The danger of jumping

First topic message reminder :

Lets leave the match thread and talk about this particular scenario by itself.

Here's my take on it.

In days gone by, everybody stayed on the ground to catch balls.


Then one day somebody decided to jump to make catches - here's the benefits.

- You get the ball before the opposition player who is still on the ground
- (and this came later) IF they tackle you, they are penalised.

So, the tackle in the air rule was created because obviously it can lead to very serious injury.

But, why didn't they just outlaw jumping instead? Does that sound boring? Maybe, but its safe. We still aren't allowed to jump tackles as far as I know - for similar reasons.

The chasing team -  will want to run as fast as they can to challange for the kicked ball. Whilst running fast, they need to both watch the ball, and keep an eye on who they will be challenging for the ball.
The defending team - doesn't have to run too fast, more time, and the protection of the rules if they are in the air.

What's the problem?

If the defending team player does not jump, and the attacking player does - we get boots, hip, knees in the face.
If the attacking player does not jump, but the defender does - the defender gets taken out by the other players upper body.


In this particular case, I simply cannot see why Jared Payne who is running full tilt in order to get underneath the ball can be expected to be responsible for a player who left the ground when he was only meters away.

a) he does not HAVE TO jump
b) he did not have enough time to react
c) he didn't see Goode had jumped anyway
d) he was completely focused on catching a ball
e) a player MUST accept the risk involved if they jump into the air in a contact sport



Ultimately, what's the message? What does the IRB want to say to players in these situations?

a) don't try to get under a ball?
b) ALWAYS jump, the other guy probably will
c) don't run so fast when you are chasing kicks

A few other ponderings -
a) if Payne had got injured, would he still have seen red
b) If Goode hadn't been injured would he have seen red


Discuss

IanBru wrote:A related incident happened last week in the Treviso v Edinburgh match.

https://youtu.be/OSMmlu83MAw

As you can see, Jack Cuthbert was standing still under the high ball, waiting to receive it. He didn't jump (he's pretty tall so he rarely has to). Botes, the Treviso stand off, jumped for the ball from behind Cuthbert and collided with him.

1. Botes jumped, Cuthbert didn't.
2. Cuthbert was effectively motionless under the high ball.
3. Botes encroached on Cuthbert from behind, so there was nothing Cuthbert could have done.

Result: penalty against Edinburgh.

Obviously safety is paramount in these situations, but I have a problem with referees (even ones as skilled as Nigel Owens) who blindly follow the letter of the law, regardless of circumstances.

Now I ask you, in light of the Payne-Goode incident, could it not be argued that the jumping player is being reckless by putting themselves in a dangerous position, regardless of whether they are attacking or defending?

No IrnBru, they can't.

MrsP wrote:So this was a Red Card purely because Payne decided to try to catch the ball with his feet on the ground? If he had decided to jump it immediately changes from an act of dangerous foul play to "play on"?

Sadly, by the letter of the law yes. The second any player rises to catch a ball, it is the responsibility of all others to ensure his safety until he returns to the ground. Whether we agree to this rule or not, it is the rules.

I've just watched that clip IrnBru and I am not sure what your complaint is.  Cuthbert makes a pretty lame attempt at collecting a box kick and as a result takes the man out in the air and is penalised.  I am presuming that you are and Edinburgh fan as I can't see how anybody else would argue that the correct decision was made there.

LondonTiger wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I agree that the fact Payne clearly didn't adopt any brace position or use the usual instinctive methods one uses to protect oneself from an imminent collision means that he almost certainly didn't see Goode at all.

Did the ref go to the TMO about this? Did anyone hear what was said?

Yes he went to the TMO. There was a long discussion in French that could only be partially heard on the mics, while they waited for the neck braces etc to be applied to Goode.  My french is decent, but not fluent and I struggled a little to keep up with what the TMO was saying. My brother who is fluent stated that they were seriously considering a sending off (which of course once Goode was removed from play was what happened).

Good work.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

IanBru wrote:A related incident happened last week in the Treviso v Edinburgh match.

https://youtu.be/OSMmlu83MAw

As you can see, Jack Cuthbert was standing still under the high ball, waiting to receive it. He didn't jump (he's pretty tall so he rarely has to). Botes, the Treviso stand off, jumped for the ball from behind Cuthbert and collided with him.

1. Botes jumped, Cuthbert didn't.
2. Cuthbert was effectively motionless under the high ball.
3. Botes encroached on Cuthbert from behind, so there was nothing Cuthbert could have done.

Result: penalty against Edinburgh.

Obviously safety is paramount in these situations, but I have a problem with referees (even ones as skilled as Nigel Owens) who blindly follow the letter of the law, regardless of circumstances.

Now I ask you, in light of the Payne-Goode incident, could it not be argued that the jumping player is being reckless by putting themselves in a dangerous position, regardless of whether they are attacking or defending?

No IrnBru, they can't.

Have to agree with Ozzy. Otherwise there would have been a Facebook campaign requesting clemency for Stuart Hogg after Dan Biggar cynically tried to injury Hoggy's shoulder with his face.

Players might see this video and think it is always best to jump when competing for a high ball. You can't 'compete' for a high ball when you are on the ground. Staying on the ground only makes sense if you reach the ball before the players around you.

Let's imagine Payne had competed for the ball in the air and the same result had occurred to Goode and Payne. What would've happened then is not clear other than Payne surely would've not received a red card. The rules do not protect either player coming into contact in mid-air. Whose responsibility is it in mid-air to look out for the other player coming together from opposite angles? If both can be seen to be legitimately competing for the ball, it doesn't matter if one comes out of the collision worse for wear. Add in more players around the base of the high ball and it becomes an even bigger lottery as to how the players will come down. However, when one player is still on the ground and takes the other's legs out in contact, there will be no sympathy. So moral of the story is jump if you have any doubt. Which is still not a satisfying conclusion as an accident is just as likely to occur.

Can we all agree on one thing? It was really great to see Goode up and about after the incident as it looked nasty.

this will run and run and is far more about emotion rather than fact. Yes the one SarriesFan on here has no concept of ambiguity and tends to argue either ad hominem or reducto ad absurdum - thus alienating and angering most posters, but I still believe that 99% of people defending Payne would be demanding Ashton be hung, drawn and quartered if he had done the same thing.

Ianbru you think Goode was being reckless? I am sorry but he does not expect an opposition player to take him out in the air. By the letter of the law you cannot take a man out in the air. If you disagree with that ruling then by all means complain to the law changers.

Goode jumps up catches the ball - by the rules he is allowed to jump. He wins the ball. He is then taken out by the opposition full back.

Everyone agrees Payne didn't have time to react. The only argument I can see is that he should have jumped anyway, as it was likely he would be challenging an opponent who would.

If you don't anticipate the opponent's jump is seemingly a red card offence.

Also, for the record, I'm not blaming Goode individually, i'm blaming the style of play. I've said already, the law and the protection it gives actually encourages players to do something dangerous.

If there was no law protecting him, Goode may not have endangered himself in the air in front of an incoming Payne.

The consensus is this, Payne got red carded - not for anything he did, but for failing to assume his opposition player would jump.

Here's another unfortunate grey area - something similar that I can think of. We have all seen it - a player intends to make a tackle at chest or shoulder level when the attacking player swerves/twists/ducks lowering his body position - the tackling player is then deemed to have made a high tackle - yet it was never his intention.

I understand protecting players is paramount. But cards are there to discourage foul play. That is the whole premise. When it is obvious that there was no intent or malice - what is the benefit to the game of rugby by making Payne a scapegoat for something any man can see was accidental.

Oooohhh, Habana is in trouble here...no he isn't, Percy got up

George Carlin wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

IanBru wrote:A related incident happened last week in the Treviso v Edinburgh match.

https://youtu.be/OSMmlu83MAw

As you can see, Jack Cuthbert was standing still under the high ball, waiting to receive it. He didn't jump (he's pretty tall so he rarely has to). Botes, the Treviso stand off, jumped for the ball from behind Cuthbert and collided with him.

1. Botes jumped, Cuthbert didn't.
2. Cuthbert was effectively motionless under the high ball.
3. Botes encroached on Cuthbert from behind, so there was nothing Cuthbert could have done.

Result: penalty against Edinburgh.

Obviously safety is paramount in these situations, but I have a problem with referees (even ones as skilled as Nigel Owens) who blindly follow the letter of the law, regardless of circumstances.

Now I ask you, in light of the Payne-Goode incident, could it not be argued that the jumping player is being reckless by putting themselves in a dangerous position, regardless of whether they are attacking or defending?

No IrnBru, they can't.

Have to agree with Ozzy. Otherwise there would have been a Facebook campaign requesting clemency for Stuart Hogg after Dan Biggar cynically tried to injury Hoggy's shoulder with his face.

Right enough so, didn't Goode throw his whole body At Jared Paynes face as he was chasing a ball?   

clivemcl wrote:Everyone agrees Payne didn't have time to react. The only argument I can see is that he should have humped anyway, as it was likely he would be challenging an opponent who would.

If you don't anticipate the opponent's jump is seemingly a red card offence.

Also, for the record, I'm not blaming Goode individually, i'm blaming the style of play. I've said already, the law and the protection it gives actually encourages players to do something dangerous.

If there was no law protecting him, Goode may not have endangered himself in the air in front of an incoming Payne.

The consensus is this, Payne got red carded - not for anything he did, but for failing to assume his opposition player would jump.

Here's another unfortunate grey area - something similar that I can think of. We have all seen it - a player intends to make a tackle at chest or shoulder level when the attacking player swerves/twists/ducks lowering his body position - the tackling player is then deemed to have made a high tackle - yet it was never his intention.

I understand protecting players is paramount. But cards are there to discourage foul play. That is the whole premise. When it is obvious that there was no intent or malice - what is the benefit to the game of rugby by making Payne a scapegoat for something any man can see was accidental.

Where exactly does everyone agree that Clive, because I certainly don't.

Nachos Jones wrote:Can we all agree on one thing? It was really great to see Goode up and about after the incident as it looked nasty.

And worth noting - the first person to shake Goodes hand was Jared Payne. Thats why I love rugby!   

Londontiger stop treating me with contempt and disdain by not calling me by name. It's disrespectful and arrogant.

Actually that's where you are wrong. Of course this incident is open to different interpretation.

I just vehemently disagree with the notion - that Payne was a victim.

My stance on this incident is similar to yours london tiger.

I just feel double standards are used - for some posters it is supposedly acceptable to be one eyed and biased, but for others......

Ozzy3213 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Everyone agrees Payne didn't have time to react. The only argument I can see is that he should have humped anyway, as it was likely he would be challenging an opponent who would.

If you don't anticipate the opponent's jump is seemingly a red card offence.

Also, for the record, I'm not blaming Goode individually, i'm blaming the style of play. I've said already, the law and the protection it gives actually encourages players to do something dangerous.

If there was no law protecting him, Goode may not have endangered himself in the air in front of an incoming Payne.

The consensus is this, Payne got red carded - not for anything he did, but for failing to assume his opposition player would jump.

Here's another unfortunate grey area - something similar that I can think of. We have all seen it - a player intends to make a tackle at chest or shoulder level when the attacking player swerves/twists/ducks lowering his body position - the tackling player is then deemed to have made a high tackle - yet it was never his intention.

I understand protecting players is paramount. But cards are there to discourage foul play. That is the whole premise. When it is obvious that there was no intent or malice - what is the benefit to the game of rugby by making Payne a scapegoat for something any man can see was accidental.

Where exactly does everyone agree that Clive, because I certainly don't.

*deep breath* *one more time*

Goode leaves the ground when payne is 2meters away. It may be very likely that Goode will jump, but not a certainty. At the speed of play, Payne could not react once he saw Goode jump. ie. the argument is from most people 'he should have anticipated a jump would be required'.

I still believe Payne was intent on nothing but catching a ball, and I feel a red is harsh for not anticipating somebody would jump in front of him.

Of course Payne had time to react, he ran from his own 22 to where the incident happened.

Clive it was foul play though by letter of the law. You are not allowed to tackle a man in the air.

I feel you would have more of a case if you argued red vs yellow card. The interpretation of what is a red and what is a yellow is difficult.

Ozzy, presume nothing. I'm not an Edinburgh supporter at all.

Beshocked, I suppose 'reckless' was the wrong word on my part. I agree that Goode has the right to jump. I was simply suggesting that there are situations (the Cuthbert incident I highlighted being one) where the jumping player puts himself in a dangerous position by jumping, and the other player does nothing to exacerbate the danger except for standing in the 'landing zone'.

I agree that Payne should have been carded and a red was justifiable, even if I would have given a yellow.

clivemcl wrote:Everyone agrees Payne didn't have time to react. The only argument I can see is that he should have humped anyway, as it was likely he would be challenging an opponent who would.

If you don't anticipate the opponent's jump is seemingly a red card offence.

Also, for the record, I'm not blaming Goode individually, i'm blaming the style of play. I've said already,

If there was no law protecting him, Goode may not have endangered himself in the air in front of an incoming Payne.

The consensus is this, Payne got red carded - not for anything he

Here's another unfortunate grey area - something similar that I can think of. We have all seen it - a player intends to make a tackle at chest or shoulder level when the attacking player swerves/twists/ducks lowering his body position - the tackling player is then deemed to have made a high tackle - yet it was never his intention.

I understand protecting players is paramount. But cards are there to discourage foul play. That is the whole premise. When it is obvious that there was no intent or malice - what is the benefit to the game of rugby by making Payne a scapegoat for something any man can see was accidental.

I think humping a player is a carding offence. Even if there is consent. We have to be respectful of the children who might be at the game.

Clive I understand what you are saying and I sympathise. If Payne had jumped and the same result occurred and he was deemed to be legitimately competing for the ball, nothing probably would have happened. Obviously when you take out a player's legs in mid air, the reaction would be to tip the player's head dangerously towards the ground. So that is why incidents like these should be discouraged and ebop's video shows that this isn't dealt ruthlessly enough.

The problem is when two players come together in mid air and nobody is around to help them down, there is still a likelihood of injury. Perhaps less likely than a player having his feet taken out but a risk nonetheless. Obviously there is risk across the park in rugby and a physical game can bring about injury potentially anywhere and in any situation.

For my mind, a player has taken out a player's legs. Whether it is intentional or not, it is dangerous play and warrants a red card. The Warburton tackle is similar in that you might think a red card was harsh but the ref was entitled to give it. The fact that worse tackles have gone unpunished is irrelevant. If it's dangerous play then it deserves a red. The problem is if the same result had happened if Payne had jumped, the laws do not appear to protect a player like Goode. It would be a freak accident. Is that good enough?

Payne could not catch the ball because Goode had clearly beaten him to it.

A jump would have been required to beat Goode to the ball. He did not jump - meaning he took Goode out.

beshocked wrote:Clive it was foul play though by letter of the law. You are not allowed to tackle a man in the air.

I feel you would have more of a case if you argued red vs yellow card. The interpretation of what is a red and what is a yellow is difficult.

This is part of the difficulty - and perhaps what is upsetting Ulster supporters. Ref used the term 'tackle' also.

It was no tackle.

It may still have been something worth penalising, but it was no tackle.

Still think its harsh to give a red for not anticipating an opponent would jump in front of you whilst honestly going for a catch on the ground.

I don't think there was an intent to take Goode out. Intent doesn't really matter in situations like this however. A bit reckless, he left the ref with little option.

Taking a man out in the air is a better description. Involuntary or not isn't at issue.

Ianbru different incidents warrant different outcomes. I agree though. A different ref would have also handled it differently.

By the way I can understand why Ulster fans do feel aggrieved. They feel that the incident was more accidental. I feel it was a very difficult decision for the ref and unfortunately it helped decide the outcome of the match. The problem is that there's no clear cut answer - some feel it was a red, others yellow and others just a penalty. Perhaps the laws need clarifying?

Same debate in the Warburton tackle. The laws in this instance don't need clarifying. They need to be applied consistently. Whether it was accidental or not is dealt with in the disciplinary hearing. The fact that it's a dangerous incident, intentional or not, should have no bearing on the field.

I know we can all post incidents where similar incidents were handled differently but this one happened yesterday too (I think) and the ref and TMO seem to view it the way alot of Ulster fans view the Payne/Goode incident.

http://www.mobypicture.com/user/mickobrien1/view/16745988

George Carlin wrote:
Did the ref go to the TMO about this? Did anyone hear what was said?

It would appear TMO said yellow and Garces overruled him. What i have a problem with is Garces said it was intentionnal.

I reckon out of 10 refs, 9 would have given a yellow. Garces was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Can understand that being a red. Payne was reckless regardless of intent and has a responsibility not to run full pelt into a player's legs like that when they are airborne. He had plenty of time to assess whether or not he was going to make it to the ball and got it badly wrong resulting in dangerous play.

He actually did make it to the ball. He is in the process of catching it when Goode takes it. Payne then "catches" man and ball!

clivemcl wrote:Everyone agrees Payne didn't have time to react.

Sorry, clive, quite a few of us have already disagreed with that.

Actually can't remember a softer red card in recent times, the fact it hapenned at the 4th minute just add to the insult.

Garces shouldn't be anywhere a rugby field anytime soon, he basically choose the outcome of a game with his subjectivity.

I agree apportioning any kind of blame to Goode is rich to say the least! It was very good play from Goode. It seems like when something like this happens, people need someone to blame. Both players were blameless, both players had nothing on their minds but winning the ball. Neither player had any malice or intention to do anything but catch that ball. Accidents happen in sport sometimes and if we didn't need to find a scapegoat every time they did we'd probably have a fairer game.

Payne mistimed his jump badly, had no awareness of where the fullback was and no idea that Goode was bearing down on him. He should have, it's poor appreciation of the situation not to. But that doesn't make him a dirty player, just a stupid one. His head wasn't in the game early on, he let the occasion get to him. He should have known that he would be challenged and honestly the more and more you look at it the more and more you realise he didn't, his head was away- so by all means give a penalty, the same way you give a penalty for a player being offside and picking up the ball after a knock on. Thats stupidity too, a lack of game awareness.

But this isn't like a spear tackle where Payne is responsible for getting him down safely. This is a 50/50 ball and a player who's mistimed his jump. I've seen these given as yellow cards before but never a red.

Two things:

1) Whether or not you agree with the sanction being a red card it doesn't matter at what point in the game the offence occurs. The ref cannot take that into account. If he deems (rightly or wrongly) that it is a red card offence it doesn't matter whether it's the 4th minute or 76th.

2) Only Payne will know what his intentions were. The rest of us are guessing. The officials are working with what they see and make a judgment.

I'd rather it hadn't happened. It did spoil the game a bit and, in a perverse way, made Sarries play well within themselves. Sometimes it's difficult to play a wounded opponent who have to scrap for absolutely everything.

...or, as in the example above, just a penalty.

Mistimed his jump? So much so that he didn't jump.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Mistimed his jump? So much so that he didn't jump.

He would have had Goode been a millisecond later. He was getting ready to gather the ball.

From the ground where the ball was heading...

Cyril wrote:Two things:

1) Whether or not you agree with the sanction being a red card it doesn't matter at what point in the game the offence occurs. The ref cannot take that into account. If he deems (rightly or wrongly) that it is a red card offence it doesn't matter whether it's the 4th minute or 76th.

Of course it's important wether the offence happen at the 4th or the 78th minute. It's called empathy for the game, respect for the game.
It shouldn't also infer on the outcome of the decision if a player is injured or not, this is a contact sport Goode took a risk when jumping and therefore should be treated as such. I mean what if Goode milked it? Is rugby fast becoming footfall now?

VinceWLB wrote:

Cyril wrote:Two things:

1) Whether or not you agree with the sanction being a red card it doesn't matter at what point in the game the offence occurs. The ref cannot take that into account. If he deems (rightly or wrongly) that it is a red card offence it doesn't matter whether it's the 4th minute or 76th.

Of course it's important wether the offence happen at the 4th or the 78th minute. It's called empathy for the game, respect for the game.
It shouldn't also infer on the outcome of the decision if a player is injured or not, this is a contact sport Goode took a risk when jumping and therefore should be treated as such. I mean what if Goode milked it? Is rugby fast becoming footfall now?

Um, no. There is nothing in the laws referring to empathy for the game when deciding on a sanction. An offence should be treated the same whatever time it occurs.

beshocked wrote:Goode got there first and caught the ball. Payne took Goode out. Reckless and dangerous.


What should Goode have done? Allowed Payne to get the ball? Should he expect someone to recklessly run into him?

On the flip side, what should Payne have done? Ran slower? He doesn't look down during his chase, and doesn't know he's in competition for the ball. He hits Goode head first, its clear enough he has no idea he's there.

I suppose the main point for debate is : is keeping your eyes on the ball throughout a chase reckless?

Should the attacking player be required to take in his surroundings to ensure safety?

To me, it was as unfortunate and unavoidable as a clash of heads. As for the reason Payne looked nervous, well thats obvious enough. Everyone knows the rules in rugby are strict involving touching a player in the air. Of course he was be worried about how it would be construed.

What happens with a tackle like this where the guy ends up a paraplegic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-BmKXU12yE

Really ugly incident and you feel for the player but what would you do with the disciplinary hearing?

VinceWLB wrote:

Cyril wrote:Two things:

1) Whether or not you agree with the sanction being a red card it doesn't matter at what point in the game the offence occurs. The ref cannot take that into account. If he deems (rightly or wrongly) that it is a red card offence it doesn't matter whether it's the 4th minute or 76th.

Of course it's important wether the offence happen at the 4th or the 78th minute. It's called empathy for the game, respect for the game.

It shouldn't also infer on the outcome of the decision if a player is injured or not, this is a contact sport Goode took a risk when jumping and therefore should be treated as such. I mean what if Goode milked it? Is rugby fast becoming footfall now?

Certain offences and sanctions are determined when they occur in the game eg after repeated infringements or dependent on where the offence occurred (red zone). Straight red offences (as this was judged) should not be affected by when in the game they occurred otherwise you would have a free-for-all in the first 10 minutes when 'anything goes'.

I agree that actual injury should not necessarily decide the sanction but are you suggesting Goode 'milked' the red card?

The real issue is whether you define what happened as a tackle or not. If you see it as a tackle, then it's clear. I wouldn't have called it a tackle in a month of sundays.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What happens with a tackle like this where the guy ends up a paraplegic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-BmKXU12yE

Really ugly incident and you feel for the player but what would you do with the disciplinary hearing?

I don't think it changes things unless there was intent or recklessness on the part of the accused.

It's what Rolland's red against Wales was brought in to protect. Elbow going above the shoulder in the tackle. Should get a few weeks ban.

Margin_Walker wrote:
Um, no. There is nothing in the laws referring to empathy for the game when deciding on a sanction. An offence should be treated the same whatever time it occurs.

Then i disagree, it's one of those unwritten rule that make (made) the game so great to watch.

Garces overreacted like he often does and reffed the injury not the incident.

VinceWLB wrote:

Margin_Walker wrote:
Um, no. There is nothing in the laws referring to empathy for the game when deciding on a sanction. An offence should be treated the same whatever time it occurs.

Then i disagree, it's one of those unwritten rule that make (made) the game so great to watch.

Garces overreacted like he often does and reffed the injury not the incident.

So anything goes in the first 20 then?

Cyril wrote:
I agree that actual injury should not necessarily decide the sanction but are you suggesting Goode 'milked' the red card?

I'm certainly not but this is not impossible, heck Halequins used fake blood few years ago who would have suggested that?[/quote]

Margin_Walker wrote:
So anything goes in the first 20 then?

When it's not clear cut dont give the harshest possible sanction.