The danger of jumping

by clivemcl Sun 06 Apr 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 Scrumpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 11:42 am

by Pete330v2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 11:46 am

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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S Wink

by GunsGerms Thu 10 Apr 2014, 11:49 am

Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S

Careful Pete there are "English people on here laughing at us". Shocked

by Scrumpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 11:54 am

853 posts!

Not long to go now.

What will we discuss next?

by funnyExiledScot Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:02 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S

Despite the sarcasm, this is exactly the point. If you hoist an up and under, then yes, absolutely you should expect the competition for the ball to take place in the air. If the up and under is half decent, then that will almost always be the case. It's not a case of scanning the horizon for jumpers, if you're going to compete for the ball in that scenario then you can't simply run under the path of the ball without any regard for what's going on around you. If you're going to have no regard for anything other than the ball, then in that scenario you need to compete in the air, just as Goode did. Had the players both been competing for the ball in the air and clashed, then regardless of the outcome to either player there would have been no penalty offence. As silly as it sounds, you do have to jump if you're going to compete properly for an up and under, and it's not a defence to say "I didn't know that the opposition would compete for the ball".

I think the three of us are in broad agreement as to the proper sanction, given the clear lack of intent, but the line of argument that Payne did nothing wrong doesn't stack up at all.

by Jimpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:14 pm

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

So when Labour were elected to Parliamant with just 29% of the vote, was that not a majority then?

by **LondonTiger** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:17 pm

Jimpy wrote:

So when Labour were elected to Parliamant with just 29% of the vote, was that not a majority then?

Please educate me, when did that happen?

by clivemcl Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:17 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S

we are likely to see two opposing players watching the ball bounce in between them because both assumes the other is going to jump and neither does. That will be exciting rugby to watch! Yahoo

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:19 pm

Jimpy wrote:
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

So when Labour were elected to Parliamant with just 29% of the vote, was that not a majority then?

Don't be soft - % of the vote is not the same as representation of MPs (trough snufflers)

by clivemcl Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:21 pm

Jimpy wrote:
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

So when Labour were elected to Parliamant with just 29% of the vote, was that not a majority then?

No it wasn't. May have been the 'most' but not the majority.

The majority did not vote Labour, but labour got the most votes.

majority: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total –Merriam-Webster

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:21 pm

clivemcl wrote:

we are likely to see two opposing players watching the ball bounce in between them because both assumes the other is going to jump and neither does. That will be exciting rugby to watch!

or we could stop getting hysterical for a minute and realise that usually when a player isn't quite in a position to jump and compete for an up-and-under he slows down, waits for the opposition to take it and then smashes him as his feet hit the ground.

It's really not that complicated to be aware of your surroundings...

by Pete330v2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:22 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S

we are likely to see two opposing players watching the ball bounce in between them because both assumes the other is going to jump and neither does. That will be exciting rugby to watch!

Yeah the old "after you....no after you......no I think you were here before me........no I insist you take the ball"

by Jimpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:31 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
clivemcl wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Absolutely Guns, it's been my own point all along. I would also ask are players supposed to expect there to be jumpers about every time the ball takes to the skies or can they still run onto the ball with the intention of catching it in full flight making sure they are better set up to attack the opposition? It's been a part of Paynes arsenal long before he hit these shores.

If you want to run about looking for jumpers go to the knitted section of M&S

we are likely to see two opposing players watching the ball bounce in between them because both assumes the other is going to jump and neither does. That will be exciting rugby to watch!

Yeah the old "after you....no after you......no I think you were here before me........no I insist you take the ball"

This will not be an issue because apparently the logical conclusion is that jumping is banned picard

by **LondonTiger** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:37 pm

Well, the law was brought in to protect line-out jumpers. Until then we rarely saw players jumping for the ball in open play like salmon.

by Guest Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:38 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Nothing ironic about that comment at all.

Nothing sarcastic about this comment either. Hug

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:43 pm

Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Nothing ironic about that comment at all.

Nothing sarcastic about this comment either.

Fair enough if you think I do blindly back my players rather than judge on what happens. Don't think i do though.

by VinceWLB Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:47 pm

Last time Payne looked in front of him (well before the one just prior to the collision), i'm pretty sure he saw nobody and that he can genuinely catch the ball. Goode was coming in at an angle like a good loosehead would do, Payne had no chance to see him.

by Guest Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:49 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Nothing ironic about that comment at all.

Nothing sarcastic about this comment either.

Fair enough if you think I do blindly back my players rather than judge on what happens. Don't think i do though.

I wasn't aiming that at you in particular, No 7', but those who can't see beyond a red.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:51 pm

Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Nothing ironic about that comment at all.

Nothing sarcastic about this comment either.

Fair enough if you think I do blindly back my players rather than judge on what happens. Don't think i do though.

I wasn't aiming that in you in particular, No 7', but those who can't see beyond a red.

Fair enough. This places makes me touchy after a while!

by **LondonTiger** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:53 pm

There are plenty of us who can see beyond the red - many who think it was a yellow but can understand why a red was given.

Then we have those either side of that, penalty but no sanction. Or clear cut red card.

Then we have the lunatic fringes - those who seem to believe that Payne lost his head and went out to hurt Goode, balanced by those who believe there was no offence at all and choose to ignore the actual law book or claim goode should have been penalised for jumping on top of Payne.

by Pete330v2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:54 pm

I do firmly believe that blame shouldn't have been apportioned to anyone in this incident and am not blindly backing my player. The fact remains that neither party was aware of the others actions leading up to the collision. If Payne knew of Goode's position I'd be surprised at he didn't so much as blink or remove his eyes from the ball until impact. Goode, even if he had spotted Payne, didn't have a chence as he was airborne and certainly neither player wanted Goode (especially Goode) to be knocked out.
To appotion blame means there was intent and as there was no intent then there is no blame. To say players must be careful in 'red' areas is going to negatively impact the game. Either be committed fully or don't go for the chase at all.
My opinion is perhaps old-fashioned but I don't want this to result in primadonnas tiptoeing around a pitch like girls (in which case call it soccer) but I don't want a bloodbath either. Players don't always need blame laid upon them.

by lostinwales Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:55 pm

LondonTiger wrote:There are plenty of us who can see beyond the red - many who think it was a yellow but can understand why a red was given.

Then we have those either side of that, penalty but no sanction. Or clear cut red card.

Then we have the lunatic fringes - those who seem to believe that Payne lost his head and went out to hurt Goode, balanced by those who believe there was no offence at all and choose to ignore the actual law book or claim goode should have been penalised for jumping on top of Payne.

You forgot those who prejudge solely based on the perceived characters of the perpetrators and victims

by GunsGerms Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:56 pm

LondonTiger wrote:There are plenty of us who can see beyond the red - many who think it was a yellow but can understand why a red was given.

Then we have those either side of that, penalty but no sanction. Or clear cut red card.

Then we have the lunatic fringes - those who seem to believe that Payne lost his head and went out to hurt Goode, balanced by those who believe there was no offence at all and choose to ignore the actual law book or claim goode should have been penalised for jumping on top of Payne.

I dont think Goode should have been penalised I was just using it as an example of how a dangerous act isnt necessarly always penalised particularly where there is no intent.

I also think it should have been a penalty as I think its more than fair to give a penalty for something unintentional. I just dont think red cards should be handed out for accidents.

by Guest Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:58 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Nothing ironic about that comment at all.

Nothing sarcastic about this comment either.

Fair enough if you think I do blindly back my players rather than judge on what happens. Don't think i do though.

I wasn't aiming that in you in particular, No 7', but those who can't see beyond a red.

Fair enough. This places makes me touchy after a while!

Yes, it's that sort of subject. Hopefully after 10 or 20 years we can all move on Very Happy

by VinceWLB Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:59 pm

TMO did say yes when asked by Garces if it was intentionnal, then recomended a yellow.

How this turned out to be red is an embarassment for the game.

by Cyril Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:04 pm

VinceWLB wrote:How this turned out to be red is an embarassment for the game.

Slight overreaction there Laugh

by Jimpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:08 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Jimpy wrote:
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

So when Labour were elected to Parliamant with just 29% of the vote, was that not a majority then?

No it wasn't. May have been the 'most' but not the majority.

The majority did not vote Labour, but labour got the most votes.

majority: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total –Merriam-Webster

Really? Well I never!

Yeah, thanks for that Poindexter. Since you've got your dictionary to hand, you can use it to help you write 500 words on the subject 'Misinterpretation Of A Question'...

by Jimpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:11 pm

Cyril wrote:
VinceWLB wrote:How this turned out to be red is an embarassment for the game.
Slight overreaction there

Yeah, what is actually embarassing is the length of this article considering that only a fraction of it is people in general agreement about a harsh but fair sanction and the vast majority (see what I did there Clive?) are arguing pointless semantics in minutae.

by neilthom7 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:17 pm

With the outcome of the case against Payne we should just leave it at that and simply ask now that referees and citing officials be consistent with future instances. Payne is banned now and I'm sure will reflect on the days events and make sure it doesn't happen again. All we need to ask for now is that all future events of this are treated the same after all that is the best we can hope for in games and that hopefully nothing like this actually happens again because at the end of the day Goode could have been seriously injured and for that matter so could Payne so lets just be thankful that their were no serious injuries and draw a line under this.
guinness

by **Notch** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:28 pm

This thread is going to be locked soon due to its length. If posting keeps up at the current rate it'll probably be some time this afternoon.

When it is you are free to start another thread to continue discussion if you want... I suspect you'll only be repeating arguments that have already been made, but of thats what you all really want to do...

by broadlandboy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:39 pm

Guns, if you accept that it was a penalty can you see under the IRB directive that a red card was to be issued. Whether the directive is wrong is different to whether the red for Payne was.

by Scrumpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:55 pm

At the end of the day even if Payne had good intentions to catch the ball (without jumping) and run a try in under the posts he was still reckless for not looking where he was running at full speed considering there are 29 other players + Ref on the pitch.

Only Forrest Gump doesn't take his eyes of the ball, so he must have had some awareness that Goode/defender was going to be in the area of where the ball was going to land.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:57 pm

To be fair of the 43 of the 106 (~40.6%) who voted on v2 at this point, didn't do so for there to be no ban.
And neither did the 46 (~43.4%) who voted red.

Just that Payne should've been off for ten minutes or 76.

Nor do we know whether the citing panel would have been interested had it been a YC.

by GunsGerms Thu 10 Apr 2014, 2:03 pm

broadlandboy wrote:Guns, if you accept that it was a penalty can you see under the IRB directive that a red card was to be issued. Whether the directive is wrong is different to whether the red for Payne was.

No I cant because there are lots of penalty offenses that don't merit red cards. Furthermore I have seen a plethora of similar incidents that weren't penalised by any card at all.

by Pete330v2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 2:14 pm

I suppose if you're in a position to be penalised there's always the chance of a card. Which one being the main point of all this. A red is fair for a premediated shoulder charge on a player in the air. A yellow is fair for an accidental collision. If Goode had landed as he did without being knocked out cold I still think it would have been a yellow, therefore I believe the ref officiated on the injury and not the collision.

It's all history now anyway and Goode has recovered. Both player will have a little rest now and Saracens will go onward to a fairly home semi. I wish Sarries all the best and I wish farewell to this discussion Smile

It's been awsome

by Poorfour Thu 10 Apr 2014, 2:36 pm

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

No, Cyril is just working under the first-past-the-post system.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 10 Apr 2014, 2:38 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:I suppose if you're in a position to be penalised there's always the chance of a card. Which one being the main point of all this. A red is fair for a premediated shoulder charge on a player in the air. A yellow is fair for an accidental collision. If Goode had landed as he did without being knocked out cold I still think it would have been a yellow, therefore I believe the ref officiated on the injury and not the collision.

It's all history now anyway and Goode has recovered. Both player will have a little rest now and Saracens will go onward to a fairly home semi. I wish Sarries all the best and I wish farewell to this discussion

It's been awsome

Awesome, Pete. Wink

The danger of jumping - Page 18 Emoticon-cartoon-024

Taraa.

by Pete330v2 Thu 10 Apr 2014, 2:44 pm

Portnoys I meant to say

"stay classy 606"

frick

by Scrumpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:43 pm

So do you think Payne will end up playing for Ireland or not?

by **Notch** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:43 pm

Why not?

by Scrumpy Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:44 pm

Just asking Smile

by **Notch** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:47 pm

I think he will win a number of caps and be at the next World Cup. I also think the position he'll play will be outside centre not fullback

by **LondonTiger** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:54 pm

Notch wrote:I think he will win a number of caps and be at the next World Cup. I also think the position he'll play will be outside centre not fullback

Can he play outside centre for Ireland and stay at Ulster?

by **George Carlin** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:56 pm

After 900 posts, are we all now fairly comfortable that this 'jumping' thing can be quite a risky business?

by **LondonTiger** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:59 pm

George Carlin wrote:After 900 posts, are we all now fairly comfortable that this 'jumping' thing can be quite a risky business?

I think we need at least 100 more to reach any consensus.

by **Notch** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:07 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
Notch wrote:I think he will win a number of caps and be at the next World Cup. I also think the position he'll play will be outside centre not fullback

Can he play outside centre for Ireland and stay at Ulster?

I hope so. I envisage that the IRFU will twist our arm to play him there more often. Then problem is we don't have any other fullbacks as good.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:07 pm

Notch wrote:I think he will win a number of caps and be at the next World Cup. I also think the position he'll play will be outside centre not fullback

Ireland likes older men. And he'll only be 30 when he shares the lifting of the Bill.

by Cyril Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:10 pm

George Carlin wrote:After 900 posts, are we all now fairly comfortable that this 'jumping' thing can be quite a risky business?

It can be dangerous, especially when another player rushes in and knocks you onto your head. Fortunately we have laws, strong referees and citing commissions to punish offenders

by **George Carlin** Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:43 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
George Carlin wrote:After 900 posts, are we all now fairly comfortable that this 'jumping' thing can be quite a risky business?
I think we need at least 100 more to reach any consensus.

The danger of jumping - Page 18 Hyster10

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:51 pm

The only way to discover if a consensus is reached will be by starting a new poll.

by Sponsored content

What should the punishment have been?