Sarries vs Ulster

[winchesterref]

I agree with Browner. Can't argue with a RC, highly dangerous situation, and reckless contact.

Can see the argument for a YC, but jumper came down practically head first (over 90) from 3 or 4 feet in the air. Either contest, or get out the way of the legs, White 15 knew AG was going to be jumping to take the ball, don't go in half assed and carelessly

 

[Browner]

Payne could not have second guessed what Goode was going to do, .

I don't agree, I'd wager that every fan in the stadium and every player and every coach or official expected Goode to jump for that high kick .

Unexpected ...zero chance of that

 

[Chogan]

We are seeing more of this, the chaser looks up and continues running through the player who's leaping, sometimes they turn their back to make it appear even less obvious......

With the idea that everything that happens in the pro game isnt 'by accident' then this tactic is designed to hurt the opponent whilst claiming innocence of action, I don't buy it

Elite players are acutely aware of what is happening around them, its an early match "rattler" in every guise.

Crikey, if falatua can jump at Hartley and be protected then this collision has a much higher level of responsibility on behalf of the chaser running at high speed.

If you chase a kick and don't try and jump for possession then you have the collision responsibility.

Nonsense.

Payne could have just as likely come out of the collision with an injury. Look at the other example I posted from Reds v Force

 

[Browner]

Nonsense.

Payne could have just as likely come out of the collision with an injury. Look at the other example I posted from Reds v Force

Its not nonsence, that is irrelevant to the catcher in the air safety issue.

Jumpers leading with a foot/knee outstretched is a completely different set of discussions.

In both cases if the chasers jumps and attempts to catch then all airborne collisions are equal in risk.

 

[Chogan]

Its not nonsence, that is irrelevant to the catcher in the air safety issue.

Jumpers leading with a foot/knee outstretched is a completely different set of discussions.

In both cases if the chasers jumps and attempts to catch then all airborne collisions are equal in risk.

So just jump for the sake of it? Even when the only chance of catching the ball is on the run.

 

[crossref]

I thought the Reds V Force example was incorrect -- the ref gave a PK.
For me that can't possibly be right. it's either an accidental collision, play on. Or it's an offence. If it's an offence its a dangerous and serious one, and certainly worth a card. I could live with 'play on' I could live with a card, it's a judegment call. But I don't see that PK can be right.

 

[Browner]

I thought the Reds V Force example was incorrect -- the ref gave a PK.
For me that can't possibly be right. it's either an accidental collision, play on. Or it's an offence. If it's an offence its a dangerous and serious one, and certainly worth a card. I could live with 'play on' I could live with a card, it's a judegment call. But I don't see that PK can be right.

I agree, wendyballers who commit bad fouls often feign injury to con a sympathetic non card decision out of the referee. The offender getting hurt also is 100% irrelevant.

 

[OB..]

Why would it be unrealistic?

Because there are many scenarios where it is normal and not dangerous. For example, a looped pass to the winger is intercepted by an opponet, who of course has to jump to get it.

I wonder if you would still subscribe to your argument if Goode had broken his neck.

(1) Yes.
(2) He didn't sustain any serious damage.
(3) This incident is not unusual, and so far ...
(4) Legal actions can be dangerous - Danny Hearn broke his neck in a legal tackle on an All Black.

Payne could not have second guessed what Goode was going to do

He not only could have anticipated it - he most certainly should have. It is standard practice.

Other option is to let players jump and take the risk that they may be taken out by the legal action of players on the ground.

In many cases the action is not legal, but dangerous play. In this case the referee decided it was illegal under curretn law. The discussion here revolves around that judgement.

 

[4eyesbetter]

I have a question for everyone.

Imagine that Goode had been put to ground in that position and with that amount of force, but as the result of a clumsy lifting tackle. Does your decision change at all? If so, why?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have a question for everyone.

Imagine that Goode had been put to ground in that position and with that amount of force, but as the result of a clumsy lifting tackle. Does your decision change at all? If so, why?

Yes it does

For a tip tackle, Referees are instructed to start with RC and work down and most importantly intent, or lack of, is specifically not to be considered a mitigating factor. Additionally, a tip tackle requires a premeditated sequence of physical actions on the part of the infringer; grasp, lift, rotate, drop or drive. You cannot accidentally misjudge or go through that sequence

No such restriction exists in the case of players colliding when one or both are in the air, therefore, intent should be a consideration. Additionally, a momentary miscalculation ir misjudgement can be the difference between nothing happening and disaster. The same cannot be said for a tip tackle.

IMO, Payne always looked like he was intending to jump, and at the very last moment, he realised he was not going to make it; too late by then as there was nothing he could do to avoid what happened next. One indicator of this is that he made no effort to protect his face from the impact. Instead, he was head up, looking at the ball, with his arms forward, palms-up ready to jump or catch the ball, exactly the same position as Goode's arms and hands, but a fraction of a second too late!

The more I watch the repeats of the video posted earlier by chogan the more it looks like an accident to me.

 

[OB..]

I have a question for everyone.

Imagine that Goode had been put to ground in that position and with that amount of force, but as the result of a clumsy lifting tackle. Does your decision change at all? If so, why?

I agree with Ian.

 

[RobLev]

I agree with Ian.

As do I.

 

[FightOrFlight]

While I know I sound like some guy on the sideline giving it loads I think that it must be noted that there was an official appointed by the ERC for this game that has shown on a lot more than one occasion he is not good enough for the level. For an "elite" referee to look at the replays and come to the conclusion that it is RC worries me.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Yes it does
Additionally, a tip tackle requires a premeditated sequence of physical actions on the part of the infringer; grasp, lift, rotate, drop or drive. You cannot accidentally misjudge or go through that sequence

Maybe I'm just not parsing this properly, but it seems as though you're saying that it's not possible for a player to make a lifting tackle with the intention of turning the tackled player through about 80 degrees before bringing him to ground, and then accidentally end up turning him to about 95 degrees instead. Which seems a bit odd.

I don't get why intent is suddenly irrelevant in this situation when the potential outcome is exactly the same; a player landing with force on the head or neck area. I agree that the situations aren't precisely analogous, but it does seem slightly bizarre that people are so stridently in favour of the harshest possible interpretation in one and similarly as stridently against it in another.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Maybe I'm just not parsing this properly, but it seems as though you're saying that it's not possible for a player to make a lifting tackle with the intention of turning the tackled player through about 80 degrees before bringing him to ground, and then accidentally end up turning him to about 95 degrees instead. Which seems a bit odd.

No, but I am saying that the "rotate and drop" bits of the tip tackle bit cannot happen if the other bits, "grasp and lift" don't happen first. A player executing a grasp and lift KNOWS that he is on thin ice, and if it goes wrong, he's likely to get some time on the sideline.

The same cannot be said of jumping for the ball. If you are going to remove intent from it, then if both players jump for the ball and collide, and both (or neither) manage to grab the ball, then you will have to RC both players for dangerous play because the fact that both intended to catch the ball is not taken into consideration, you just make the decision on the result.

I don't get why intent is suddenly irrelevant in this situation when the potential outcome is exactly the same; a player landing with force on the head or neck area. I agree that the situations aren't precisely analogous, but it does seem slightly bizarre that people are so stridently in favour of the harshest possible interpretation in one and similarly as stridently against it in another.

Because we do not (or should not) rule on outcomes, otherwise we end up in the ridiculous situation of penalising a perfectly legitimate piece of play just because someone gets injured.

 

[RobLev]

Maybe I'm just not parsing this properly, but it seems as though you're saying that it's not possible for a player to make a lifting tackle with the intention of turning the tackled player through about 80 degrees before bringing him to ground, and then accidentally end up turning him to about 95 degrees instead. Which seems a bit odd.

I don't get why intent is suddenly irrelevant in this situation when the potential outcome is exactly the same; a player landing with force on the head or neck area. I agree that the situations aren't precisely analogous, but it does seem slightly bizarre that people are so stridently in favour of the harshest possible interpretation in one and similarly as stridently against it in another.

For me it's pretty simple: once you lift him off the ground, you have intentionally put him in a position which is dangerous. It is your responsiblity to put him down safely. It doesn't matter what angle you intended at the outset to turn him through - if you get it wrong, it's your fault for lifting him in the first place. Intent isn't irrelevant, it's just that you're looking in the wrong place for it.

In the Payne/Goode case, Payne did not (IMHO) intend to put Goode in a dangerous position.

 

[davidgh]

A real question here is whether Payne was reckless or even negligent.

After the incident both he and the captain were very insistent that since he kept his eyes on the ball he couldn't have seen the other player. Focus is a wonderful thing, but so is peripheral vision, I don't believe he was unaware of Goode.

I would propose that running for the ball at full pelt when you are reasonably sure that the oppo will be there as well and purposefully having no awareness of others on the pitch is reckless negligence. Stopping the jump at the last minute was also very reckless.

If these incidents are not stopped, it will not only result in just an injury, it will result in a very public death, soon. I think the elite refs have been briefed to handle any 'bringing down of a jumper' with the utmost severity because of reasonable concern about a broken neck.

Ref was well aware of the seriousness of his decision, 5 mins from the start, and therefore took a while consulting with the TMO and there was no pressure to move on because of the medics on the pitch.

I thought it was well handled, with the correct outcome, however the reasoning could be more eruditely explained to the players and thereby the audience to ensure a change of behaviour, for the right reasons is achieved.

Players are fully responsible for the outcome of their actions (and lack of them), no get out due to the fact they are on a rugby pitch!

Quite a conundrum

 

[RobLev]

A real question here is whether Payne was reckless or even negligent.

After the incident both he and the captain were very insistent that since he kept his eyes on the ball he couldn't have seen the other player. Focus is a wonderful thing, but so is peripheral vision, I don't believe he was unaware of Goode.

I would propose that running for the ball at full pelt when you are reasonably sure that the oppo will be there as well and purposefully having no awareness of others on the pitch is reckless negligence. Stopping the jump at the last minute was also very reckless.

"Purposefully having no awareness of others on the pitch"? That's a strong charge. Do bear in mind that the ball came from behind Payne and slightly to the left of his line of running, so if he was going to catch it he'd have to be looking over his left shoulder. Goode was crossing his path from right to left. Peripheral vision doesn't work through the back of the head. It is entirely credible that Payne didn't see him until the last moment.

Again, apart from the fact that Goode was also running at full pelt while reasonably sure that the opposition would be there as well, so is equally liable to penalty, what in your view would have happened had Payne gone through with his jump?

If these incidents are not stopped, it will not only result in just an injury, it will result in a very public death, soon. I think the elite refs have been briefed to handle any 'bringing down of a jumper' with the utmost severity because of reasonable concern about a broken neck.

Ref was well aware of the seriousness of his decision, 5 mins from the start, and therefore took a while consulting with the TMO and there was no pressure to move on because of the medics on the pitch.

I thought it was well handled, with the correct outcome, however the reasoning could be more eruditely explained to the players and thereby the audience to ensure a change of behaviour, for the right reasons is achieved.

Players are fully responsible for the outcome of their actions (and lack of them), no get out due to the fact they are on a rugby pitch!

Following your view, it could be said that Goode relied upon everyone else getting out of his way if he were to execute his jump safely.

 

[davidgh]

RobLev, yes you could say that it applied to both sides. Hence the ending 'quite a conundrum', I don't claim to have all the answers!

Unfortunately for payne
1. he got there slightly later
2. he didn't jump
and it is a cometitive game, he lost! Not perfect I agree

In answer to your question, I think if he had jumped the likelihood of death would be considerably lower. A mid air collision, pile of bodies on the ground, feet first.

 

[RobLev]

RobLev, yes you could say that it applied to both sides. Hence the ending 'quite a conundrum', I don't claim to have all the answers!

Unfortunately for payne
1. he got there slightly later
2. he didn't jump
and it is a cometitive game, he lost! Not perfect I agree

1 True.
2 But was going to; he pulls out when he realises the danger if he goes through with it.

In answer to your question, I think if he had jumped the likelihood of death would be considerably lower. A mid air collision, pile of bodies on the ground, feet first.

I disagree. If Payne had jumped, perforce from partially underneath Goode, it is at least as likely that (i) Goode would have been flipped over more forcibly and have come down from higher, and (ii) he would still have rotated about his head and upper body, with a strong likelihood of himself coming down on his own head and neck.