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

Thing is if two players bump in the air the most likely thing is they both fall the ground nearly up right, possibly on their back. If a guy on the floor collides with someone in the air then the guy in the air will almost certainly be tipped. So the safest would be no-one jumps, then both jump. The worst is one jumps and the other doesn't.

I don't think the law needs changed, but clarified. In the event off an unintended collision it should clarify yellow, or penalty only. If it isn't clear whether or not a collision was intentional then a yellow card should be issued, and the matter referred to the citing commission for consideration.

Wouldn't a safer option be that if a player causes another to go beyond the horzontal & not brought to ground safely,regardless of intent, a red card will be issued

Why would it be safer, and why punish the innocent with the guilty in equal measure?

The problem is broadlandboy you can do that perfectly legally by accident in say a tackle if I was to tackle you low down round ankles, when you are at fullspeed, and it is a legit tackle, arms wrapped etc and you go over me and come down headfirst that would also be a red card, you cannot send someone off for an accident, if you do you cannot play rugby otherwise very few games will finish. I think Munchkin has a point that they should clarify make the accidental collision a yellow.
If they mean to do it then it should always be red.

The Great Aukster wrote:
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.

OK, giving you the benefit of the doubt, we may have been using the word "context" differently. "Context", to me, is very broad term meaning "anything and everything that might be relevant to the event." In particular, it includes what led up to the event. "Materiality" is narrow and specific: "did this event have any bearing on fairness or safety", which is different from "context" in my mind and even different from "outcome" (e.g. a no-arm tackle might not lead to an injury, but it is still dangerous and illegal).

I am sorry if "Materiality" isn't a word you're familiar with. It is, as the Simpsons would have it, perfectly cromulent where I come from. As far as I can tell it's a pretty common legal concept that's also gained wide currency in business. It's also not that hard to work out what it means from the derivation. Given that it's introduced as a refereeing concept in the Entry Level Referee Award, which is the basic training that every ref does to get their whistle and cards (literally - in England you are supplied with both as part of the course), it's not exactly exclusive to some secret brotherhood of elite referees.

As far as I can see, the outcome from this episode is far less dramatic. I was going to say that "Coaches will remind players to expect an opposition jumper in the air when they chase a ball and to allow for that if they decide not to jump", but actually that's stupid. Players already know this. So one of the Ulster coaches will slap Jared Payne round the head and tell him to be a bit more careful next time, he'll try to remember that, and in a few weeks' time everyone will start to forget this. If we are lucky, referees will be reminded to apply the laws and directives.

And you know what? In most cases two players WILL jump for the ball. Just like they did after most contested kicks last week, and the week before. And there will be fewer injuries, not more, because players in the air are decelerating and their centres of gravity are at about the same height. In the vast majority of times where there is contact, both of them will land feet downwards, because physics.

The reason we've had to debate this in such detail is that it's a rare event, but it's not the rugby equivalent of the Derek Bentley case. I don't accept that the law needs to be changed, because, imperfect as it is, I can see why it has been defined that way and I am happy that it generally works the right way, and that it did so in this case. I'd be open to debating positive suggestions for how it could be improved, though.

I may be thick but could someone explain how a tackled player can go beyond the horizontal if their feet are on the ground?

It reminds me a bit of the furore when O'Connell accidentally kicked Kearney in the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UPSRl-gt_A

For me he was going for the ball and although it's unfortunate Kearneys head was there too, I can't see beyond a penalty. Actually at the time I thought a penalty was harsh on O'Connell whilst hoping that Kearney was ok (he was). Kearney places the ball back, O'Connell sees the ball and he is trying to flyhack it on. He ends up kicking the ball and also Kearneys head. You could argue that O'Connell has a duty of care to the player on the ground and that he was reckless, so red card or yellow card. After all Kearney had to be stretchered off the field and spent the night in hospital. But it was actually thrown out, O'Connell wasn't cited. Although the action was deemed careless it was also deemed unintentional. The judgment actually said;

"Following analysis of video footage of the encounter, it was deemed that the incident was a result of carelessness and was not intentional, and therefore not a red card offence."

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/rabo-direct-pro-12/2013/0415/381486-oconnell-avoids-citing-over-kearney-kick/

I'm not trying to argue the two cases are exactly equivalent. The big difference is that O'Connell played the ball and Payne didn't get near the ball, also important is that Payne didn't get airborne. But precedents like that are why I expected that if a player is making an honest attempt to win the ball or play the ball and another player is injured as a result intent would come into play in determining whether it was a red card or worthy of a citing. The O'Connell example is a very high profile case of a player trying to go for the ball, inflicting a serious head injury on another player and being cleared of all wrongdoing due to having no intent.

I don't disagree with that. Accidents happen. I'm all for trying to make the game safer, but sometimes there are accidents which result in injury and punishing players for those does nothing to remove the risk. I don't think this will change anything. Payne had a brainfart in terms of timing his run, knowing where the opposition fullback was and not getting off the ground. It was a miscalculation in the same way as putting a kick out on the full is. Any player can have a brainfart at any time. You can't create a deterrent against not thinking clearly.

neilthom7 wrote:The problem is broadlandboy you can do that perfectly legally by accident in say a tackle if I was to tackle you low down round ankles, when you are at fullspeed, and it is a legit tackle, arms wrapped etc and you go over me and come down headfirst that would also be a red card, you cannot send someone off for an accident, if you do you cannot play rugby otherwise very few games will finish. I think Munchkin has a point that they should clarify make the accidental collision a yellow.
If they mean to do it then it should always be red.

No, sorry, that is so far off it's not even wrong, for three reasons:
1) Referees can't read minds. These incidents are often emotionally charged and intent is hard to judge.
2) Intent to do what, exactly? Payne certainly intended to arrive in the area at speed, and that intent resulted in a dangerous contact which he could have foreseen and avoided (and no, I don't mean he could have seen Goode earlier, I mean he could have realised that there was a high risk of hitting a jumper)
3) And by far the most important is that when it comes to safety I strongly believe you should apply the sanction based on the event and not the intent. I've picked the word "event" carefully because it's different from "outcome" (and because Aukster doesn't like "materiality"). Did something illegal happen? If yes, did it have an impact on the game or on safety? If yes, penalty and, if it was dangerous or very dangerous, red or yellow.

What is important here? Is player safety your top concern? As someone whose children play rugby I [insert expletive of choice] well hope so, especially as my son and I will be on tour to Ireland this spring. If my child, or even a player on a team I support, were to be seriously injured by a tip tackle or a hit in the air, it wouldn't matter to me or him whether it was caused by an intentional act or clumsy play, or worst of all an intentional act that looked like clumsy play.

We need to discourage dangerous play. We need to discourage play that might lead to excessive danger, especially for players in vulnerable positions. We need to encourage players to do what they can to reduce the impact of dangerous play whether accidental or not (Warburton got his card not for the tackle, but for letting go of the man so he fell on his upper back. If he'd had the presence of mind to hold on, it might not even have been a pen). I am dismayed that anyone even thinks there's a case to argue here. You would really put a debatable question of "did he mean to do the bad thing?" ahead of zero tolerance for dangerous play?

If a player can have a brainfart that is dangerous to other players they shouldn't be on the pitch

broadlandboy wrote:If a player can have a brainfart that is dangerous to other players they shouldn't be on the pitch

No less than perfection in your world eh? Hotel staff must tremble in terror when they see you coming   

broadlandboy wrote:If a player can have a brainfart that is dangerous to other players they shouldn't be on the pitch

Then nobody should be allowed on the pitch because the game is too dangerous. The sport should be stopped. Because all it takes for a serious injury is one mistake, and everyone can make a mistake. There is no fullback in world rugby who has no chance of ever doing what Payne did. Most fullbacks will do something like that at some point in their careers. It could have happened to anyone.

Payne has been excellent under the high ball for Ulster and excellent at contesting up and unders- safely and fairly. There has never been an issue with the part of his game but a one-off mistake can happen to any player.

Yes we all make mistakes but we try to minimise them. To bring an already used analagy if you make a mistake while driving you are held to account for it.

broadlandboy wrote:Yes we all make mistakes but we try to minimise them. To bring an already used analagy if you make a mistake while driving you are held to account for it.

Yes, I agree. I was merely pointing out a case where a player accidentally injured another and was acquitted from all wrongdoing due to lack of intent.

Notch Does he usually jump for the ball or always try to catch the ball running flat out on the ground?
Big difference in that he was going for the ball & do you think he thought twice before doing it again?

broadlandboy wrote:Notch Does he usually jump for the ball or always try to catch the ball running flat out on the ground?
Big difference in that he was going for the ball & do you think he thought twice before doing it again?

He usually jumps for the ball of course. What happened on Saturday was totally uncharacteristic and is something I've never seen him do before on a rugby pitch, ever, and will probably never see him do again. It was a misjudgment but I think it came from being too keen to get involved in the game

As I say I don't think he was thinking clearly, and I don't think his head was at all in the game at that stage. A minute before that he put a ball out on the full. Usually his kicking game from hand is very good but this was an awful kick. A basic error. The sequence of play which ended in the collision between him and Goode was also a highly uncharacteristic basic error. His totally misjudged the situation and didn't jump, and didn't expect Goode to be there either.

He has a pretty awful six minutes all things considered. But that can happen to even experienced players. Look at what happened to O'Gara in 2009 on the Lions tour.

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:If a player can have a brainfart that is dangerous to other players they shouldn't be on the pitch

Then nobody should be allowed on the pitch because the game is too dangerous. The sport should be stopped. Because all it takes for a serious injury is one mistake, and everyone can make a mistake. There is no fullback in world rugby who has no chance of ever doing what Payne did. Most fullbacks will do something like that at some point in their careers. It could have happened to anyone.

Payne has been excellent under the high ball for Ulster and excellent at contesting up and unders- safely and fairly. There has never been an issue with the part of his game but a one-off mistake can happen to any player.

There is a level of risk that everyone accepts when they play, but there is absolutely no reason to make it worse. It is exactly because "all it takes for a serious injury isone mistake" that we should strongly encourage players to work on reducing the number of mistakes they make. Yes, most fullbacks will make a similar mistake at some point in their careers. If it leads to a dangerous situation, they should be carded in proportion to the the level of danger.

Yes, it could have happened to anyone. As it happened it happened to Alex Goode. As it happened, he was lucky. He may have concussion and whiplash, but at least he got away without a dislocated shoulder or a broken neck.

The big question now is going to be one of consistency, I'm sure a fair few of us have played or at least known someone who has and I am sure the one thing people will always be on about is consistency from refs etc. A lot of the time players are not as annoyed if the referee gets something wrong if they are consistent, players can play to consistent ref and adapt so that they don't give away the pens etc.
Being consistent is very important and now the owness is on the referees as a whole and the authorities to make sure that any tackle in the air, collision of a player on the ground to one in the air whatever you want to call it whether purely by accident or on purpose is an immediate red card and a 3 week suspension (maybe reduced for good behavior likes Paynes was) There will be instances of this before the season is out I'd imagine a number of them in fact and if they are not met with the same punishment then the authorities must come off looking incompetent.

I would add if the player is taken beyond horizontal & not returned to ground safely

well in these sorts o0f collisions that is nearly always what happens because if you are going forward when you leap, you are jumping forward so your legs hit the man and stop or go backways but you upper body continues to go forward so causing you to go over as happened to Goode

Notch wrote:It reminds me a bit of the furore when O'Connell accidentally kicked Kearney in the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UPSRl-gt_A

For me he was going for the ball and although it's unfortunate Kearneys head was there too, I can't see beyond a penalty. Actually at the time I thought a penalty was harsh on O'Connell whilst hoping that Kearney was ok (he was). Kearney places the ball back, O'Connell sees the ball and he is trying to flyhack it on. He ends up kicking the ball and also Kearneys head. You could argue that O'Connell has a duty of care to the player on the ground and that he was reckless, so red card or yellow card. After all Kearney had to be stretchered off the field and spent the night in hospital. But it was actually thrown out, O'Connell wasn't cited. Although the action was deemed careless it was also deemed unintentional. The judgment actually said;

"Following analysis of video footage of the encounter, it was deemed that the incident was a result of carelessness and was not intentional, and therefore not a red card offence."

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/rabo-direct-pro-12/2013/0415/381486-oconnell-avoids-citing-over-kearney-kick/

I'm not trying to argue the two cases are exactly equivalent. The big difference is that O'Connell played the ball and Payne didn't get near the ball, also important is that Payne didn't get airborne. But precedents like that are why I expected that if a player is making an honest attempt to win the ball or play the ball and another player is injured as a result intent would come into play in determining whether it was a red card or worthy of a citing. The O'Connell example is a very high profile case of a player trying to go for the ball, inflicting a serious head injury on another player and being cleared of all wrongdoing due to having no intent.

I don't disagree with that. Accidents happen. I'm all for trying to make the game safer, but sometimes there are accidents which result in injury and punishing players for those does nothing to remove the risk. I don't think this will change anything. Payne had a brainfart in terms of timing his run, knowing where the opposition fullback was and not getting off the ground. It was a miscalculation in the same way as putting a kick out on the full is. Any player can have a brainfart at any time. You can't create a deterrent against not thinking clearly.

If the arguments that have been made on here re Payne were applied to the O'Connel - Kearney incident - it would go something like...

'It doesn't matter what O'Connels intent was, he swung a boot in an area where a man was on the deck. At the end of the day, O'Connels reckless behaviour involved a player being struck in the head with a boot.' It was ceratinly as reckless if not more so than Payne.

Munchkin wrote:

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?

Because it's funny how far some people will blindly back their players no matter what.

clivemcl wrote:
If the arguments that have been made on here re Payne were applied to the O'Connel - Kearney incident - it would go something like...

'It doesn't matter what O'Connels intent was, he swung a boot in an area where a man was on the deck. At the end of the day, O'Connels reckless behaviour involved a player being struck in the head with a boot.' It was ceratinly as reckless if not more so than Payne.

Yup. And the problem with that would be? To be honest, I was surprised to read that judgement. The major difference is probably in the potential danger in the event - Payne's collision with Goode could have been fatal; a kick to the head is unpleasant but not usually as dangerous. In that case, I could see how a careless act might be deemed a yellow rather than a red. How bad was the kick (again, can't easily watch video. sorry)?

Poorfour wrote:

clivemcl wrote:
If the arguments that have been made on here re Payne were applied to the O'Connel - Kearney incident - it would go something like...

'It doesn't matter what O'Connels intent was, he swung a boot in an area where a man was on the deck. At the end of the day, O'Connels reckless behaviour involved a player being struck in the head with a boot.' It was ceratinly as reckless if not more so than Payne.

Yup. And the problem with that would be? To be honest, I was surprised to read that judgement. The major difference is probably in the potential danger in the event - Payne's collision with Goode could have been fatal; a kick to the head is unpleasant but not usually as dangerous. In that case, I could see how a careless act might be deemed a yellow rather than a red. How bad was the kick (again, can't easily watch video. sorry)?

It was pretty forceful to the back of the head. Not fun to watch Poorfour! But do you see the difficulty with consistancy?

If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I'm fine with ruling out "carelessness" or "accidental" as considerations on the pitch (and equally fine with considering them in citings). I'm also fine with the idea that a kick can be deemed less dangerous than a tip.

The biggest problem is consistency. One issue there is that the IRB doesn't exactly make it obvious where you can find its directives and understand what they've asked referees to do. I think if they were maintained in one place, with a clear statement of principles, then it would be a lot easier for fans and coaches to get used to what was expected of refs - and therefore a lot easier for refs to apply it consistently.

That does raise one question which is around how much consistency you want. There is a call to be made here. I said above that I think Roman Poite is probably the best technical referee around right now, but one consequence of that is that he can be a bit pernickety. Wayne Barnes is in the same camp, though a bit more pernickety and prone to miss the odd forward pass. Nigel Owens has the best sense of how to make the game flow, but I think that a consequence of that is that he probably rules similar things in different ways depending on the feel of the game.

Which is better? Do we ask refs to sacrifice consistency for flow? How do we train them to get it right? Even refereeing U10s I find it very difficult to get the balance right.

clivemcl wrote:If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I thought the IRB did that already in 2009 - that intent is not to be considered if referring on dangerous play.

It's stated very clearly here that referees are not to consider the intention of the player only the objective assessment of the action.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/Protecting_Players_from_Head_Injuries_EN.pdf

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I thought the IRB did that already in 2009 - that intent is not to be considered if referring on dangerous play.

It's stated very clearly here that referees are not to consider the intention of the player only the objective assessment of the action.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/Protecting_Players_from_Head_Injuries_EN.pdf

Thats just idiotic though. What if you are clearing your lines and you kick the ball to touch and you skew it and it smashes someone in the head and it knocks them out. Do you deserve a red card?

GunsGerms 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

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.

Quite frankly a bizarre statement which just shows how much bias you have. I saw this and went and watched the link posted near the top of this thread and you see exactly what Goode did. He lifted one knee as you tend to when jumping like that, then rotated his body as he jumped. Payne hit his side and the top of his thigh. The knee was nowhere near Payne. Goode did nothing wrong, could have been seriously hurt, and was lucky just to have been knocked out.

There are some fine lines here. Payne got it wrong and maybe the punishment is excessive but it is understandable.

The point is Payne did nothing wrong too.

GunsGerms wrote:The point is Payne did nothing wrong too.

Thats why he was given a Red!    

No Guns, Payne did do something wrong. He ran full pelt into an area of the pitch without consideration for what was around him. The disciplinary panel have agreed that his action was reckless and issued a ban accordingly. You can argue until the cows come home that he did nothing wrong, but you would be mistaken.

Ozzy3213 wrote:No Guns, Payne did do something wrong.  He ran full pelt into an area of the pitch without consideration for what was around him.  The disciplinary panel have agreed that his action was reckless and issued a ban accordingly.  You can argue until the cows come home that he did nothing wrong, but you would be mistaken.

That appears to be the sum of it, Pete - fine margins aside, that is what the ref/TMO and citing panel found. There may not be any huge differences with previous incidents where a different outcome was observed - but they are not relevant unfortunately - no two incidents are precisely the same, and the harsh truth is that this one has now twice been judged to have merited red (as disappointing as that is for Ulster and many other fans)

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I thought the IRB did that already in 2009 - that intent is not to be considered if referring on dangerous play.

It's stated very clearly here that referees are not to consider the intention of the player only the objective assessment of the action.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/Protecting_Players_from_Head_Injuries_EN.pdf

Thats just idiotic though. What if you are clearing your lines and you kick the ball to touch and you skew it and it smashes someone in the head and it knocks them out. Do you deserve a red card?

No, because you haven't broken the laws. (That's a pretty daft scenario anyway. I seriously doubt, having watched Lewis Moody charge down countless ball with his face, that you could actually kick a ball hard enough to knock someone out anyway. Another example: last season Nick Evans kicked to touch and hit a fan walking back to his seat. He had his back turned and the ball caught him squarely. He spilled his pints but wasn't injured. Evans subsequently bought him a round, which seems an appropriate penance. The chance of a ball weighing less than a kilo actually knocking someone out is minimal).

The laws around dangerous play are about discouraging play that is likely to lead to injury. The IRB periodically updates then when additional risks are identified - as it did in introducing a specific tip tackle law - but it can't legislate for every possible scenario, and sometimes accidents will happen as a result of legal play. But there's a big difference between, say, kicking at the ball and striking the head of a nearby prone player versus, say, running into the head of a player who falls into your path. Both are accidents but in one instance you took an action (kicking at the ball when a player was nearby) that increased the injury risk and in the other you happened to be in the path of something that happened).

I know you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two?

Ozzy3213 wrote:No Guns, Payne did do something wrong.  He ran full pelt into an area of the pitch without consideration for what was around him.  The disciplinary panel have agreed that his action was reckless and issued a ban accordingly.  You can argue until the cows come home that he did nothing wrong, but you would be mistaken.

Goode did the exact same thing. Why didnt he get sanctioned?

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I thought the IRB did that already in 2009 - that intent is not to be considered if referring on dangerous play.

It's stated very clearly here that referees are not to consider the intention of the player only the objective assessment of the action.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/Protecting_Players_from_Head_Injuries_EN.pdf

Thats just idiotic though. What if you are clearing your lines and you kick the ball to touch and you skew it and it smashes someone in the head and it knocks them out. Do you deserve a red card?

No, because you haven't broken the laws. (That's a pretty daft scenario anyway. I seriously doubt, having watched Lewis Moody charge down countless ball with his face, that you could actually kick a ball hard enough to knock someone out anyway. Another example: last season Nick Evans kicked to touch and hit a fan walking back to his seat. He had his back turned and the ball caught him squarely. He spilled his pints but wasn't injured. Evans subsequently bought him a round, which seems an appropriate penance. The chance of a ball weighing less than a kilo actually knocking someone out is minimal).

The laws around dangerous play are about discouraging play that is likely to lead to injury. The IRB periodically updates then when additional risks are identified - as it did in introducing a specific tip tackle law - but it can't legislate for every possible scenario, and sometimes accidents will happen as a result of legal play. But there's a big difference between, say, kicking at the ball and striking the head of a nearby prone player versus, say, running into the head of a player who falls into your path. Both are accidents but in one instance you took an action (kicking at the ball when a player was nearby) that increased the injury risk and in the other you happened to be in the path of something that happened).

I know you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two?

Unfortunately you can - saw it happen years ago, mind you it was one of those old brown leather balls, soaken wet in the rain, with the laced stitching up the side!

Poorfour wrote:

No, because you haven't broken the laws. (That's a pretty daft scenario anyway. I seriously doubt, having watched Lewis Moody charge down countless ball with his face, that you could actually kick a ball hard enough to knock someone out anyway. Another example: last season Nick Evans kicked to touch and hit a fan walking back to his seat. He had his back turned and the ball caught him squarely. He spilled his pints but wasn't injured. Evans subsequently bought him a round, which seems an appropriate penance. The chance of a ball weighing less than a kilo actually knocking someone out is minimal).

The laws around dangerous play are about discouraging play that is likely to lead to injury. The IRB periodically updates then when additional risks are identified - as it did in introducing a specific tip tackle law - but it can't legislate for every possible scenario, and sometimes accidents will happen as a result of legal play. But there's a big difference between, say, kicking at the ball and striking the head of a nearby prone player versus, say, running into the head of a player who falls into your path. Both are accidents but in one instance you took an action (kicking at the ball when a player was nearby) that increased the injury risk and in the other you happened to be in the path of something that happened).

I know you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two?

I'm highlighting how absurd it it is to sanction someone for a complete accident.

Because Goode did not do the same. He ran into the area in a controlled manner, timed his jump to compete for the ball perfectly and won the ball. He was taken out in the air illegally, albeit without any intent to do so. I'm struggling a bit to understand how yourself and others cannot see this. It's pretty clear.

Payne was wrong to run intro a 'red zone' for ball competition, at a speed where he was likely to remain grounded and therefore likely to take the legs out from under someone, without checking his surroundings. Had he been planning do jump, he would have had to slow down his run, and therefore would become a far less dangerous prospect to players in the air, jump or not.

That action is reckless, and as it is an area the IRB seem to be clamping down upon in the name of safety promotion. The red and ban aren't crazy calls.

Personally, it was a yellow for me. But if a statement regarding player safety is what the IRB are after, then fair enough.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Unfortunately you can - saw it happen years ago, mind you it was one of those old brown leather balls, soaken wet in the rain, with the laced stitching up the side!

I have seen it happen too. If you knock someone out with a punch it is a red card. If you knock someone out by accident as per the example I have given no sanction. Therefore why did Payne merit a red card?

The answer is because the outcome in this case was sanctioned and not the intent or act. This is fundimentally wrong.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:If these decisions are to be justified, the IRB has to tell the refs to deal harshly EVERY time regardless of intent. The conecpt of 'carelessness' or 'accidental' should no longer be considered.

We will see if this is the case or not...

I thought the IRB did that already in 2009 - that intent is not to be considered if referring on dangerous play.

It's stated very clearly here that referees are not to consider the intention of the player only the objective assessment of the action.

http://irbplayerwelfare.com/pdfs/Protecting_Players_from_Head_Injuries_EN.pdf

Thats just idiotic though. What if you are clearing your lines and you kick the ball to touch and you skew it and it smashes someone in the head and it knocks them out. Do you deserve a red card?

No, because you haven't broken the laws. (That's a pretty daft scenario anyway. I seriously doubt, having watched Lewis Moody charge down countless ball with his face, that you could actually kick a ball hard enough to knock someone out anyway. Another example: last season Nick Evans kicked to touch and hit a fan walking back to his seat. He had his back turned and the ball caught him squarely. He spilled his pints but wasn't injured. Evans subsequently bought him a round, which seems an appropriate penance. The chance of a ball weighing less than a kilo actually knocking someone out is minimal).

The laws around dangerous play are about discouraging play that is likely to lead to injury. The IRB periodically updates then when additional risks are identified - as it did in introducing a specific tip tackle law - but it can't legislate for every possible scenario, and sometimes accidents will happen as a result of legal play. But there's a big difference between, say, kicking at the ball and striking the head of a nearby prone player versus, say, running into the head of a player who falls into your path. Both are accidents but in one instance you took an action (kicking at the ball when a player was nearby) that increased the injury risk and in the other you happened to be in the path of something that happened).

I know you're attempting a reductio ad absurdum, but surely it's not beyond the wit of man to draw a distinction between the two?

Unfortunately you can - saw it happen years ago, mind you it was one of those old brown leather balls, soaken wet in the rain, with the laced stitching up the side!

Showing your age now As!   

kunu wrote:Payne was wrong to run intro a 'red zone' for ball competition, at a speed where he was likely to remain grounded and therefore likely to take the legs out from under someone, without checking his surroundings. Had he been planning do jump, he would have had to slow down his run, and therefore would become a far less dangerous prospect to players in the air, jump or not.

That action is reckless, and as it is an area the IRB seem to be clamping down upon in the name of safety promotion. The red and ban aren't crazy calls.

Personally, it was a yellow for me. But if a statement regarding player safety is what the IRB are after, then fair enough.

Along with a post by Rodders ages ago, perhaps the most succinct and accurate description of what happened.

Thank you.

It's about ensuring the saftey of players as much as possible though in what is a dangerous sport. You allowed by the rules to jump and catch the ball but you're not allowed to take a player out in the air. What this instance is saying is that running for the ball as Payne did without taking into account of somebody in the air is punishable by a red. Personally I think the injury to Goode was taken into account in this decision and shouldn't have been but I can understand the logic.

This is getting ridiculous.

"He ran full pelt into an area of the pitch without consideration for what was around him"

Sorry Ozzy but that's the single most laughable thing I think I've heard since these forums were birthed. What are we going to do, make fullbacks wear high visability vests?
As Guns said, Goode ran at full pelt and jumped into the same area with no consideration but because he got injured Jared was reckless. I have news for folks here and on the nutless citing panel, Payne doesn't have some kind of sixth sense and if running full pelt at opposition is to be sanctioned then it's a sad day for rugby union.

This thread should join in with the 'soccerisation of rugby' one.
I despair.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Because Goode did not do the same.  He ran into the area in a controlled manner, timed his jump to compete for the ball perfectly and won the ball.  He was taken out in the air illegally, albeit without any intent to do so.  I'm struggling a bit to understand how yourself and others cannot see this.  It's pretty clear.

If that is the case then Payne ran in to the area in a controlled manner. How does Good show more control than Payne. Neither were aware the other was there because they were both looking at the ball.

Are you saying if you want to compete for a ball you have to jump? Im not aware of this rule. He was taken out illegally so it should have been a penalty. Penalties are conceded by accident all the time. However because it was an accident and there was no intent it shouldnt have been sanctioned with a red.

GunsGerms wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Unfortunately you can - saw it happen years ago, mind you it was one of those old brown leather balls, soaken wet in the rain, with the laced stitching up the side!

I have seen it happen too. If you knock someone out with a punch it is a red card. If you knock someone out by accident as per the example I have given no sanction. Therefore why did Payne merit a red card?

The answer is because the outcome in this case was sanctioned and not the intent or act. This is fundimentally wrong.

Because kicking a ball in a rugby match is within the laws of the game and is not an inherently dangerous act.

Punching someone is not allowed within the laws. Taking someone out in the air is not allowed within the laws. Yes you can do it 'accidentally', but it is an inherently dangerous action and the onus is on all players not to do it, so if you do, you will be considered to have been reckless.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Unfortunately you can - saw it happen years ago, mind you it was one of those old brown leather balls, soaken wet in the rain, with the laced stitching up the side!

I have seen it happen too. If you knock someone out with a punch it is a red card. If you knock someone out by accident as per the example I have given no sanction. Therefore why did Payne merit a red card?

The answer is because the outcome in this case was sanctioned and not the intent or act. This is fundimentally wrong.

Because kicking a ball in a rugby match is within the laws of the game and is not an inherently dangerous act.

Punching someone is not allowed within the laws.  Taking someone out in the air is not allowed within the laws.  Yes you can do it 'accidentally', but it is an inherently dangerous action and the onus is on all players not to do it, so if you do, you will be considered to have been reckless.  

By the exact same token you could argue that jumping on top of someone and knocking them on their back is not allowed within the laws of the game. So why is this allowed?

The answer again is because the outcome that befell Goode was worse and it was the outcome that was penalised. Yet again I point out neither player acted with intent so neither deserved to be sanctioned.

The guy lost his head, the occasion was too big for him its as simple as that!

I know its a silly point, but can't help wondering what some of the people here would be saying if the situation had been reversed. What if, say, Ashton had caught Bowe jumping, for instance.

Loosing Goode was a big blow to Saracens. For all that we rubbish Goode at international level, at club level he is a great player.

Scrumpy wrote:The guy lost his head, the occasion was too big for him its as simple as that!

That is a ridiculous statement.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Because Goode did not do the same.  He ran into the area in a controlled manner, timed his jump to compete for the ball perfectly and won the ball.  He was taken out in the air illegally, albeit without any intent to do so.  I'm struggling a bit to understand how yourself and others cannot see this. It's pretty clear.

You'd think that wouldn't you, but apparently, it isn't.

All this bickering is pointless, it's giving intransigence a bad name. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter because Payne got a red card, Ulster lost. The disciplinary panel upheld the refereeing decision. And surely justice was done. Nothing is going to alter the result.