Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[goodNumber10]

I absolutely cannot understand this argument. Brian Moore put out a tweet that sums up the situation quite well, the basic gist being that the referee cannot factor in the context (ie. how important the game), the outcome (whether someone was injured or not) or intent, as there's no mention of intent in the rule book.

The way I see it is that Jared Payne put a fellow player at serious risk through his own negligence. That in itself is worthy of the red. When we start introducing clauses like "he was looking at the ball though" we open the door for lots of nasty incidents to creep into the game.

Spot on post mate.

 

[lynam1104]

We need robot refs, preferable built by Owens.

 

[Big Ewis]

I absolutely cannot understand this argument. Brian Moore put out a tweet that sums up the situation quite well, the basic gist being that the referee cannot factor in the context (ie. how important the game), the outcome (whether someone was injured or not) or intent, as there's no mention of intent in the rule book.

I totally understand that for this particular play, but it's just not true though. You see tiny little things called in those huge games all the time that you'd never see in "regular" games. So it's just not true, it's just not a reality. We're not robots, we're people, and unless it's situations like these where the Ulsterman really didn't give the ref much of a choice, because the play was so wide open, spectacular and perfectly caught on camera. Or Warburton on Vincent Clerc, RWC semi-final or not that was clearly a red and in fact very very few ppl ever contested the call.

But overall it's just not true. Little things here and there that certainly are written in the rule book aren't called in "regular, common games" and are called in those important knock-out matches.

But of course for this instance, the ref couldn't go "well yeah but it's a European 1/4F, and it's just 6min in !....".

What I do believe is that the rules, if as strict and unflexible and objective as we say they are, need to be displayed systematically in those big moments. They should appear on the screen and the pundits should read them out loud every single time. How is it that we have objective, rigid rules on paper and people still questioning calls ? That just shouldn't be a possibility.
Tbh, I couldn't give you an outright answer about it. It looks "reddish" and by experience I feel it's a coherent call, but I haven't got the exact piece of theory displaying in my head as I watch that play.

 

[Thingimubob]

I absolutely cannot understand this argument. Brian Moore put out a tweet that sums up the situation quite well, the basic gist being that the referee cannot factor in the context (ie. how important the game), the outcome (whether someone was injured or not) or intent, as there's no mention of intent in the rule book.

The way I see it is that Jared Payne put a fellow player at serious risk through his own negligence. That in itself is worthy of the red. When we start introducing clauses like "he was looking at the ball though" we open the door for lots of nasty incidents to creep into the game.

My view is he was trying to compete for the ball but mistimed, and even attempt to slow down and avoid him before he makes contact, obviously far too late. I've seen similar incidents where you can see the player has his eyes fixed on the player and wants to smash them rather than compete, barrelled into them, putting not only the tackled player, but themselves at risk, and then get away with a yellow or even just a penalty.
One example of this was back in 2011, Hugo Southwell takes out Lee Byrne in the air, with no attempt to go for the ball, but gets away with it as he gashed his own face open in the process and had to leave the field.
I guess my point is, if Payne gets a red, why isn't it across the board? My view of it comes from comparisons with similar incidents, and there's just so many similar tackles that barely get looked at, pointing out the ridiculous inconsistency between refs. There wouldn't be any controversy surrounding this if it wasn't for that.
Same reason why the Warburton red annoyed me so much, yes it was a red as the guidelines state, but why was that the first time in far too long that it was actually enforced? Frustrating seeing just as bad tackles, with what appears to be malicious intent, only get a yellow.

 

[bops39]

I agree with those posters saying that the ref should not factor in the context, however I believe that the ref on this occasion DID factor in the consequence of the action. Just before he brandished the card he said something along the lines of "his head hit the floor..." If the consequence of the collision had been different would the colour of the card have differed? Why make the comment about the head hitting the floor, UNLESS you are factoring in some CONTEXT, i.e. the outcome of the injured player.

 

[Feicarsinn]

My view is he was trying to compete for the ball but mistimed, and even attempt to slow down and avoid him before he makes contact, obviously far too late. I've seen similar incidents where you can see the player has his eyes fixed on the player and wants to smash them rather than compete, barrelled into them, putting not only the tackled player, but themselves at risk, and then get away with a yellow or even just a penalty.
One example of this was back in 2011, Hugo Southwell takes out Lee Byrne in the air, with no attempt to go for the ball, but gets away with it as he gashed his own face open in the process and had to leave the field.
I guess my point is, if Payne gets a red, why isn't it across the board? My view of it comes from comparisons with similar incidents, and there's just so many similar tackles that barely get looked at, pointing out the ridiculous inconsistency between refs. There wouldn't be any controversy surrounding this if it wasn't for that.
Same reason why the Warburton red annoyed me so much, yes it was a red as the guidelines state, but why was that the first time in far too long that it was actually enforced? Frustrating seeing just as bad tackles, with what appears to be malicious intent, only get a yellow.

Fair enough. I would have seen it as a red had Goode gotten straight up. I think we can both agree that consistency is what's really required from refs in these situations.

 

[Peat]

It was pretty amazing to see Ulster hold on with 14 men for 75 minutes. I think it will hurt knowing that this time it wasn't like the last meeting where Saracens were clearly the better side. It really seemed like Ulster could win the HC this year. I hope they're as competitive next year with Afoa etc being gone.

Hurts doesn't really cover it imo. We were the better team and I feel very bitter about going out in this fashion, even if I feel Ulster as a whole must accept responsibility for how it happened. In rugby you have to accept you will get decisions you don't agree with, so you do your utmost to avoid such possibilities and to exert such dominance that it doesn't matter. Ulster didn't do the former, so have to accept that's the way of it. It'll be interesting to see how the team reacts.

Btw, since you mentioned Afoa, I thought he had a huge game, and looked like the guy we first signed rather than the guy who's heart has been in NZ for most of the season. Pleased to see him show up when it counts. The Sharks fans I know (all two of them...) make me confident we've done well with signing Herbst to replace him, as well as we could have done, but you don't replace players like Afoa easily.

My local team, so I just supported them for that reason. Also I like the physicality we play with and I don't care if people think we're bellends because it's mainly the ash-splash !! I ****ing hate it also, like when he scored against Australia that length of the field try, yeah you can do it after that but I think he does it too show off now.

Fair dos, local men supporting their local team is how it should be (shame I don't regard my local teams as sufficiently local or sufficiently likeable)... I'd disagree that the Ash-Splash is the main reason why people dislike Sarries, I could probably write a Masters' dissertation on the subject, but that's probably an issue for another day. Here's hoping that Kruis and Fraser return well.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Just saw it for the first time, and it's a terrible decision. Payne didn't make a tackle, he's competing for the ball, it would've been no different had he jumped for the ball. He has every right to go for the ball, the onus is just as much on the jumping player as it is on the player on the ground. It shouldn't have even been a penalty.

To be honest I don't see they don't just ban jumping outright - if it puts players in such a precarious and dangerous situation then why should we allow them to do it in the first place?

 

[Tony Manx]

To be honest I don't see they don't just ban jumping outright - if it puts players in such a precarious and dangerous situation then why should we allow them to do it in the first place?

Excellent point!

 

[William18]

Just saw it for the first time, and it's a terrible decision. Payne didn't make a tackle, he's competing for the ball, it would've been no different had he jumped for the ball. He has every right to go for the ball, the onus is just as much on the jumping player as it is on the player on the ground. It shouldn't have even been a penalty.

To be honest I don't see they don't just ban jumping outright - if it puts players in such a precarious and dangerous situation then why should we allow them to do it in the first place?

Yip, this.

Seriously want happens if Goode jumps for the ball, Payne runs under him and on the way down Goode kicks Payne in the head (by accident)? Does that mean Goode then gets sent off for kicking Payne in the head?

If you can't do anything to a player who is airborne then why do players not just jump around all the time? Seriously, each player should just jump at the defenders on every play and they will get a penalty each phase.

 

[goodNumber10]

If you can't do anything to a player who is airborne then why do players not just jump around all the time? Seriously, each player should just jump at the defenders on every play and they will get a penalty each phase.

You can, you can compete for the ball in the air - the same rules apply to both sides there was nothing stopping Payne either going to the air to compete, or waiting for the ball to come down and then going for it - he chose not to, misstimed his run and put an opposition player in extreme danger.

If you choose not to go to the air you wait for him to land and then you play on... the air is saftey, if you're in it you're protected that's one of the reasons people jump - the other is to get to the ball first rather than waiting for it on the ground, you do so safe in the knowledge you will not be played until you land.

Payne was in the wrong, he didn't compete for the ball at any point and people claiming he did are just wrong.

 

[goodNumber10]

How is he competeing for the ball?

View attachment 2781

link for full size picture from BBC: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74061000/jpg/_74061281_inpho_00795155.jpg

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

You can, you can compete for the ball in the air - the same rules apply to both sides there was nothing stopping Payne either going to the air to compete, or waiting for the ball to come down and then going for it - he chose not to, misstimed his run and put an opposition player in extreme danger.

If you choose not to go to the air you wait for him to land and then you play on... the air is saftey, if you're in it you're protected that's one of the reasons people jump - the other is to get to the ball first rather than waiting for it on the ground, you do so safe in the knowledge you will not be played until you land.

Payne was in the wrong, he didn't compete for the ball at any point and people claiming he did are just wrong.

The jumping player put himself in as much danger as Payne did.

Why is it Payne's duty to look ahead, instead of looking at the ball? Why should he have to be careful of where he's running, but not the other player? It's ridiculous to put so much of the duty of care on Payne when you don't expect the other player to do anything to protect himself. If this decision is backed up by the IRB then it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. What if Payne had jumped also, but later than the other player and not as high, resulting in exactly the same thing happening, does that mean that the not as good jumper always has the duty of care, and therefore should never compete? What happens if the kick-receiving player stands his ground and the the approaching player jumps over him to catch the ball, do we still punish the man on the ground? I honestly don't know how you can say that Payne wasn't competing for the ball, I wasn't aware that the only way to compete for a kick is by jumping.

 

[numbnuts]

I could not agree more. Payne may have had his eyes on the ball but made no attempt to jump for it. It was reckless and dangerous and could have left Goode paralysed. I can't believe the number of posts I have read on various sites saying it shouldn't have been a red card because he had eyes on ball, it was unintentional and best of all it was early in the game! Excellent decision by referee. If Payne had made any attempt to actually get the ball it may have made a difference. Simply looking at the ball is not sufficient there has to be some attempt to go for it. Lots of sour grapes from the Ulster fans. Would they have been so vociferous if it had been Goode who had committed the offence? I doubt it

 

[collace]

Having thought about it for a couple of days, I still can't agree with the red card decision.

Firstly, I'm pretty certain that if Goode had got up from it, a red card wouldn't have been given. The ref gave himself a lot of time (which is his right) and the situation with the stretcher and neck brace, I feel, made up his mind. I'm pretty sure he alluded to the injury when speaking to Payne. If that is the case it is completly wrong - otherwise every time someone gets injured from a contest or tackle then there will be blame - injuries are a big part of rugby and players accept that.

Secondly, do players have to jump to catch the ball everytime? It's pretty clear that Payne is trying to catch the ball - he is running looking at the ball and has his hands out in a catching position. Whilst trying to catch it at what stage does the onus go on him to ensure he doesn't run into anyone? Does he have to stop or does he have to jump? Is there a requirement somewhere that he HAS to jump to catch it? If not, it shouldn't be a red.

Somewhere along the line I do think that intent does have to come into it. His intent was to catch the ball. I can accept that he puts Goode into a dangerous position and would have accepted a yellow but can't see that it is a red basing it on the fact that he didn't attempt to tackle him in the air - he attempted to catch the ball.

Aside from all that, couldn't be prouder of the effort from the Ulster players. Gutted particularly for Muller to go out in such a way in his last season.

 

[gaston le gaff]

Ask yourself if he had been paralysed from the neck down (heaven help not) what would be the response! What the ref saw was a playing being hit in the air, whether the player had his arms out or not and whether he was watching the ball or not, his decision was harsh but correct. They are the rules!!

 

[collace]

If he has been paralysed it would have been tragic (and I really don't want to be seen to be dimishing the potential injury on Goode) but you still can't dish out punishment based on the extent of the injury. If that happens you run into a scenario where that same incident in two different games results in two different punishments purely because one happened to fall in a more awkward position and hurt himself. You can't ref a game like that - you have to look at the incident on it's merits before injuries are taken into consideration.

 

[Feicarsinn]

The jumping player put himself in as much danger as Payne did.

No he didn't. Had Payne not barged into him he would have landed perfectly safely.

Why is it Payne's duty to look ahead, instead of looking at the ball? Why should he have to be careful of where he's running, but not the other player?

Because you have a duty of care not to put your fellow players in unnecessary physical danger.

If this decision is backed up by the IRB then it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.

I would say the exact opposite.

 

[goodNumber10]

The jumping player put himself in as much danger as Payne did.

Why is it Payne's duty to look ahead, instead of looking at the ball? Why should he have to be careful of where he's running, but not the other player? It's ridiculous to put so much of the duty of care on Payne when you don't expect the other player to do anything to protect himself. If this decision is backed up by the IRB then it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. What if Payne had jumped also, but later than the other player and not as high, resulting in exactly the same thing happening, does that mean that the not as good jumper always has the duty of care, and therefore should never compete? What happens if the kick-receiving player stands his ground and the the approaching player jumps over him to catch the ball, do we still punish the man on the ground? I honestly don't know how you can say that Payne wasn't competing for the ball, I wasn't aware that the only way to compete for a kick is by jumping.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE!

His arms are not in the air, he is not looking at the ball, he is making no attempt to challenge for or catch the ball. He is not in the air challenging for it, nor is he on the ground awaiting it he is moving into the contact area with eyes level and arms level - it is is a clumsy, stupid and extremely dangerous challenge and he could have seriously hurt the opposition player - he is lucky if he doens't see a short ban for it.

Past that you're comparisons are just utterly ridicolous, Payne ran into him not the jumping player hurdling over a static man - if a player chooses to hurdle into a static man standing his ground it is his own risk because the other man is not challenging for the ball.

The duty of care has always been for the man on the ground who challenges for the ball, you have stability and the advantage in contact on landing that is what the jumping player sacrifices for the advantage of getting to the ball first safe in the knowledge he will not be played in the air. Even if a competing player jumps for the ball he CANNOT play the man in the air, he can play the ball only.

He does not put himself in any Danger because the laws say he is protected, no precedence has been set on this occasion because it's been that way for well over a decade nowyet poor little Jared gets a red card and everyone has to re-think.

If someone did that to one of my players i'd be seeking a harsher punishment than "red Sufficient"

 

[goodNumber10]

Somewhere along the line I do think that intent does have to come into it. His intent was to catch the ball. I can accept that he puts Goode into a dangerous position and would have accepted a yellow but can't see that it is a red basing it on the fact that he didn't attempt to tackle him in the air - he attempted to catch the ball.

how can you judge someone elses intent of Action?

Secondly, do players have to jump to catch the ball everytime?

No it is a decision, jump for the ball and sacrifice stabilty and the contact advantage for possesion and saftey from anyone other another jumper. Stay on the ground and maintain your strenght and stability.

It is a choice you make dependent on the chasing scenario.

It's pretty clear that Payne is trying to catch the ball - he is running looking at the ball and has his hands out in a catching position.

He clearly isn't, look at the picture, he is making contact and is not looking at the ball.

Whilst trying to catch it at what stage does the onus go on him to ensure he doesn't run into anyone? Does he have to stop or does he have to jump? Is there a requirement somewhere that he HAS to jump to catch it? If not, it shouldn't be a red.

The onus goes on him the minute Goode leaves the ground, payne has three options:

he can wait for Goode to land and play Goode.
he can jump and compete for the ball.
He can wait the ground for Goode to drop/miss the catch and ctach it himself.

*Edit: he could also have assisted Goode back to the ground

All of these options are better than clattering into the jumper and then claiming innocence by saying "i was looking at the ball". Payne didn't even slow down - he was late for the ariel challenge and was to early for the ground so what exactly was he hoping to do?