Contact in the air - the sequel

by Poorfour Wed 23 Apr 2014, 09:21

First topic message reminder :

Did anyone else see this? Wuss-Bath affected by IRB directive

I didn't see the game, but this sounds like a step too far:

Grauniad wrote:...a midweek email from the international board's referee manager, Joël Jutge, demanding at least a yellow card for any player who did not get out of the way when another players is airborne

I know I was one of the most vehement defenders of the Payne red card (and it seems from this that the IRB wholeheartedly agreed with it), but without having seen either the email or its application, this is a worrying development for the game. There is an important difference (as we debated to death) between charging into an area where there is likely to be a man in the air and being in the path of someone who jumps. This directive would appear to remove that difference.

Does anyone know how to track down what the email said, and has anyone got any comments on the cards themselves? I've not read of any other game this weekend being affected by Jutge's directive.

by Scrumpy Thu 24 Apr 2014, 16:41

But you can't change direction once you are in the air!

I also fail to see why the angle Goode was taking was a problem, Payne should have known that a player would be jumping for the ball seeing as Goode got there first anyway!

Anyway it's all history now and we have two cracking semi finals to look forward to. Very Happy

by Guest Thu 24 Apr 2014, 16:45

Scrumpy wrote:But you can't change direction once you are in the air!

I also fail to see why the angle Goode was taking was a problem, Payne should have known that a player would be jumping for the ball seeing as Goode got there first anyway!

Anyway it's all history now and we have two cracking semi finals to look forward to.

No, ScrumpY, >>>>>> as<<<<<< he jumped. Maybe if you watch the clip a few dozen times, it will become clear Very Happy

Yes, I'm hoping for two great semi finals without ref's making a horlicks of them Very Happy

by Scrumpy Thu 24 Apr 2014, 16:49

I have no wish to watch it again thanks and I think its all too easy for fans to blame the Ref when their team lose or if they don't like the result, the Ref had time to judge what he saw and came to the right decision imo. Smile

by Guest Thu 24 Apr 2014, 16:51

Scrumpy wrote:I have no wish to watch it again thanks and I think its all too easy for fans to blame the Ref when their team lose or if they don't like the result, the Ref had time to judge what he saw and came to the right decision imo.

Thank you for your imo. Always appreciated Very Happy

by Scrumpy Thu 24 Apr 2014, 16:55

Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder. Wink

by Guest Thu 24 Apr 2014, 17:00

Scrumpy wrote:Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder.

I'm fairly sure his head was still attached on leaving the field. Yes, they did have to work harder for 75 minutes with only 14 men coming very close to beating the top AP side. 15 would have destroyed them Very Happy

by thebandwagonsociety Thu 24 Apr 2014, 18:53

Poorfour wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:But Hartley deliberately tackled him, he just (probably) wasn't expecting him to jump. Notch is talking about someone waiting for the ball, feet on ground, watching it and then gets jumped into.

But it seems to do want all players jumping for the ball. I'd say two players, upright, colliding the air is less likely to tip someone than if one is on the floor. Maybe that's what they're going for. I think it would have been better saying you can't jump for the ball outside the lineout.

Can't jump outside the lineout would be unenforceable in practical terms, I think. Would we really want to penalise Faletau for jumping to catch a bad pass?

I considered raising the Hartley incident in the OP, but held back. The logical end point, though, would be for coaches to get players to pass high so that the receiver can jump into the catch, and then one of three things happens: i) YC for the tackler, ii) instant line break (if the tackler gets out of the way) or iii) (as defences get smarter) defences stand back - defensive line speed becomes a liability.

I really hope the ref was just over-applying a gentle reminder and that this is not a directive as reported. I believe that the safety line needs to be drawn so that the man on the ground must not make things more dangerous for the jumper, but...

Actually, that's where it gets difficult. It's very hard to work out where the line lies, except with common sense. The only alternative is Jutge's "get out of the way" dictat.

An alternative would be the player in the air collecting a high ball is fully extended to retrieve the ball. Once the defender times the hit for just when the man in possession touches the ground he gets a perfect hit and does serious damage to the player.

by Poorfour Thu 24 Apr 2014, 19:28

But we've seen enough to know that serious injury from a hit on landing is much less frequent (and much less likely to be a head injury) than injury from a tackle in the air. All the usual stuff - limited risk of a tip, tackle has to be aimed at the body (or it's high). The biggest danger is usually getting a leg caught and causing knee damage, but that's still better than a head or neck injury.

Anyway, the alternative I was referring to was whether we can draw a line between what's safe and what isn't that is feasible to referee, and isn't Jutge's fairly draconian line. I can now see how he got to it, because it is hard to decide where to draw it and it is at least unambiguous, but I still think it goes too far.

by Scrumpy Thu 24 Apr 2014, 20:25

Munchkin wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder.

I'm fairly sure his head was still attached on leaving the field. Yes, they did have to work harder for 75 minutes with only 14 men coming very close to beating the top AP side. 15 would have destroyed them

we'll never know, but to use a football saying 'Ulster parked the bus' Wink

by lostinwales Fri 25 Apr 2014, 08:16

Munchkin wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder.

I'm fairly sure his head was still attached on leaving the field. Yes, they did have to work harder for 75 minutes with only 14 men coming very close to beating the top AP side. 15 would have destroyed them

If they played like they did with 14 men and Saracens played like they did against 14 men. The chances of that actually happening are not great. But we will never know.

by Guest Fri 25 Apr 2014, 11:04

lostinwales wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder.

I'm fairly sure his head was still attached on leaving the field. Yes, they did have to work harder for 75 minutes with only 14 men coming very close to beating the top AP side. 15 would have destroyed them

If they played like they did with 14 men and Saracens played like they did against 14 men. The chances of that actually happening are not great. But we will never know.

Just a bit of light hearted banter, Liw. Not meant to be taken seriously Very Happy

by lostinwales Fri 25 Apr 2014, 11:23

Munchkin wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Imo its good to put it in when there is so many people who believe Payne did nothing wrong.
Apart from losing his head in a big game and making his team mates work harder.

I'm fairly sure his head was still attached on leaving the field. Yes, they did have to work harder for 75 minutes with only 14 men coming very close to beating the top AP side. 15 would have destroyed them

If they played like they did with 14 men and Saracens played like they did against 14 men. The chances of that actually happening are not great. But we will never know.

Just a bit of light hearted banter, Liw. Not meant to be taken seriously

Good - too many people getting way to serious around here as it is

by Sponsored content

Contact in the air - the sequel

Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel

Re: Contact in the air - the sequel