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

Guns, Goode did not jump on top of Payne.  Goode won the ball cleanly and had his legs taken from underneath him whilst in the air.  You can try to paint that any other way you like, but that is what happened.  That is what the referee saw, the TNO saw, the majority of fans saw and the disciplinary panel saw.

My initial thought on seeing it was that it warranted a yellow card.  Can I understand the red card decision?  Yes I can.  It was an action contrary to the laws of the game and was dangerous.

lostinwales wrote: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.

Straight red if it was Ashton.

The only player I know who can get smacked in the face and then get sent off while the other guy gets nothing.

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote: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.

Straight red if it was Ashton.

With no smileys etc am I to assume you are serious?

Goode coming into contact with a player while jumping wouldn't be a penalty unless he was deliebrately trying to kick someone on the ground whereas anyone coming into contact with him unless they are also off the gound in a legitimate attempt to get the ball would be a pen. Goode has no case to answer.

The talking point is only really how much punishment should Payne have got. Clearly a reckless act that could have led to serious injury (the actual injury to Goode shouldn't even be considered imo). Borderline as he didn't mean it but it was still dangerous. Not enough there for the citing commission to change the decision but reduced length of ban.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

The difference, as I've said several times, is that Payne decided not to jump. Once he'd made that decision (or realised that he wouldn't be there in time to contest the ball in the air), by continuing to run he was increasing the risk for any airborne players in the area where the ball would land, and he had a duty of care to consider that. That's why it wasn't "a complete accident". He actively chose to do something that he could reasonably expect to increase the risk for more vulnerable players. It doesn't matter that he didn't see Goode.

LondonTiger wrote:

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

That is a ridiculous statement.

Why?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Goode coming into contact with a player while jumping wouldn't be a penalty unless he was deliebrately trying to kick someone on the ground whereas anyone coming into contact with him unless they are also off the gound in a legitimate attempt to get the ball would be a pen. Goode has no case to answer.

The talking point is only really how much punishment should Payne have got. Clearly a reckless act that could have led to serious injury (the actual injury to Goode shouldn't even be considered imo). Borderline as he didn't mean it but it was still dangerous. Not enough there for the citing commission to change the decision but reduced length of ban.

Based on precedent and intent I would have only given a penalty. Nothing else. Doesnt merit any ban at all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1B9-ha7TP0‎

No different to this incident which resulted in a penalty only.

The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Goode coming into contact with a player while jumping wouldn't be a penalty unless he was deliebrately trying to kick someone on the ground whereas anyone coming into contact with him unless they are also off the gound in a legitimate attempt to get the ball would be a pen. Goode has no case to answer.

The talking point is only really how much punishment should Payne have got. Clearly a reckless act that could have led to serious injury (the actual injury to Goode shouldn't even be considered imo). Borderline as he didn't mean it but it was still dangerous. Not enough there for the citing commission to change the decision but reduced length of ban.

Based on precedent and intent I would have only given a penalty. Nothing else. Doesnt merit any ban at all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1B9-ha7TP0‎

No different to this incident which resulted in a penalty only.

So what? It was a penalty. The only issue here is consistency with refereeing decisions.

Poor old Payne got a red card this time. Tough. The vast majority seem to agree that it was harsh but a fair enough decision.

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

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.

+1

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

GunsGerms wrote:

Based on precedent and intent I would have only given a penalty. Nothing else. Doesnt merit any ban at all.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1B9-ha7TP0‎

No different to this incident which resulted in a penalty only.

You do realise that in the 5 years since that happened the guidelines have been changed?



PS still waiting for an answer to whether you were serious about it being a red card if Ashton had done it.

Scrumpy wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

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

That is a ridiculous statement.

Why?

Precedent

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

The onus is on Payne though to ensure there is nobody competing. The 'accident' is deemed to be his fault. He was running too fast to jump, and so he was never going to have 'right of way', so to speak.

Take this example : A driver and a pedestrian are both approaching a pedestrian crossing, neither notices the other, there's an accident. Neither acted unusually, or directly illegally. They are both merely guilty of not seeing the other party. Who's to blame? The driver is liable no matter what (save in exceptional circumstance). Once the pedestrian is at the crossing, he has right of way - much like Goode, once he is airborne. Payne represents a dangerous vehicle, running at speed. Both provisions exist to promote safety. The whole area has been treated as a sort of strict liability offence, but there's a place for that if the goal is safety promotion.

I would agree that the law in rugby is becoming a bit over protective, it is a contact sport after all. But if that's what the IRB are touting, then I don't think there's anything wrong with the decision.

Jimpy wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

It was but doesn't alter the fact Cyril has a poor grasp of statistics

Jimpy wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

Shhhh jimpy

Oh and the ERC panel always backs their refs whether they be in the wrong or not, the fact a 2 week ban was handed out for effect doesn't make Payne any more reckless in my view. I prefer the game to be a full contact, physical sport. See how many times jumpers will aim their jump at an oncoming player now (a R.Kearney tried to do on sunday). The soccerisation continues.

Jimpy wrote:


So what? It was a penalty. The only issue here is consistency with refereeing decisions.

Poor old Payne got a red card this time. Tough. The vast majority seem to agree that it was harsh but a fair enough decision.

I agree it was a penalty. it shouldnt have been a red card though.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

It was but doesn't alter the fact Cyril has a poor grasp of statistics

Or your lack of good grace in defeat.

I've read a few pages of the debate, but not all, and here's my take on it.

Payne is indeed running towards the ball, and will reach it just as it drops.

He makes the decision not to jump to compete, I've seen Notch trying to argue that Payne is about to jump but I don't see that. Watching the gif his final spring in horizontal and takes him to just under the ball the moment it drops, so don't see how he could be jumping.

Now this may be because he won't make it if he jumps (he's running flat out and jumping would slow him down a little, maybe too much in his mind). Or it may be because he doesn't expect Goode (or any other Sarries player) to be challenging him. For me both are naive/foolish. You've put up an up-and-under, you must expect the opposition to be challenging surely?

I've seen people say "Payne isn't a dirty player". No, he isn't, and I'm not sure I've seen anyone arguing that he is, but intent doesn't come into the ref's decision when he makes it (it does play a part in the disciplinary process that follows, hence why Payne only got two weeks). I don't think Payne intended to take out Goode in the air at all.

However, the law is clear, you have to look after the person in the air, and they're very very good reasons for this. Payne didn't. Whether he meant it or not doesn't enter the discussion, that very fact makes it dangerous play, and thus the red card is justifiable.

People saying "Payne's being punished for an accident". Maybe, but once again, intent doesn't come into it. I thought Warburton's tip-tackle was an accident too (he's expecting someone heavier than Clerc and loses control of the tackle), but I still very much agreed with the decision.

Too early in the game? I side with those who say that shouldn't matter. I agree with empathy in the refereeing, but not in cases of foul/dangerous play. I'm sure most would agree Burger should have seen red in the second Lions test in 09, that was just as early on.

Ultimately, it's a clear yellow, and marginal red IMO. I wouldn't be hugely fussed by either decision. I would say Payne was naive/foolish and a touch reckless (surely players should be aware of their surroundings?), not dirty, but by being so he cost his team dear.

GunsGerms wrote:

Jimpy wrote:


So what? It was a penalty. The only issue here is consistency with refereeing decisions.

Poor old Payne got a red card this time. Tough. The vast majority seem to agree that it was harsh but a fair enough decision.

I agree it was a penalty. it shouldnt have been a red card though.

But it was.

Better luck next year Ulster.

LondonTiger wrote:

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.

Agreed a sensible summation.

They is a lot of stupid hyperbole on here from both sides of the fence.
This is a measured and, imo , accurate analysis.

kunu wrote:

The onus is on Payne though to ensure there is nobody competing. The 'accident' is deemed to be his fault. He was running too fast to jump, and so he was never going to have 'right of way', so to speak.

Take this example : A driver and a pedestrian are both approaching a pedestrian crossing, neither notices the other, there's an accident. Neither acted unusually, or directly illegally. They are both merely guilty of not seeing the other party. Who's to blame?  The driver is liable no matter what (save in exceptional circumstance). Once the pedestrian is at the crossing, he has right of way - much like Goode, once he is airborne. Payne represents a dangerous vehicle, running at speed. Both provisions exist to promote safety. The whole area has been treated as a sort of strict liability offence, but there's a place for that if the goal is safety promotion.

I would agree that the law in rugby is becoming a bit over protective, it is a contact sport after all. But if that's what the IRB are touting, then I don't think there's anything wrong with the decision.

Why is there no onus on Goode not poleaxing someone? Thats effectively what he did.

Firstly is is possible for a pedestrian to be found to be at fault. In your example the drive may have been found guilty but guilty of what? In deciding the prosecution look at a number of different factors to decide on recklessness with a variety of different sentences to choose from.

In rugby terms the options are no penalty, penalty, yellow card or red card. The referee choose to dish out the most severe punishment he could.

The judge in your car example would never give a driver life where the prosecution couldnt prove intent.

Like I said based on precedent a penalty was fair but a red certainly was not.

Cyril wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

It was but doesn't alter the fact Cyril has a poor grasp of statistics

Or your lack of good grace in defeat.

Don't be a tube.
My pointing out 43% is not a majority has nothing to do with 'grace' and 'defeat'

Clearly the standard of maths teaching is in poor shape in your area if you think 43% is a majority

Guns please give rest you are coming across as blinkered as Scrumpy and co and not is not good

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I've read a few pages of the debate, but not all, and here's my take on it.

Payne is indeed running towards the ball, and will reach it just as it drops.

He makes the decision not to jump to compete, I've seen Notch trying to argue that Payne is about to jump but I don't see that. Watching the gif his final spring in horizontal and takes him to just under the ball the moment it drops, so don't see how he could be jumping.

Now this may be because he won't make it if he jumps (he's running flat out and jumping would slow him down a little, maybe too much in his mind). Or it may be because he doesn't expect Goode (or any other Sarries player) to be challenging him. For me both are naive/foolish. You've put up an up-and-under, you must expect the opposition to be challenging surely?

Thats conjecture. It is possible that when he looked at the space he was about to catch the ball in there was no one there because both players collided at the last minute.

GunsGerms wrote:

kunu wrote:

The onus is on Payne though to ensure there is nobody competing. The 'accident' is deemed to be his fault. He was running too fast to jump, and so he was never going to have 'right of way', so to speak.

Take this example : A driver and a pedestrian are both approaching a pedestrian crossing, neither notices the other, there's an accident. Neither acted unusually, or directly illegally. They are both merely guilty of not seeing the other party. Who's to blame?  The driver is liable no matter what (save in exceptional circumstance). Once the pedestrian is at the crossing, he has right of way - much like Goode, once he is airborne. Payne represents a dangerous vehicle, running at speed. Both provisions exist to promote safety. The whole area has been treated as a sort of strict liability offence, but there's a place for that if the goal is safety promotion.

I would agree that the law in rugby is becoming a bit over protective, it is a contact sport after all. But if that's what the IRB are touting, then I don't think there's anything wrong with the decision.

Why is there no onus on Goode not poleaxing someone? Thats effectively what he did.

Firstly is is possible for a pedestrian to be found to be at fault. In your example the drive may have been found guilty but guilty of what? In deciding the prosecution look at a number of different factors to decide on recklessness with a variety of different sentences to choose from.

In rugby terms the options are no penalty, penalty, yellow card or red card. The referee choose to dish out the most severe punishment he could.

The judge in your car example would never give a driver life where the prosecution couldnt prove intent.

Like I said based on precedent a penalty was fair but a red certainly was not.

once more, intent is irrelevant on deciding the sanction on the rugby field. It only becomes relevant for the disciplinary process.

There is no onus on Goode poleaxing someone, because that's not how the laws of the game are written, they are written to protect the player in the air, who is more vulnerable, much as the laws of the road are written to protect the most vulnerable (the pedestrians), hence the comparison.

One the ref has decided Payne's actions constituted dangerous play, the red card was justifiable.

geoff998rugby wrote:Guns please give rest you are coming across as blinkered as Scrumpy and co and not is not good

Stop being a wum. I'm giving my opinion. Feel free to give your own rather than attacking the poster.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Cyril wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The ref, the citing panel and 606v2 voting all think red was the correct decision.

  

Actually 57% of the 606v2 vote thinks it wasn't a red card

But it was though wasn't it?

It was but doesn't alter the fact Cyril has a poor grasp of statistics

Or your lack of good grace in defeat.

Don't be a tube.
My pointing out 43% is not a majority has nothing to do with 'grace' and 'defeat'

Clearly the standard of maths teaching is in poor shape in your area if you think 43% is a majority

It wasn't about that comment geoff. It's generally the hypocrisy of posters like yourself who would be baying for blood if a Sarries player had done what Payne did. It's generally a bad reflection on some of the fans. Just accept what happened and move on. We don't have to rip up the law books just because your side lost.

No need to be insulting either thanks.

Guns you accept that it was a penalty, then once Goode went beyond the horizontal without being brought to ground safely IRB directive is that it is a red card.

Why am I blinkered?
I believe the Ref got it right, the panel backed it up with a 2 week ban, and 46 people out of a 106 votes also agree.

Why single me out?

The way some of you are acting I'm actually happy Sarries won and believe me I'm no fan of Sarries!

Cyril point to one, just one, post by me about this incident, that in any way could be considered emotive or less than reasonable.

That is why I threw you post back in your face it is because I have not made any post, on this, that could be considered unreasonable.

Do make claims about my posts that are untrue

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

once more, intent is irrelevant on deciding the sanction on the rugby field. It only becomes relevant for the disciplinary process.

There is no onus on Goode poleaxing someone, because that's not how the laws of the game are written, they are written to protect the player in the air, who is more vulnerable, much as the laws of the road are written to protect the most vulnerable (the pedestrians), hence the comparison.

One the ref has decided Payne's actions constituted dangerous play, the red card was justifiable.

Once again therefore why cant you be sanctioned on the pitch if you knock someone out by kicking them in the face with the ball by accident?

The problem is that while what you say is possibly true (do you know for sure?) that by the letter of the law intent isnt relevant but referees are allowed to interpret it as they see fit then this allows for a lack of consistency as can be demonstrated with lots of examples.

Personally I dont see any reason to penalise accidents with red cards at all hence my stance.

Scrumpy you are a WUM and you know it

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you accept that it was a penalty, then once Goode went beyond the horizontal without being brought to ground safely IRB directive is that it is a red card.

Firstly I dont see how someone can be expected to bring someone safely to ground if they dont know they are there and secondly I dont see how you can do this is you have just been flattened yourself.

GunsGerms wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Guns please give rest you are coming across as blinkered as Scrumpy and co and not is not good

Stop being a wum. I'm giving my opinion. Feel free to give your own rather than attacking the poster.

not a WU just wishing a fellow Irishman would stop embarrassing us - I am an Ulster supporter remember

Why?

I have said nothing that isn't factually correct, it was a red card hence why he was shown a red card.

geoff998rugby wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Guns please give rest you are coming across as blinkered as Scrumpy and co and not is not good

Stop being a wum. I'm giving my opinion. Feel free to give your own rather than attacking the poster.

not a WU just wishing a fellow Irishman would stop embarrassing us - I am an Ulster supporter remember

I dont care where you are from. Im fully entitled to my own opinion. You are embarassing yourself now.

+1

GunsGerms wrote:

kunu wrote:

The onus is on Payne though to ensure there is nobody competing. The 'accident' is deemed to be his fault. He was running too fast to jump, and so he was never going to have 'right of way', so to speak.

Take this example : A driver and a pedestrian are both approaching a pedestrian crossing, neither notices the other, there's an accident. Neither acted unusually, or directly illegally. They are both merely guilty of not seeing the other party. Who's to blame?  The driver is liable no matter what (save in exceptional circumstance). Once the pedestrian is at the crossing, he has right of way - much like Goode, once he is airborne. Payne represents a dangerous vehicle, running at speed. Both provisions exist to promote safety. The whole area has been treated as a sort of strict liability offence, but there's a place for that if the goal is safety promotion.

I would agree that the law in rugby is becoming a bit over protective, it is a contact sport after all. But if that's what the IRB are touting, then I don't think there's anything wrong with the decision.

Why is there no onus on Goode not poleaxing someone? Thats effectively what he did.

Firstly is is possible for a pedestrian to be found to be at fault. In your example the drive may have been found guilty but guilty of what? In deciding the prosecution look at a number of different factors to decide on recklessness with a variety of different sentences to choose from.

In rugby terms the options are no penalty, penalty, yellow card or red card. The referee choose to dish out the most severe punishment he could.

The judge in your car example would never give a driver life where the prosecution couldnt prove intent.

Like I said based on precedent a penalty was fair but a red certainly was not.

take this as the scenario , both the driver and pedestrian are ONLY guilty of not paying attention to the crossing. The driver will be liable. Honestly no idea what the driver will be convicted of, or what remedy the pedestrian would receive. The driver will be held accountable for the accident, and so will Payne. The ref can deal with it at his discretion, and a red was forthcoming due to pressure for player safety from higher up.

In this scenario, the pedestrian will definitely not be found at fault. Goode cannot be blamed.

people are making fun of you Guns and you don't even know it - there are Englishmen on this thread loving it   

GunsGerms wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Guns you accept that it was a penalty, then once Goode went beyond the horizontal without being brought to ground safely IRB directive is that it is a red card.

Firstly I dont see how someone can be expected to bring someone safely to ground if they dont know they are there and secondly I dont see how you can do this is you have just been flattened yourself.

I think the point here is that players should be aware of potential consequences. By doing what he did Payne could have caused serious injury. I know what you're saying in terms deliberately trying to hit him vs accident but this ruling is surely putting in place that the saftey of the player is paramount?

Guns whether you see it or not it is an IRB directive. Also why it was considered reckless & dangerous.

GunsGerms wrote:

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.

I think the distinction being drawn is between (a) an accident, (b) recklessness and (c) a deliberate and dangerous act.

Neither (a) nor (b) require intent. (c) does.

Rugby is a difficult sport for (b) and (c). You can deliberately hurt people well within the laws of the game, no question about that. You can also be reckless but without any intent to injure or cause harm. Finding the right punishment is tricky.

For what it's worth I both agree and disagree with you GG. I disagree with your analysis that Goode was equally culpable and that Garces was punishing purely the outcome rather than the act. I don't think Goode was reckless whereas I do think Payne was. If you come running in under a high ball that's clearly likely to be competed for in the air, and you don't compete in the air, then you are in reckless territory. I agree however that without any evidence of intent to cause injury, a red card isn't appropriate, and that a yellow would suffice. I'm not saying Garces was wrong under the laws of the game, purely that in my opinion that offence was a yellow and not a red.

Stuart Hogg on the other hand clearly used his elbow to inflict harm. That was a red. Tuilagi punched Ashton in the face. That was a red (much as a carve-out from the laws of the game for punching Chris Ashton would be welcome). Schalke Burger putting his fingers in someone's eye socket. That should have been a red. There will clearly be harder cases than these, but I do think you need an element of intent for a red, and on that we're agreed.

geoff998rugby wrote:people are making fun of you Guns and you don't even know it - there are Englishmen on this thread loving it   

Why would I care if people make fun of me? Should that influence what I think about something. You must be quite weak minded.

GunsGerms wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

once more, intent is irrelevant on deciding the sanction on the rugby field. It only becomes relevant for the disciplinary process.

There is no onus on Goode poleaxing someone, because that's not how the laws of the game are written, they are written to protect the player in the air, who is more vulnerable, much as the laws of the road are written to protect the most vulnerable (the pedestrians), hence the comparison.

One the ref has decided Payne's actions constituted dangerous play, the red card was justifiable.

Once again therefore why cant you be sanctioned on the pitch if you knock someone out by kicking them in the face with the ball by accident?

The problem is that while what you say is possibly true (do you know for sure?) that by the letter of the law intent isnt relevant but referees are allowed to interpret it as they see fit then this allows for a lack of consistency as can be demonstrated with lots of examples.

Personally I dont see any reason to penalise accidents with red cards at all hence my stance.

as far as I know (and I'm willing to be corrected), "kicking someone in the face with the ball by accident" isn't covered in the IRB laws, whereas tackling a player in the air is (here's law 10, which covers dangerous play http://www.irb.com/mm/Document/LawsRegs/0/070110LGLAW10red_667.pdf ).

Lack of consistency is an issue I agree. We saw the Warburton red card resulting in a general clamp-down on tip-tackles, will this have a similar effect I wonder?

Ultimately, my stance remains that by the laws of the game Garces was well entitled to give a RC here. Someone also mentioned that Garces does have a history of giving out a few reds, so teams should to an extent be wary of that too IMO. I would personally not have been fussed had it only been yellow, but I understand why the red was given.

Its only a game at the end of the day.

This place has been taken over by lunatics not worth it