Liam Williams Yellow Card

First topic message reminder :

This is what sickens rugby fans, inconsistency. Absolutely disgusted by this decision- if an unintentional collision with a player in the air is a red card, it's awful to see a player get a yellow card for what looked like an intentional shoulder charge on a player in the air a few weeks later.

This whole area plainly needs to be reviewed. Absolutely crazy that that can be a yellow and the Payne incident a red. There is too much variation in the punishment for this offence for it to be fair to players and spectators. If it's red, it's red fair enough- but then to see a much more serious incident only get yellow and probably no ban makes it clear there is no level playing field here and that needs to be sorted out ASAP.

We do player safety no favours at all by punishing the accidental collision more harshly than the deliberate shoulder charge because the other circumstances made it look less dangerous. In the second incident the offending player committed a much worse offence and if those two offences were repeated its the second one that is more likely to result in a worse outcome.

You are then asking the ref to make a series of complex subjective judgements which will lead to greter inconsitencies.

How do you know which was deliberate? the only thing you can judge on is what actually happened. the Payne incident WAS more dangerous. that is a simple fact. Do you really want the ref to guess what would happen in circummstqances other than what actually happened? To guess what was in the players mind? To guess what the outcome would have been if the tackled player was bigger / smaller / jumped higher / jumped less?

Its completely absurd.

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:I think that if you understood my point you would agree with me.  Mind you I am not sure you do.

I understand your point, I don't understand why you have such a very, very poor grasp of basic physics. But if it is your genuine view that when two objects collide the only thing thing that influences what happens next is the speed and trajectory of just one object then good luck to you.

Once again you miss my point. If Payne had not committed an act of foul play then Goode would not have been put at risk. the only thing that created the risk was Paynes actions. If Payne had not hit Goode Goode whould not have been cartwheeled in the air.

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:I think that if you understood my point you would agree with me.  Mind you I am not sure you do.

I understand your point, I don't understand why you have such a very, very poor grasp of basic physics. But if it is your genuine view that when two objects collide the only thing thing that influences what happens next is the speed and trajectory of just one object then good luck to you.

Once again you miss my point.  If Payne had not committed an act of foul play then Goode would not have been put at risk. the only thing that created the risk was Paynes actions.  If Payne had not hit Goode Goode whould not have been cartwheeled in the air.

Yeah, and the reason Goode fell badly wasn't anything to do with Payne. The reason he fell was to do with Payne, the reason he fell badly was to do with his own actions. So why is it reffed that way? Thats the point!

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:Notch.  I have not insulted you.  You simply fail to understand the issues at all and are getting very het up.  the only thing that created the danger for Goode was Paynes actions.  Nothing else at all.  If Payne had not collided with him there would have been no danger.  This is one of the bits you don't want to see in your desire to exonerate your player.  Nothing else is relevant.

Oh my god that is just the cap of it all isn't it... Jesus wept...

If that is not a genuine post you are one of the cleverest wind-up merchants on these boards. If it is a genuine post, and you really don't get this, then I really do worry for you. I really do.

Again - myou failo to understand my point. If Payne had not committed the piece of foul play goode would not have been put at risk. Are you really intending to state that the victim in this case should carry some of the responsibility for his own danger?

Nonsense.

I am not trolling, I do understand your point. I am pointing out the glaring weaknesses in what you say.

still - enough is enough. we are now going round in circles. You now seem to be blaming the victim. The only thing that caused the risk to Goode was Paynes actions. If Payne had not hit him he would not have been at risk

TJ wrote:

We do player safety no favours at all by punishing the accidental collision more harshly than the deliberate shoulder charge because the other circumstances made it look less dangerous. In the second incident the offending player committed a much worse offence and if those two offences were repeated its the second one that is more likely to result in a worse outcome.

You are then asking the ref to make a series of complex subjective judgements which will lead to greter inconsitencies.

How do you know which was deliberate?  the only thing you can judge on is what actually happened.  the Payne incident WAS more dangerous.  that is a simple fact.  Do you really want the ref to guess what would happen in circummstqances other than what actually happened?  To guess what was in the players mind?  To guess what the outcome would have been if the tackled player was bigger / smaller / jumped higher / jumped less?

Its completely absurd.

Refs have to make subjective calls all the time. Deliberate knocks ons, and the like. The solution isn't complex at all. In the interest of fair justice, intent must be a factor in this law. If intent is obvious, then red card. If intent is questionable, then yellow card, and a citing. If an obvious accident, then no card, or yellow. Let the citing commission decide the nature of questionable offences.

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:I think that if you understood my point you would agree with me.  Mind you I am not sure you do.

I understand your point, I don't understand why you have such a very, very poor grasp of basic physics. But if it is your genuine view that when two objects collide the only thing thing that influences what happens next is the speed and trajectory of just one object then good luck to you.

Once again you miss my point.  If Payne had not committed an act of foul play then Goode would not have been put at risk. the only thing that created the risk was Paynes actions.  If Payne had not hit Goode Goode whould not have been cartwheeled in the air.

Yeah, and the reason Goode fell badly wasn't anything to do with Payne. So why is it reffed that way? Thats the point genius.

Yes it was - he fell badly because Payne hit him. Nothing else is relevant at all. If you take Paynes actions out of the equation does he still fall badly? No. the only thing that creted the risk was Paynes actions. Its like saying pedestrians are to blame if they are killed by a car that goes thru a red light because the pedestrian was on the road.

Please stop with the insults.

You are ascribing the risk that a player takes when he jumps for the ball to the player who collides with him or takes him out. Totally unacceptable. There are clearly other factors that determine how a player falls. So penalise a player for his part in what happens.

He is responsible for his own actions and his own actions only. He must be punished appropriately for his actions, but his actions do not determine how the player falls. You are over-simplifying this and the outcome can only be more unfair decisions.

A penalty is always deserved for this because the collision creates the fall, but the collision does not determine the seriousness of the fall so laying the blame for the outcome on the offending player will NOT lead to fair outcomes.

So...if Payne had acting in exactly the same way but Goode had not jumped quite so high, or higher, or turned slightly, would the outcome have been the same?

That is the point I think Notch is trying to get across. Payne could have done exactly the same thing and other factors would have decided the outcome.

Surely we should be penalising the players actions?

Not at all. Yes Payne is responsible for his own actions and his actions alone cause the danger to Goode. You seem to want the victim to carry some of the responsibility if a player does something outside of the rules to him?

Notch wrote:

Oh my god that is just the cap of it all isn't it... Jesus wept.

On Easter Sunday??

You'd think he'd be happy

TJ wrote:Not at all.  Yes Payne is responsible for his own actions and his actions alone cause the danger to Goode. You seem to want the victim to carry some of the responsibility if a player does something outside of the rules to him?

It's not his responsibility he falls at all, but the way he falls is down to the way he jumps a lot of the time.

Players are taught to attack the ball, but it is a risky part of the game. Blame the offending player for his own part in whatever happens, the bit he's responsible for, but when you jump for the ball you take a risk and whilst the player on the ground has a duty of care in assessing how he should be punished for any collision it's unfair to ascribe the risk that the jumping player takes to him.

The offending player is responsible for the fall but not the manner of the fall. The sanction should be judged by intent and risk factor i.e. how much the offending players actions placed the other player at risk. But not judged on the risk inherent in the jumping players position.

Whether he falls badly or safely, the action is the same. Judge the action NOT the consequences.

MrsP wrote:So...if Payne had acting in exactly the same way but Goode had not jumped quite so high, or higher, or turned slightly, would the outcome have been the same?
That is the point I think Notch is trying to get across. Payne could have done exactly the same thing and other factors would have decided the outcome.

I understand that However the only cause of the risk to Goode was paynes actions. Without Paynes actions the Goode is not at risk. If you allow Notches idea then the player jumping for the ball has to not only consider what legal actions an opposition player is taking but also any illegal actions the opposition player is taking. the equivalent of " she was asking for it wearing that short skirt". ridiculous.

Are you really wanting to ascribe some of the blame for the danger to the player who was playing within the rules and use the player who was playing within the rules actions to mitigate the foul play committed by a player playing outside the rules?

Williams is a dirty feicker. His shoulder to the head on paddy's head after he had touch down a try should have been at least a yellow vs Ireland. The guy is clearly a cowardly douche who specialises in cheap hits.

I would have red-carded him on the spot, screw the outcome. The ref in this instance made a clear mistake IMO.

Re outcome vs intent. Of course it's about outcome if one player is potentially vulnerable (in the air). It's like pedestrians and cars. Intent can be taken into consideration for some areas of the game, but it's more likely to be judged on outcome in the case of player in the air because it is very very hard to judge intent when players are so good at making things like this look accidental.

We are not talking about the player in the air taking the "blame". We are saying that his actions are beyond Payne's ability to predict accurately or influence. His actions, though completely within the laws, did influence the outcome of the collision. There was nothing Payne could do that would decide whether Goode landed safely and therefore ensure he only received a penalty or landed badly and therefore he received a red card.

Same actions with completely different outcomes due to factors completely beyond the influence of the offending player.

The difference in this case being X 7 mins of Payne's team down to 14.

How was Payne suppose to know how high or at what angle Goode was to jump and therefore which card was likely? If he is allowed to perform the same action but have a completely different sanction due to factors that are completely beyond his control then the Law is an Ass!

He...should...have...looked...

Especially when he knew he couldn't get there in time to jump for it.

Whatever happens as a result of him not looking and continuing running is entirely out if his hands, and entirely his fault.

That is the law. And I think it's a good one.

MrsP wrote:We are not talking about the player in the air taking the "blame".

yes you are

MrsP wrote: There was nothing Payne could do that would decide whether Goode landed safely and therefore ensure he only received a penalty or landed badly and therefore he received a red card.

Yes there is - Payne could have not committed the act of foul play

MrsP wrote:How was Payne suppose to know how high or at what angle Goode was to jump and therefore which card was likely? If he is allowed to perform the same action but have a completely different sanction due to factors that are completely beyond his control then the Law is an Ass!

there is only one factor that creates the danger = Paynes actions. Once Payne has created the danger then yes - other factors influence how severe the danger is but only one thing created the danger - Paynes act of foul play. yes he is unlucky that it created a red card situation but its Paynes fault it did.

think about this example from outside rugby. If yoiu get into an argument with somone and push them over. would you expect to get the same punishment if they landed on the grass and were not injured compared to if there was a hidden sharp rock in the grass that caused them to have a massive brain haemorrhage and die? What you are doing here is saying the punishment should be the same in either case. Well it wouldn't be. the first is assault, the second manslaughter.

But Williams looked and then appears to deliberately tackle a player in the air.

Is that not a more serious offence in the Laws?

"Appears" subjective judgement

If I was running down the street and someone running in the opposite direction jumped and we collided I very much doubt i would be charged with any offence.

Deliberate knock-on. Subjective judgment.
High tackle- often a subjective judgment.
Whether a player is making an attempt to roll away- subjective judgment.

Don't even make me start on the scrum and subjective judgments in that area. The whole job of being a referee is mainly making subjective judgments.

MrsP wrote:If I was running down the street and someone running in the opposite direction jumped and we collided I very much doubt i would be charged with any offence.

This thread has got some brilliant comments!

Yes u certainly wouldn't be given a red card for that MrsP.

Not sure what it has to do with rugby though!

I was responding to TJ trying to compare Payne's actions to manslaughter!

Notch wrote:Deliberate knock-on. Subjective judgment.
High tackle- often a subjective judgment.
Whether a player is making an attempt to roll away- subjective judgment.

Don't even make me start on the scrum and subjective judgments in that area. The whole job of being a referee is mainly making subjective judgments.

Indeed - and subjective judgements lead to inconsistency. In this case we have objective criteria to judge the severity of the incident leading to greater consistency. You want consitent reffing then you need objective standards to judge to where this is possible.

quinsforever wrote:Williams is a dirty feicker. His shoulder to the head on paddy's head after he had touch down a try should have been at least a yellow vs Ireland. The guy is clearly a cowardly douche who specialises in cheap hits.

I would have red-carded him on the spot, screw the outcome. The ref in this instance made a clear mistake IMO.

Re outcome vs intent. Of course it's about outcome if one player is potentially vulnerable (in the air). It's like pedestrians and cars. Intent can be taken into consideration for some areas of the game, but it's more likely to be judged on outcome in the case of player in the air because it is very very hard to judge intent when players are so good at making things like this look accidental.

Outcome on which part of a player lands first, rather than extent of injury caused you mean? I would argue that in a collision such as this this, the offending player is not in control of how their opponent lands, and so should not be held accountable for outcome. It seems ridiculous that a player intending to cause injury can be given a yellow, whilst a player in an accidental collision is given red, all depending on which part of their opponents anatomy happens to first come into contact with the ground.

Personally, I don't think it's hard to judge intent. I think most know a players intentions in collisions most of the time. Very few would claim Payne's collision was intentional. Not so with Hogg, and probably not so with Williams.
True that some might be very skilled in making collisions with airborne players appear like accidents, very few would have that particular skill I would think, but then then no law is perfect. Sometimes the guilty escape justice. So long as the purpose of the law works in helping protect the innocent, and punish the guilty, at least for the most part. In the case of a literal reading of the law resulting in punishing the innocent of intent, whilst pardoning the guilty, then the law really is an Ass.
Intent must be a determining factor, and in the case of questionable intent then let the citing commission decide.

MrsP wrote:I was responding to TJ trying to compare Payne's actions to manslaughter!

No I wasn't. what I was trying to show was that the same action can have radically different consequences and that rightly you would be judged on the consequences in some situations not on your actions.

Tj is correctly pointing out that when u break the law, the "outcome" does have an impact on the penalty.

That was my point re cars and pedestrians. Reckless driving could be without intent but it could lead to...nothing, ABH, GBH, manslaughter, etc depending on the outcome.

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:Deliberate knock-on. Subjective judgment.
High tackle- often a subjective judgment.
Whether a player is making an attempt to roll away- subjective judgment.

Don't even make me start on the scrum and subjective judgments in that area. The whole job of being a referee is mainly making subjective judgments.

Indeed - and subjective judgements lead to inconsistency.  In this case we have objective criteria to judge the severity of the incident leading to greater consistency.  You want consitent reffing then you need objective standards to judge to where this is possible.

Unfortunately, unlike tip tackles, we don't have an objective criteria we can use thats worth the time of day. There are other outside factors that influence the outcome other than the actions of the player. Thats just a fact. Agree or not, that can't be changed.

TJ wrote:

Yes it was - he fell badly because Payne hit him. Nothing else is relevant at all.  If you take Paynes actions out of the equation does he still fall badly?  No.  the only thing that creted the risk was Paynes actions.    Its like saying pedestrians are to blame if they are killed by a car that goes thru a red light because the pedestrian was on the road.

Please stop with the insults.

Therefore, since nothing else is relevant at all, the IRB should say THIS LAW = RED (my preference) or yellow, and stick with it.

We are agreed that falling on the head isn't guaranteed from an aerial tackle, but likely - so why not address the actual problem. Give ALL AERIAL TACKLES the equal and harshest punishment. Cut the risk out of the game!

TJ, I am not arguing that Payne or Williams were innocent, but I am saying that their actions could both equally have resulted in a very serious injury and as a result should both have been treated with equal recompense.

We are not talking about naughty boys, we are talking about player welfare - and a desire for a certain level of safety on the pitch. If you want to stamp it out, stamp it out. Yellows and penalties will not do a very good job of it. Reds will.

The reason is this, you get players like Williams and payne who are charging in with a rush of blood to the head, and they probably feel they are going to get the man/ball, but they aren't certain. There's a risk in what they are doing. What are they risking? Who knows, it could be nothing, could be a penalty, could be a yellow - and on some very rare occasions if the player lands badly, it could be a red.

Tell them the risk is a red or nothing -  they will stop putting aerial opponents in danger - of that I am certain.

Surely the IRB want to deter players from making contact with aerial players? So lets see the real deterrent.

I think the only way you could compare these incidents to RTAs is if you decide that both players are cars and that there were no road markings.

Most say that if Payne had jumped he would have committed no offence.

Is that like saying that no one is to blame so long as their hands were not on the steering wheel?

  

Yes rugby is one of those games where refs shouldn't follow the laws by the letter, they aren't police officer, there are other things to take into account.
Great exemple in this Blues-Scarlets game was when a Blues player was held but then threw a punch but nothing serious, the ref rightly resumed play with his original decision as the Scarlets deserved what he got for his fool play, this is what i call empathy for the game, something the likes of Garces and Poite aren't aware of.

What's the point in arguing. In two games this weekend we have seen first hand how the law and it's application is fundamentally flawed. Anyone arguing different needs their head examined.

The inconsistency was evident a couple of weeks ago on the same day in different hemispheres and now we see it in the same one. Congrats IRB.

It's done now.

Williams has a reckless edge to his game & IMO is a liability despite having played some good games.

The ref made a bad decision today - it was an obvious red & he was very lucky even Easterby admitted after the game.

Paynes red was correct.

It's not the fault of the IRB. It was a clear red & shows up the bad officiating decision today.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Williams has a reckless edge to his game & IMO is a liability despite having played some good games.

The ref made a bad decision today - it was an obvious red & he was very lucky even Easterby admitted after the game.

Paynes red was correct.

It's not the fault of the IRB. It was a clear red  & shows up the bad officiating decision today.

Then many refs have been making many bad decisions. It isn't like they are dishing out red cards for that offence, is it? Payne's was accidental, and Williams wasn't, yet you reckon they both deserve the same punishment?

You say it isn't the fault of IRB, yet these rulings have been inconsistent with the red Payne received for quite some time. If the refs have been consistently wrong over such a prolonged period of time, and in all that time the IRB hasn't taken strong action to address that inconsistency, then yes, it's the fault of IRB.

There has been a clarification put out to refs. Tackle in the air - yellow card. tackle in the air and land on head - red card

Notch...seriously dude. It's done. The arguments will drag on but heads haven't rolled at Ravenhill, Garces has been backed by the IRB.
The end...

Williams was not a red according to the IRB as Cuthbert did not land on his head / neck or upper back

Notch wrote:

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:Deliberate knock-on. Subjective judgment.
High tackle- often a subjective judgment.
Whether a player is making an attempt to roll away- subjective judgment.

Don't even make me start on the scrum and subjective judgments in that area. The whole job of being a referee is mainly making subjective judgments.

Indeed - and subjective judgements lead to inconsistency.  In this case we have objective criteria to judge the severity of the incident leading to greater consistency.  You want consitent reffing then you need objective standards to judge to where this is possible.

Unfortunately, unlike tip tackles, we don't have an objective criteria we can use thats worth the time of day. There are other outside factors that influence the outcome other than the actions of the player. Thats just a fact. Agree or not, that can't be changed.

Of course we do. Did the player interfere with another player in the air, either deliberately or by reckless play? If yes then penalty. Did the player land on head, neck or upper back? If yes then red card. Other offences may recieve lesser punishments. Pretty much the same as for top tackles.

Their are other factors that can effect how a player lands with tip tackles. Did the player push off in a different direction to avoid being tackled, altering their momentum in a manner unexpected by the tackler? How did the tackler react to being tackled, shifting their mass in a way unexpected by the tackler? Many factors can effect it outside of the tacklers control, but they ignored and the focus is on the outcome.

I'd note that the number of lifting dump tackles appear (haven't counted so anecdotal) down following the strict punishment (mainly yellows for tipping without head impact).

The issue doesn't seem to be about cards but what counts as reckless play compared with accidental.

Except for tip tackles if a player lands on his neck that is totally tackling players fault. If a player lands on his neck here, that is not necessarily the players fault it can be down to factors outside of his control. Ultimately running and attacking the ball in the air is brave, because there will always be the risk of an accident when players are running towards a 50/50 ball. It can't be removed. I'm not saying that accidents shouldn't be penalised or even result in cards, just that there is a risk that they will occur that is part of the game.

Yes there are other factors with tip tackles but you put the player in the air so you are responsible for how he gets down. In this instance, it's very different because you didn't put him in the air. You maybe collided with him which depending on intent should be either a yellow card or a red card- you are responsible for avoiding the collision, but there are too many other factors at play in determining how the player lands to say that is solely the responsibility of the offending player. An innocuous challenge can result in a worse outcome than an extremely dangerous challenge based on factors which have nothing to do with the action- this is very, very different to tip tackles.

I'm not advocating that it shouldn't be a penalty or a yellow card in the case of an accidental collision, but no way should it be a red card if there is no intent and ESPECIALLY important for me is that because of the danger there is no way that it should ever, ever, ever be a yellow card if there is intent there! The second part is much, much more important than the first for obvious player welfare reasons.

The rule is roughly the same as for tip tackles and that is wrong and it is leading to incidents like the Williams one being under-punished and incidents like the Payne one being over-punished because the mechanics are just fundamentally different in this situation.

TJ wrote:There has been a clarification put out to refs.  Tackle in the air - yellow card.  tackle in the air and land on head - red card

And when was that directive put out?

Notch wrote:Except for tip tackles if a player lands on his neck that is totally tackling players fault. If a player lands on his neck here, that is not necessarily the players fault it can be down to factors outside of his control.

As explained to you this is not so. It is the players fault because he hit someone in the air. If Payne had not made the piece of foul play Goode would not have landed on his head. Payne has to take the consequences of his actions. Otherwise you are making the player in the air responsible for the consequences to him of someone elses foul play

TJ wrote:

Notch wrote:Except for tip tackles if a player lands on his neck that is totally tackling players fault. If a player lands on his neck here, that is not necessarily the players fault it can be down to factors outside of his control.

As explained to you this is not so.  It is the players fault because he hit someone in the air.  If Payne had not made the piece of foul play Goode would not have landed on his head.  Payne has to take the consequences of his actions.  Otherwise you are making the player in the air responsible for the consequences to him of someone elses foul play

That isn't correct. According to your understanding of the law, it actually wasn't what you call the the act of foul play, but rather the landing on the head. The act itself not demanding a red card, but what part of body the opposition player landed on first.

Oh, give over.

Of course the player in the airs actions have a bearing in how he lands. That doesn't mean he's to blame, it's just an unavoidable fact. There is inherent risk when your feet leave the ground. In a tip tackle someone else is putting you in that situation. When you jump for a high ball you are taking the risk on yourself. It's important that the law is on the side of the jumping player to try and minimise that risk but we can't remove the fact that the risk is taken on by the player himself.

You are responsible for you actions and their consequences, the way a player falls is not just down to the fouled players actions it is also down to the player who jumps actions. That is why it is an extremely flawed way of determining a sanction in this case. If a player jumps in a way that puts him less at risk and the offending player deliberately tries to take him out that is a severe action no matter how he lands. The fact he can get off with it if the guy is lucky enough to land well is a farce. If intent is there it should be a straight red every time no matter what happens next.

Blame the player for the consequences of his actions but he can't be blamed for factors in the fouled players jump that put him more at risk. That is just grossly unfair and it does nothing to further player safety. It just means the entire process of determining the colour of the card is little more than a lottery that has no relationship to the actual offence committed.

Payne or anyone else has to take the consequences of his actions, but if Goode hadn't jumped as high or been travelling as quickly those consequences would have been lesser. That does not make what he did any better or worse. It wouldn't have been any more or less reckless or any less deserving of punishment if Goode bounces straight back up. The only option is to judge the action because the consequences are NOT solely attributable to the action and are therefore basically useless in this kind of situation.

Munchkin - no - the tackle in the air is the piece of foul play, Because goode lands on his head its worth a red card. Without Paynes actions Goode would not have landed on his head.

Notch - you are making Goode responsible for the fact he landed on his head.

So if your interpretation is accepted then a player in the air is responsible for how he falls if tackled illegally? So a player would have to jump in such a way as to allow for someone tackling him illegally? It makes no sense at all.

Notch - we both need to remember this

TJ wrote:Munchkin - no - the tackle in the air is the piece of foul play,  Because goode lands on his head its worth a red card.  Without Paynes actions Goode would not have landed on his head.

Notch - you are making Goode responsible for the fact he landed on his head.

So if your interpretation is accepted then a player in the air is responsible for how he falls if tackled illegally?  So a player would have to jump in such a way as to allow for someone tackling him illegally?  It makes no sense at all.

Arrggghhhh!!!! TJ!!!!   

..........   

TJ, it should be 'Munchkin - >>yes<< - .......

I've just claimed that your understanding of this law is:

* Coming into contact with a player in the air, whilst having feet on the ground, is a foul.

* If the outcome of above foul is a player lands head/neck/upper back first, then that foul merits a red card. Otherwise yellow, or below.

In other words the foul itself is not demanding of a red card, but the outcome.

Has anyone else noticed the current trend of jumping into the tackle, especially if you are about to get man and ball.

I am in complete agreement with protecting a player jumping to collect a high ball or in the lineout, but players are starting to abuse the law by jumping to receive passes or into tackles and the tackler is getting penalised for it.

The laws need refining to stop this from becoming a standard 3 points earner. Get into the opposition half, jump into a tackle, get hit in the air, pop at goal, 3 points.

It happened a couple of times over the weekend and last week where I seem to remember a player was carded for it.

I think that is precisely the can of worms we are in danger of opening following the Payne incident.

If we actually want to improve saftey we need to take steps which discourage jumping. Declaring that any player is devoid of responsibility and untouchable once his feet leave the floor will encourage players to jump.

MrsP, I've tried suggesting this before, but I met an overwhelming wall of resistance. So now I'm adjusted my stance - if jumping is to happen, then the danger needs to be stamped out, and properly so.

The tip tackle specifies that its illegal only once the player goes beyond horizontal, and yet, this is not where they draw the line with regards to tackling in the air. The infringement begins at the point of contact with an aerial player regardless of whether or not the outcome ends up being dangerous.

So why do they penalise the aerial contact itself and not just the resulting landing? Because they want to stamp out the risk of danger which is not certain, but possible.

Heres how you stamp it out - red cards regardless of the resulting motion or fall. Simple!

Why do you have different degrees of severity within an act that you want gone completely?

I'm starting to think the yellow card itself is the problem.

The sin-bin, or as it was called then, the 'cooler' was designed to let a player cool off who had gotten a bit hot and bothered and lashed out in some way.

Things that are potentially very serious injury threatening like high tackles or tackles in the air should probably be just reds and always reds, because we should want them wiped out from the game.

That might just increase the frequency of the phenomenon described by Past-it.