Ulster vs Leinster; Official Opening of the New Ravenhill Stadium

First topic message reminder :

Ulster play Leinster on Friday night on the very special official opening of Ulster Rugbys newly redeveloped home. More team news to follow later in the week but until then enjoy these photos from the construction of the original Ravenhill grandstand and the first ever game held at Ravenhill- the same fixture, Ulster vs Leinster, in January 1924. Ulster won, here's hoping for a bit of the spirit of 1924!

The stadium has a rich history having hosted Irelands decisive win against Wales which secured our first ever Grand Slam in 1948, a famous win for Ulster over Australia in 1984 and wins over Toulouse and Stade Francais by a semi-professional Ulster side en route to winning the European Cup in 1999.

This is the beginning of a new era for the stadium and for the team, and it's time for a new generation of players to write their own history- starting on Friday. There will be an opening ceremony at 7pm and the game kicks off at 7.30pm.

Photos from the Opening of Ravenhill, 1924:

Opening Ceremony Details:

The teams are up;

LEINSTER

15: Rob Kearney 14: Zane Kirchner 13: Brian O'Driscoll 12: Gordon D'Arcy 11: Dave Kearney 10: Ian Madigan 9: Isaac Boss
1: Cian Healy 2: Sean Cronin 3: Martin Moore 4: Devin Toner 5: Mike McCarthy 6: Rhys Ruddock 7: Shane Jennings 8: Jamie Heaslip (captain)

REPLACEMENTS: 16: Richardt Strauss 17: Jack McGrath 18: Mike Ross 19: Leo Cullen 20: Jordi Murphy 21: Luke McGrath 22: Jimmy Gopperth 23: Luke Fitzgerald

ULSTER

15: Ricky Andrew 14: Andrew Trimble 13: Jared Payne 12: Luke Marshall 11: Tommy Bowe 10: Paddy Jackson 9: Paul Marshall
1: Tom Court 2: Rob Herring 3: Andrew Warwick 4: Johann Muller (captain) 5: Iain Henderson 6: Roger Wilson 7: Chris Henry 8: Nick Williams;

REPLACEMENTS: 16: Niall Annett 17: Callum Black 18: Adam Macklin 19: Dan Tuohy 20: Sean Doyle 21: Michael Heaney 22: James McKinney 23: Darren Cave

At Ravenhill, 7.30pm. Live on RTE/ BBC NI

Referee: Luke Pearce (RFU, 1st competition game)
Assistant Referees: John Lacey, David Connolly (both IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Eugene Ryan (IRFU)
TMO: Dermot Molony (IRFU)

Story folks,

I’m sure most of this has already been said but here’s my tuppence worth.

Court was unlucky, had he tackled any other player he would have brought him back to ground either at or before horizontal, Toner being the lank that he is tipped beyond the horizontal under his own weight. Unlucky, but ultimately the correct call.

Kearney yellow was a yellow but the game should have restarted with a pen from the halfway line. Can’t give a PT when the try has been scored but if an offence occurs during the act or after the act of scoring a try then the game can be restarted this way.

Ruddock’s yellow could have been red, he was probably lucky, obviously no malice but that’s not taken into account nor should it be, he was just lucky that the player didn’t land on his neck or head as he would have seen red, for the exact same action, crazy but that’s the way the law is being interpreted these days.

Delighted to get the win up in Ravers, yeah we weren’t great but we’ve topped the league again and we’ll fancy our chances at home.

Re Kearney a try hadnt been awarded yet and since the penalty happened first surely you can justify a penalty try? I thought it was a fair call to be honest.

Malace should be taken into account otherwise the game becomes farcical. Ruddock, Payne whoever, such reds are nonsense.

Courts red was unlucky and harsh too but in his case he did lift the player up so only really has himself to blame.

My understanding is that a penalty try can only be awarded when the foul play prevents a certain try from being scored. As Paddy Jackson was deemed to have touched down then it couldn't be a penalty try.

Court got exactly what he deserved for being so stupid. You can't lift a player like that nowadays and not expect the worst of consequences when he comes down on his head / neck even if it wasn't intentional.

GunsGerms wrote:Re Kearney a try hadnt been awarded yet and since the penalty happened first surely you can justify a penalty try? I thought it was a fair call to be honest.

Malace should be taken into account otherwise the game becomes farcical. Ruddock, Payne whoever, such reds are nonsense.

Courts red was unlucky and harsh too but in his case he did lift the player up so only really has himself to blame.

The first thing that the ref checks was the try, had it not been a try it would have been a PT.

Of all the things that irked me in terms of the refs decisions its this - the ref seemed to think he was only allowed to show one yellow for the aerial tackle. Surely, if Ruddock was a yellow, Zane was too.

That is the biggest mistake the ref made in the game. I also reckon the Kearney tackle was worthy of a red. The reason an aerial tackle where the player lands on their head/neck is a red, is for player safety. The reason a tip tackle where the player lands on their head/neck is a red, is for player safety.

Yet tackling someone by the neck from a right angle as both players are running full speed - thats seen as being less serious?

Thats just plain old bonkers...

Mickado wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Re Kearney a try hadnt been awarded yet and since the penalty happened first surely you can justify a penalty try? I thought it was a fair call to be honest.

Malace should be taken into account otherwise the game becomes farcical. Ruddock, Payne whoever, such reds are nonsense.

Courts red was unlucky and harsh too but in his case he did lift the player up so only really has himself to blame.

The first thing that the ref checks was the try, had it not been a try it would  have been a PT.

I'm not disputing that the incident followed the rules, but i do dispute what the rules are.

Quite simply, the idea of a penalty try is to punish a player who committed a foul with the intent of preventing 7 points. The player should be punished in the same way regardless. PT is 7 rather than 5 - that should have been the price Kearney paid.

Double cards would be a little too far and if it were the case then surely Herring should have been red carded too as he was well and truely involved in the tackle. The fact is Court and Herring were tackling big Dev with the obvious intention of effecting the chocke tackle, the fact they both effected it lifted Toner in the air. When Toner went for the offload and saw there was nobody to take it he rightly swivelled to go to ground and landed on his arm/shoulder. As he had been lifted into the air then it was up to Tom Court to ensure a safe return to ground, he couldn't as Herring was also involved and physics then took over. Double red ? Na.

I am just glad we managed to get that LBP as I was sure we were never going to have a chance against our Irish brothers. Now we must send the Ravens to Thomond

clivemcl wrote:

Mickado wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Re Kearney a try hadnt been awarded yet and since the penalty happened first surely you can justify a penalty try? I thought it was a fair call to be honest.

Malace should be taken into account otherwise the game becomes farcical. Ruddock, Payne whoever, such reds are nonsense.

Courts red was unlucky and harsh too but in his case he did lift the player up so only really has himself to blame.

The first thing that the ref checks was the try, had it not been a try it would  have been a PT.

I'm not disputing that the incident followed the rules, but i do dispute what the rules are.

Quite simply, the idea of a penalty try is to punish a player who committed a foul with the intent of preventing 7 points. The player should be punished in the same way regardless. PT is 7 rather than 5 - that should have been the price Kearney paid.

It would have been within the rules (laws) to restart the game with a penalty on the half way line, which is what the ref should have done.

Conversely, this game has made me very confident we can win in Dublin. Our best performances of the last two years have all been away from home.

Pete330v2 wrote:Double cards would be a little too far and if it were the case then surely Herring should have been red carded too as he was well and truely involved in the tackle. The fact is Court and Herring were tackling big Dev with the obvious intention of effecting the chocke tackle, the fact they both effected it lifted Toner in the air. When Toner went for the offload and saw there was nobody to take it he rightly swivelled to go to ground and landed on his arm/shoulder. As he had been lifted into the air then it was up to Tom Court to ensure a safe return to ground, he couldn't as Herring was also involved and physics then took over. Double red ? Na.

I am just glad we managed to get that LBP as I was sure we were never going to have a chance against our Irish brothers. Now we must send the Ravens to Thomond

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Herring and Court had a leg each - but that court lifted the leg he held above horizontal. Herring didn’t. As I recall.

I have absolutely no issue with double cards. Anyone committing a foul should get the required punishment. Kirchener did commit a YC foul and nobody cares that he wasn’t punished. Thats poor reffing.

Is the semi going to be moved to Lansdowne rd or will it be the RDS. Id imagine Ulster would bring 15k and Leinster could surely make up the rest? It would be great for the league if this was played at a sell out 50k.

It would have been within the rules (laws) to restart the game with a penalty on the half way line, which is what the ref should have done.

Are you sure Mickado?

Which rule is that?

I would have thought that as the offence occurred before Jackson scored the try the ref in effect played advantage and allowed him to score the try.

He then dealt with the offence by yellow carding Kearney.

My understanding would be that you can only restart with a penalty if an offence occurred AFTER the try was scored in which case you give a penalty from where the game would've restarted i.e. halfway.

"I have absolutely no issue with double cards. Anyone committing a foul should get the required punishment. Kirchener did commit a YC foul and nobody cares that he wasn’t punished. Thats poor reffing.."

Yeah I did state at the time that Kirchener's offence was worse than Ruddock's as at least Ruddock had competed for the ball, ZK turned and backed into Bowe whilst in the air, a clear taking out of the man if ever there was one. The ref didn't have the cahones though.

During the match one of our ex players come pundit (I can't remember which) commented that if refereeing and player protection continued on it's current course our professional players will be playing tag rugby soon.

I am all for player protection but rugby is a physical, contact sport and should remain so, it's the last gladiatorial team sport we have. I mean if we were to ban punches to the head area in boxing for the welfare of participants........well I'll not go there but you know what I mean

MunsterMac wrote:

It would have been within the rules (laws) to restart the game with a penalty on the half way line, which is what the ref should have done.

Are you sure Mickado?

Which rule is that?

I would have thought that as the offence occurred before Jackson scored the try the ref in effect played advantage and allowed him to score the try.

He then dealt with the offence by yellow carding Kearney.

My understanding would be that you can only restart with a penalty if an offence occurred AFTER the try was scored in which case you give a penalty from where the game would've restarted i.e. halfway.

I think it's if a penalty offence occurs in the act of scoring a try then a penalty from half way will be given. Once again it's one that is up to the interpretation of the referee at the time. In this case he did get it wrong but such is life.

I think it's if a penalty offence occurs in the act of scoring a try then a penalty from half way will be given.

However I'm not sure that there is anything to that effect in the actual rules.

I remember this coming up ages ago and as far as I remember the only time you can restart from halfway is if an offence occurs after a team scores.

Basically the rules cover a situation where if an offence occurs when the ball is dead the ref awards a penalty from where the game restarts.

I don't think there is an actual rule or rules that allows the ref to arbitrarily decide that he can award a penalty from halfway.

I am not however a ref.

MunsterMac wrote:

I think it's if a penalty offence occurs in the act of scoring a try then a penalty from half way will be given.

However I'm not sure that there is anything to that effect in the actual rules.

I remember this coming up ages ago and as far as I remember the only time you can restart from halfway is if an offence occurs after a team scores.

Basically the rules cover a situation where if an offence occurs when the ball is dead the ref awards a penalty from where the game restarts.

I don't think there is an actual rule or rules that allows the ref to arbitrarily decide that he can award a penalty from halfway.

I am not however a ref.

Ah but at what point did Jackson end scoring the try and was his head still being hauled at by Chilli? Perhaps that would constiture after scoring?
I do think it can be applied to a penalty offence perpetrated during the act of scoring. I am sure I saw that somewhere. Where the frick is Red Stag when we need him. He'd have known, he is a ref.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-1703.html?s=303083a80c52e398f39308f1ab98fcee

ME-109 wrote:http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-1703.html?s=303083a80c52e398f39308f1ab98fcee

Refs are great craic aren’t they?

It's basically a loophole in the laws. The foul play occurred before the try was scored, not after. And it didn't prevent the try being scored. So technically correct.

It seems ironic that if Jackson drops the ball we get an extra 2 points but because he finishes the move off we don't- especially after another season were I've bemoaned our  poor finishing. A great finish that costs us points. Couldn't make it up!   

Also surprised ME-109 hasn't mentioned Dave Kearney falling over his feet with the line at his mercy.

Why would you feed the trolls Notch?

I'm not feeding them, I'm genuinely surprised. And it was quite funny GG.

Notch wrote:I'm not feeding them, I'm genuinely surprised. And it was quite funny GG.

Post a link? I didnt see it. Switched off at almost half time.

1 hour 34 minutes- absolutely terrible stuff from Kearney. Really no more you can say about it than that.

http://www.rte.ie/player/6c/show/10279214/

He thought it was a ruck

He really made a fist of tackling Trimble though..... 

As has been pointed out a PT can only be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a certain try being scored. A try was scored so no PT. A more experienced player may well have 'dropped' the ball and appealed to the ref.

There is absolutely nothing in the laws to support Ulster being awarded a penalty from the restart. That could only happen if an act of foul play occurred once the ball was grounded - e.g. the try scorer was knee dropped after scoring.

Some Ulster fans seem to want to have certain laws changed when their team is the perceived victim of a decision.

I

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Yeah that really should have been a PT,Jackson was very gracious in his interview when the guy asked him if it should have been a red card he looked at him like he was nuts and said "for Rob,no way".

That was a very good interview. You could see that the spite that appears on 606v2 between supporters of the provinces doesn't creep over to the players.

Only downside of that interview was that it seems like Leinster are getting into the heads of the younger Ulster players. They need to snap out of that.

Notch wrote:It's basically a loophole in the laws. The foul play occurred before the try was scored, not after. And it didn't prevent the try being scored. So technically correct.

It seems ironic that if Jackson drops the ball we get an extra 2 points but because he finishes the move off we don't- especially after another season were I've bemoaned our  poor finishing. A great finish that costs us points. Couldn't make it up!   

Also surprised ME-109 hasn't mentioned Dave Kearney falling over his feet with the line at his mercy.

It really was a butchered opportunity. They were getting in the way of each other in the middle of the field and had not set move ready to run even though there were c.10 phases of play by the forwards which allowed plenty of time for the backs to set up a move. Then Darcy decides to pass half the width of the field without even stepping into the pace to cover the distance, that pass was terrible. I don't really blame Dave too much in that scenario. But it was yet another game where Leinster become aimless in the backs and ultra-forward dominated. MOC needs to get the pack grizzled again and to an extent he is playing to strength with two full front rows to pick from, a solid second row (Toner) and depth in the backrow meaning most of the pack can be operating effectively in most scenarios. But the backline has really regressed this season for Leinster. Maybe two games this season they have clicked whereas the past few years it was more like 14-15 games in the season the backline hit their stride. I know we are top of the table and were unfortunate to have to play away to Toulon in the HCup (never going to win that game over there) but I really think there is nervousness and cautiousness in his team selections and tactics that is putting a handbrake on any expansive play by Leinster.

MOC causes DK to slip?

Hound of Harrow wrote:As has been pointed out a PT can only be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a certain try being scored. A try was scored so no PT. A more experienced player may well have 'dropped' the ball and appealed to the ref.

There is absolutely nothing in the laws to support Ulster being awarded a penalty from the restart. That could only happen if an act of foul play occurred once the ball was grounded - e.g. the try scorer was knee dropped after scoring.

Some Ulster fans seem to want to have certain laws changed when their team is the perceived victim of a decision.

I

Not sure that is fair Hound. Most have just been rueing the anomally that we would have been better off if we had not scored.

You have to accept that it is a bit weird, no?

Ah MrsP, I did say 'some' fans, not all. A player's natural instinct is to score the try. A player can't be sure that a high tackle will be penalised so they'll go for the score. The laws don't allow for any other decision. If Kearney had tackled legally Jackson wouldn't have made it under the posts anyway.

I recorded the game and enjoyed the pre-match stuff, especially the reception for Jackie Kyle.

Hound of Harrow wrote:As has been pointed out a PT can only be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a certain try being scored. A try was scored so no PT. A more experienced player may well have 'dropped' the ball and appealed to the ref.

There is absolutely nothing in the laws to support Ulster being awarded a penalty from the restart. That could only happen if an act of foul play occurred once the ball was grounded - e.g. the try scorer was knee dropped after scoring.

Some Ulster fans seem to want to have certain laws changed when their team is the perceived victim of a decision.

I

We are discussing the ambiguity in the current set of laws Hound. There have been penalties awarded from the halfway for similar incidents to the Kearney yellow carding in the past so it's worth discussing. The other strange decisions made on the night are equally worth discussion. If we are not to discuss things and debate all things rugby then what's the point of running forums?

Hi Pete. By all means debate whether the cards issued were correct for the offence that was penalised. Pearce clearly explained that he had no choice with Court's red card because Toner landed on his neck, and gave the impression that he didn't want to send him off. Similarly he explained that following the Ruddock/Kirchner challenge on Jackson merited only yellow because Jackson landed on his side and not his head or neck.

Notch created a thread about how the laws, and the IRB's guidelines, are interpreted. It was a well thought out argument because, as things stand, referees are given no choice in certain situations.

Any change needs to driven by the referees themselves, who may request that they be given more discretion when assessing the intent and cause and effect of aerial challenges and tip tackles.*

The Kearney head shot on Jackson did warrant a red card imo. Piufisi copped one for Gloucester against Bath recently for a similar challenge.

However, I was disappointed with the pundits at ht who were arguing for a penalty try; they clearly don't understand the law on when a PT can be awarded and were letting emotions get the better of them.

*Payne's red card v Sarries (hotly disputed I know) was akin to driving without due care and attention. Sure, you don't mean to cause an accident, but you greatly increase the risk of doing so if you're not looking where you are going.

I don't think a penalty try could have or should have been awarded. But I think a red card could have been given, albeit I was happy with yellow. No one could have been angry about yellow except for the fact that right now they're giving red cards out like flyers for crap nightclubs you don't want to visit. So it gets to the stage where every little offence you think might be red.

It's mainly down to the TMO. Referees would err on the side of caution previous and you know what- it was fine. The team would be punished with a man in the bin, the guy would be cited and punished appropriately and there was no problem. Justice was done. Games were won and lost and completed with full complements. Now the game is at the mercy of slow motion replays which actually make things look worse/more intentional than they really were.

Now I really believe in the red card as a sanction. If a player commits an act of violence on the field go for it. If a player deliberately goes out to hurt another player, thats when a red card should be given. If there is doubt over how deliberate the players actions are- for goodness sake use your common sense and give a yellow and a citing. A player who commits a violent act needs to be removed from the field. A player who commits a reckless act needs to be punished, but a red card is a big punishment and if they are not guilty of deliberately trying to hurt another player I think it is too much of a sanction. I honestly think it's a way of needlessly ruining games and it warps results.

I don't think Leinster would have been given a second yellow if it wasn't for the TMO either because that incident was a whole lot of nothing whatsoever. A penalty, maybe, but giving a card for that was a joke. Tommy Bowe goes charging at full speed and jumps into some Leinster players and one of them goes to the bin for it? Give me a break. No card there.

Hound, for me the analogy is that it's akin to driving without care or attention- but so long as your car is literally flying through the air you are no longer responsible for what happens in any way. Even if it is on a collision course with another car. The law only applies to cars on the ground. I think this interpretation will make the game a lot more dangerous in that coaches will begin to realise that if you are in the air you can't be penalised so we'll see a lot more players putting themselves in risky positions.

Joe Schmidt was asked about it and he said he's always coached players to completely focus on the ball 100% when chasing a kick. Nothing else, just the ball. Not where the defenders are, not where the other players are- just get under the ball. This is very common; once you start thinking about other things you're going to fumble the ball. If you're thinking about the hit thats coming your way you're going to fumble the ball. So the rush to sanction players for doing what they've been coached to do is galling. In an interview on the Ulster website Jared Payne expressed his frustration and his relief that Goode was okay but said something to the effect that that was the way he'd been taught to go after balls (complete focus on the ball) and he wasn't going to change his technique. Because every coach he's ever had has taught him to do it the same way. His mistake was he didn't jump in time but it was a rugby mistake not foul play. He's literally been coached to ignore the other players and focus only on the ball and then he gets a red card for doing that. Now the way this area is being coached will have to change because of a refereeing edict but it's a complete mess right now.

If you're doing what you've been coached to do and get under the ball and then someone jumps into you you can get a red card even if you don't know anything about it. It's a crazy situation.

Notch - you're effectively saying that if a player jumps for the ball then it's his fault if he comes to grief in any subsequent collision?


When a team puts the ball up in the air they are hoping that one of their own players will jump and claim it. To effectively say that a defender shouldn't also jump for the ball in case he gets injured baffles me.

To this observer Payne was not focussed on the ball. He just ran to where he thought it might land. He may have been unaware that Goode was making a jump for the ball....but he should have been.

Still, that's been done to oblivion. My debating point is, as I believe was yours in the other thread, should referees be allowed more discretion and empathy in these situations?

As long as the IRB insist that their guidelines are geared around player safety then I don't expect them to be relaxed. It is up to the refs to lobby for more discretion. But then we're back to what caused the IRB's guidelines in the first place. Consistency on the sanction awarded.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Notch - you're effectively saying that if a player jumps for the ball then it's his fault if he comes to grief in any subsequent collision?


When a team puts the ball up in the air they are hoping that one of their own players will jump and claim it. To effectively say that a defender shouldn't also jump for the ball in case he gets injured baffles me.

To this observer Payne was not focussed on the ball. He just ran to where he thought it might land. He may have been unaware that Goode was making a jump for the ball....but he should have been.

Still, that's been done to oblivion. My debating point is, as I believe was yours in the other thread, should referees be allowed more discretion and empathy in these situations?

As long as the IRB insist that their guidelines are geared around player safety then I don't expect them to be relaxed. It is up to the refs to lobby for more discretion. But then we're back to what caused the IRB's guidelines in the first place. Consistency on the sanction awarded.

Simply not true   

I really can't understand how anyone who has watched the incident can make that claim. Payne when running for the catch is looking straight up, and following the ball all the way, or at least to the very last second. He was completely focused on the ball.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Notch - you're effectively saying that if a player jumps for the ball then it's his fault if he comes to grief in any subsequent collision?


When a team puts the ball up in the air they are hoping that one of their own players will jump and claim it. To effectively say that a defender shouldn't also jump for the ball in case he gets injured baffles me.

To this observer Payne was not focussed on the ball. He just ran to where he thought it might land. He may have been unaware that Goode was making a jump for the ball....but he should have been.

Still, that's been done to oblivion. My debating point is, as I believe was yours in the other thread, should referees be allowed more discretion and empathy in these situations?

As long as the IRB insist that their guidelines are geared around player safety then I don't expect them to be relaxed. It is up to the refs to lobby for more discretion. But then we're back to what caused the IRB's guidelines in the first place. Consistency on the sanction awarded.

No I'm saying that he's just as 'culpable' for the collision as the other player. Neither player is at fault. People have accused me of blaming people- in an incident like the Payne-Goode collision I think nobody is to blame. I don't think either player has any intention to collide with the other player so I'm not ascribing blame- what blame is there? But there were two players both completely focused on the ball that had no awareness of the others position that collided- both running at full pelt towards where they thought the ball would land- and one is treated differently than the other. If you must ascribe blame for what happened, ascribe it equally. But I think blame in this situation is a nonsense. I don't blame Payne one bit for what happened. He was just doing what he was coached to do and he didn't time his jump right. A technical mistake not foul play. I still believe thats a penalty- in the same way that a player who follows his instinct and grab a ball when he's in an offside position is a penalty- but I don't see the need to scapegoat one player for the outcome of a collision both players contributed to and I certainly think to start carding players does more harm than good in terms of safety.

You say that Payne should have been aware that Goode was there, but that directly contradicts every instinct that has been coached into him since he started playing which is to focus on the ball 100%. His fault was not jumping in time, which is poor technique, the same way a player who instinctively grabs the ball when in an offside position or doesn't bind properly in the scrum demonstrates poor technique. Penalty offences, but unless they are done deliberately to prevent a score not card offences. I don't see how handing out red cards helps this.

Both players are just trying to win the ball, not breaking any rules. The interpretation of that incident as a tackle is a joke. To tackle a player is an action you take on the field of play. To collide with a player is a) not a deliberate action and b) an incident in which there are two players involved. The fact Goode gets in the air and Payne doesn't makes it a penalty offence for sure. The argument over recklessness makes it a yellow, maybe, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. I've seen many people describe what happened as Payne running into Goode which is frustrating because Goode was moving forward at a rate of knots. The players ran into each other. If a player is in the air and someone deliberately takes him out by all means send him off. That is 100% unacceptable. But most of those incidents should be restarted with a penalty and get on with the game as there is nothing in it. Like the Tommy Bowe incident- a card was a total joke. Tommy ran full pelt into traffic, someone else was running the other way and both players are focused 100% on the ball. For god's sake get on with the game. If Tommy landed on his neck Ruddock could have been red carded for a collision that was a complete accident!! A yellow was farcical for what happened.

The thing is, Tom Court deserved a red card all day long because if you put a player in the air you are responsible for how he comes down regardless of intent. Tom Court put Devin Toner at risk, 100% unacceptable, he had to go. But the player who puts himself in the air is taking a risk, himself. Yes it should be in the law that you can't tackle a man in the air but if you run and attack the ball and there are players in the way you take the chance that you will collide with them. Tom Court put Devin Toner in the air. No-one made Alex Goode jump. He didn't do anything wrong himself, but he did jump with all the risk that entails and it was not a stationary jump it was a running jump in the direction of several chasers. Again, he did nothing wrong. But he did put himself at risk.

I can see the sense in a sanction if it's the case that the jumping player is standing his ground and the other player runs into him, but players are now coached to attack the ball and to focus 100% on the ball so they will jump into a gaggle of players on the ground and they will jump when there are other players running full pelt towards them. Most of these incidents happen when the jumping player is running forward at full pelt into traffic before he jumps which is, I'm sorry, is just an inherently risky thing to do! As soon as you are in the air your everyone else's responsibility even if you are traveling forward at full speed. Which is because the player in the air is in a vulnerable position, but even if you just fail to get out of a jumping players way in time you can be carded now so if I was a coach I would be emphasising that the laws always favour the jumper so get off the ground- which of course makes you more vulnerable.

So I think the law is incredibly one sided and encourages players to put themselves at risk to avoid sanction.

Now you're really twisting things guys. The law guidelines are there to protect players challenging legally for the ball in the air. Where on earth did Goode do anything wrong?

You'll see a dozen incidents 8n a game where a player hasn't a much chance of claiming a high ball and pulls out out of the challenge.

I understand the result ended Ulster's HC aspirations, but had it happened in  Rabo game against Treviso, would we have the same level of complaint?

I agree almost 100% with what the 'ardnd says.

Essentially it is about the degree of recklessness. If you drove a car on a public highway with total disregard for your own (or anyone else's) safety because you are late for a meeting and a collision occurs, then it's your responsibility. Other road users should be entitled to assume that everyone else is driving within the law.

I took the analogous view that Payne, when chasing the high ball, must have established that his route to the point of impact was clear and must therefore have calculated, as an experienced player, that the ball on its descent would be contested.

He was totally, utterly reckless. And rightly paid a heavy fine for his misdemeanour.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I agree almost 100% with what the 'ardnd says.

Essentially it is about the degree of recklessness. If you drove a car on a public highway with total disregard for your own (or anyone else's) safety because you are late for a meeting and a collision occurs, then it's your responsibility. Other road users should be entitled to assume that everyone else is driving within the law.

I took the analogous view that Payne, when chasing the high ball, must have established that his route to the point of impact was clear and must therefore have calculated, as an experienced player, that the ball on its descent would be contested.

He was totally, utterly reckless. And rightly paid a heavy fine for his misdemeanour.

Say if you are right - and his actions were 'reckless' how can it be fair if in another aspect of the game Kearney can actually make a decision to tackle a player by the neck in desperation to avoid conceding a try and receive only a yellow.

Plain and simple - heres the point.

Careless and reckless acts will always happen in rugby - Deliberate acts of foul play should not be permitted and should be punished more harshly.

"You say that Payne should have been aware that Goode was there, but that directly contradicts every instinct that has been coached into him since he started playing which is to focus on the ball 100%"

This is the most valid point that makes a complete mockery of the ridiculous claims about Payne being reckless. Any player is trained to focus on the ball, how many times do you here pundits hailing the courage in a take under pressure from an attacking/defending player because their eye wasn't taken off the ball. Also to claim that Payne was running into an area where he had no chance of getting the ball is just as ridiculous, watch the replays, if Goode hadn't been there the ball would have landed in Payne's arms. He timed his run perfectly to catch the ball, something he always does and he often catches the ball at full pelt. He said himself it's what he's always been coached to do. Now it's being called reckless?

Anyone who regards it as reckless needs to stick to tag rugby in all honesty.

clivemcl wrote:

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:I agree almost 100% with what the 'ardnd says.

Essentially it is about the degree of recklessness. If you drove a car on a public highway with total disregard for your own (or anyone else's) safety because you are late for a meeting and a collision occurs, then it's your responsibility. Other road users should be entitled to assume that everyone else is driving within the law.

I took the analogous view that Payne, when chasing the high ball, must have established that his route to the point of impact was clear and must therefore have calculated, as an experienced player, that the ball on its descent would be contested.

He was totally, utterly reckless. And rightly paid a heavy fine for his misdemeanour.

Say if you are right - and his actions were 'reckless' how can it be fair if in another aspect of the game Kearney can actually make a decision to tackle a player by the neck in desperation to avoid conceding a try and receive only a yellow.

Plain and simple - heres the point.

Careless and reckless acts will always happen in rugby - Deliberate acts of foul play should not be permitted and should be punished more harshly.

My opinion at the time (on this thread) was that Keraney's offence was an RC plus a ban. Longer than any that Court gets imo.

But I do realise that this thread is a purely an Irish affair and therefore I should not really express an opinion that might be contrary received perceptions there. Otherwise I'll be in danger of accusations of trolling.

Neither player will receive any citing as the provinces have a long running agreement not to cite each other. Hence Kearney and Court will be available.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Now you're really twisting things guys. The law guidelines are there to protect players challenging legally for the ball in the air. Where on earth did Goode do anything wrong?

You'll see a dozen incidents 8n a game where a player hasn't a much chance of claiming a high ball and pulls out out of the challenge.

I understand the result ended Ulster's HC aspirations, but had it happened in  Rabo game against Treviso, would we have the same level of complaint?

Where on earth did I say he deserved the blame? I specifically said no-one is to blame. But I do think players need to take responsibility for their own actions on the rugby pitch re. jumping if they are running into traffic. They are taking a risk and then to scapegoat someone else for the risk they are taking is wrong. Then to throw in a pejorative comment about my opinions being because it was Ulster is also very insulting, when my opinion on the Tommy Bowe challenge is that Tommy was at least as responsible for the collision that got Ruddock sent off as Ruddock was. Tommy ran forward towards a gaggle of Leinster players and jumped forward towards the ball. He took a risk there and he ended up in a collision because he was running into traffic. Ruddock was scapegoated for the risk Tommy Bowe took and sent from the pitch. Tommy Bowe didn't do anything wrong. There's no criticism to be made of Tommy Bowe, there's only responsibility for his part in causing the collision that got another player dismissed. He jumped into a player who was then penalised for that. Neither player did anything wrong in my opinion. Restart the game with a penalty and get on with it. Only save the yellow card for the worst offences. The yellow card that helped us against Leinster was the same injustice we suffered against Saracens.

The player in the air is not some passive bystander when they are running forward and attacking the ball. It is right that players have a responsibility to not put that player in danger in so far as that is possible, and it is right that any collision with a player in the air and a player on the ground results in a penalty for the jumpers side but it is also a very risky part of the game and thats a risk players need to be responsible for when they choose to take it. I really think the maximum punishment for an accidental collision should be yellow and the minimum should be a penalty. It's completely different to a tip tackle where the offending player is solely responsible for creating the risk in that situation.

I would have given Payne a yellow and no card to Rhys Ruddock whatsoever.

Are you thinking of Jackson there notch?

Tommy went up for the ball prior to the Leinster try but no-one was sin binned

Notch wrote:Neither player will receive any citing as the provinces have a long running agreement not to cite each other. Hence Kearney and Court will be available.

What?

I was led to believe that a red card equates to an automatic visit to the Citings Committee.

And the Rabo doesn't have an independent citing observer?

Blimey...

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

Notch wrote:Neither player will receive any citing as the provinces have a long running agreement not to cite each other. Hence Kearney and Court will be available.

What?

I was led to believe that a red card equates to an automatic visit to the Citings Committee.

And the Rabo doesn't have an independent citing observer?

Blimey...

Yeah, I was wrong about that. The Pro12 does have a central disciplinary structure but unlike European competition a player is only cited if the opposing team cites him and the Iirsh provinces have a gentleman's agreement not to cite each others players.

Standulstermen wrote:Are you thinking of Jackson there notch?

Tommy went up for the ball prior to the Leinster try but no-one was sin binned

Yeah possibly.

A gentlemen's agreement could be construed as a directive from the Head Office not to foul their doorstep.

The Tigers used to have a policy not to cite anyone in their league. But then a central decision was made to have an independent citing official. And that imo was a correct decision and one which the P12 should follow.

Surely that helps to allay fears that justice is a process with a formal structure and not one which can be selectively applied.

I can honestly say that I'm pretty shocked about what Notch has just informed me.

I'm not certain it's true is it? Wasn't POC cited for the kick on Dave. Kearney. I know nothing happened but he was cited.