encouraged to be be vigilant in situations where they could do harm. Payne was never going to jump, so there was always the chance he would take out a player dangerously. He should have proceeded with caution.

Nice one. I thought about posting exactly that analogy but was afraid it would be misinterpreted.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:57 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

You are in danger there of proposing the banning of running there, clive.
There's a whole Olympic athletic discipline in walking that proscribes the lifting of both feet from the ground.

First it's jumping, now it's running...

Clive is right though. The argument here seems to be one of a literal reading of the law (the letter of the law) Vs the intent of the law (the spirit of the law). If we are to accept only a literal reading of the law, then we should prepare for the destruction of the game. One should not be at odds with the other, but should be complete together.

On that, it's my understanding that in this type of incident the law does not dictate that a red card must be given, but rather consideration starts at red, and works down to yellow or further still to penalty only.

by clivemcl Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:13 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

You are in danger there of proposing the banning of running there, clive.
There's a whole Olympic athletic discipline in walking that proscribes the lifting of both feet from the ground.

First it's jumping, now it's running...

Clive is right though. The argument here seems to be one of a literal reading of the law (the letter of the law) Vs the intent of the law (the spirit of the law). If we are to accept only a literal reading of the law, then we should prepare for the destruction of the game. One should not be at odds with the other, but should be complete together.

On that, it's my understanding that in this type of incident the law does not dictate that a red card must be given, but rather consideration starts at red, and works down to yellow or further still to penalty only.

It is slightly ironic that an incident can be pronounced upon only by the letter of the law and not the intent or the injury - but then the ref is also told - red or yellow - its up to you. On what further basis do you decide between the colours? Its ludicrous.

by Poorfour Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:22 pm

clivemcl wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

Then you may need to get your ears checked...

10.4(i) says that physical interference with an aerial player is an offence under dangerous play. It doesn't specify sanctions, which are handled under law 10.5:

"10.5 Sanctions
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off."

If you notice, the precise sanction isn't specified. The referee is given leeway to decide, in accordance with IRB directives and clarifications. The 2011 clarification of the tip tackle (available here) says:

"Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient"

While Payne was charged under 10.4(i), 10.4(j) was introduced into the laws in 2009 following this clarification which makes it very clear that 10.4(j) was intended to bring tip tackles into line with 10.4(i). On that basis, while I haven't been able to find a directive specifically relating to sanctions for 10.4(i), it's very likely that the IRB has instructed referees that equivalent sanctions apply.

Payne's contact with Goode resulted in him dropping to the ground from a height. Did he act without regard for Goode's (or rather the jumper he should have expected to be there's) safety? Garces thought so, and the disciplinary commissioner ultimately agreed with him. The directive states the sanction: "red card offence".

In conclusion can we all now accept that:
i) Garces applied the sanctions specified by the laws (penalty) and the IRB's directive (red card) for what he deemed had occurred
ii) The disciplinary commission agreed that Payne had acted without regard for other players' safety, confirming Garces' action
iii) The Laws and IRB directives are framed to apply strong sanctions for where player safety issues are concerned. This sometimes requires players to think about safety ahead of thinking about competing.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:23 pm

I still don't know if it warranted a red or a yellow. It was too close to call imo and I wouldn't have baulked at either.

What is true is that Goode was off for 76 minutes. A yellow would have been on again after ten.

What may have been reasonable is for Jared to be off for as long as Alex was. And the Sarries to have been allowed to bring on a temp/perm sub immediately and Ulster to bring on a temp/perm sub after ten minutes.

But that's so convoluted, it's either brilliant or stupid.

I tend to the latter.

by Guest Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:29 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
broadlandboy wrote:clivemcl, if during the tackle the player is caused to go beyond the horizontal then yes a red, if not it is the refs discetion as to whether it is dangerous

law 10.4(i) with which payne was cited does not mention horizontal or danger. It simply talks about physical interference with an aerial player. If an opponent is likely to get 'man and ball' - just jump slightly - remainder of the game against 14 men - happy days.

You can't argue with the law on any basis other than the text in black and white. that what I've been hearing.

You are in danger there of proposing the banning of running there, clive.
There's a whole Olympic athletic discipline in walking that proscribes the lifting of both feet from the ground.

First it's jumping, now it's running...

Clive is right though. The argument here seems to be one of a literal reading of the law (the letter of the law) Vs the intent of the law (the spirit of the law). If we are to accept only a literal reading of the law, then we should prepare for the destruction of the game. One should not be at odds with the other, but should be complete together.

On that, it's my understanding that in this type of incident the law does not dictate that a red card must be given, but rather consideration starts at red, and works down to yellow or further still to penalty only.

It is slightly ironic that an incident can be pronounced upon only by the letter of the law and not the intent or the injury - but then the ref is also told - red or yellow - its up to you. On what further basis do you decide between the colours? Its ludicrous.

The claim that intent is not to be taken into consideration is patently false based on the precedent set. The precedent demonstrates that, as you say, a yellow card, or penalty only, is given at the discretion of the match official, and it just isn't credible to believe that intent isn't taken into consideration when deciding the appropriate action to take.

by Scrumpy Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:51 pm

Two weeks seems fair.

by The Great Aukster Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:17 pm

Poorfour wrote:Here we go... I was expecting a response like this. You are playing semantics and you know it. Or if not, you are recklessly playing semantics without due regard to common sense. Either is a cardable offence in my book.

If you read carefully, you'll notice that I didn't talk about context in the post about Ashton & Bowe. I talked about "materiality". Materiality is a concept that referees are actively taught to consider, because if they didn't the game would stop every few seconds for infringements that didn't actually affect the passage of play. There is some subjectivity in it, but we accept that because a) we want to actually watch a game of rugby and not a referee dispensing justice for 80 minutes and b) mostly we can agree what is material (i.e. actually influences the game or the safety of the players).

Players in the air make contact with other players at pretty much every restart, every lineout and a fair number of kicks. Most of these are innocuous in that they don't increase the danger to the jumper, and don't unfairly affect the contest for the ball. What the referee has to judge is whether the contact made a material difference to the game. I think it is pretty obvious that in Payne-Goode it did.

Materiality is not the same as context. One's a fairly straightforward measure of "did it matter?" the other opens the door to a much wider range of considerations, much like trying to consider intent. Ignoring either simplifies the ref's decisions but ignoring materiality renders the game instantly and irrevocably unwatchable.

By the way, two more thoughts on Ashton and Bowe:
1) Payne's red hinged on Garces' view that it was Payne's own actions (i.e. running full tilt into that space) that created the dangerous situation. Payne should have been aware of the likelihood of players in the air, but acted as if there wouldn't be one. In that sense the contact wasn't entirely accidental: he chose a tactic that increased the likelihood of a collision. Ashton's actions didn't lead to the contact: he followed a natural path (I assume he had to turn or he'd have run into the hoardings) and Bowe jumped into that path. It's similar to the basketball rule that effectively says that the space belongs to the person who was in the channel first (you can't step into the path of a runner, but the runner can't run through a blocker who was already there). I say similar because a) rugby's a contact sport and b) we afford more protection to the guy in the air.

2) If it happened after the try was scored, which from your description it did, then play was over and the ball was dead. The referee is entitled to award a penalty under those circumstances (which I believe Ulster would have been allowed to kick from anywhere on or behind their 22, though I'd have to check, and the try would still stand, because it happened first), but it has to influenced play or been dangerous. By definition, it can't have influenced play because the ball was dead. Doesn't sound like it was dangerous.

So if you think the laws are not fit for purpose, what would you suggest instead?

Sorry Poorfour but you are the one playing semantics. You suggest that the award of a penalty can not take into account the circumstances it happened in and then contradict yourself by saying that "materiality" allows the referee to do exactly that. I am not familiar with referee speak and such fabricated words obviously are designed for inner circle use only.

This isn't an exercise in debating one-up-man-ship, it is a discussion about the Law and what it is intended to do in relation to player safety. As far as I can see the only outcome from this whole episode is for coaches to tell their players to always jump when taking the high ball to avoid the wrath of the referee. If a player wants to catch a high ball he will have to run to get in the right place and keep his eyes on it in order to catch it - therefore he should always jump in case he has missed a player in his blindspot.

So the Law and this ruling encourages players to run and jump, and therefore there will be more one on one aerial collisions. The result is that two players rather than one could be falling from a height and therefore the risk of injury is doubled. The ruling today in my view could lead to more injuries rather than less and that is why the Law is not fit for purpose.

As for a Law change, that would require the acceptance that there is a problem first, before debating how it can be improved.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?