Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[ruggabee]

When you chase a ball you do not just run with your head up in the air looking only at the ball, you glance up look back, glance up look back - at this level you would be absoloutely sure/aware of what is going on around you - Payne even deviates around another player on his way to the catch zone, it is absolutely his responsibility to know where he is and what is occuring around him.

The simple fact of it is Payne isn't anywhere near the ball, he isn't in the air to catch it, nor has he timed it right for it's descent for a ground catch - it's a poor effort and he puts another player at serious risk with his own negligence.

Spin it how you want but he is either at fault or he isn't - the law says Red as due to his challenge the player goes through the horizontal and his head makes contact with the ground - if it was a genuine tackle it would have been a red as well - so you're saying he's either innocent of all wrong doing which clearly he isn't, or it HAS to be a red.

so which is it?

Making it out to be Goodes or the Laws fault fault is utter madness i tell you.... MADNESS!

If you watch the video he did look to see who was coming but on the ball's descent his eyes and arms were upward. This comes down to human error. This doesn't matter though as the law doesn't take anything into consideration other than the contact on an airborne player. I'm not saying Goode is at fault either as he simply took a different approach towards competing for the ball and under the law it is regardless what he does. To me the only thing that is flawed in this is the law. It's much to narrow. I think the red card was even more controversial because we rarely see them given out especially 5 minutes into a game. I was just searching on YouTube "tackled in the air rugby" and every incident didn't result in a red card (Habana/Montgomery, Tuohy/Tonks, Harley/O'Mahony & Slade/Proctor) accept the Tuilagi/Cueto incident that was also due to punching off the ball. If a rule is so inconsistent then it is a flawed law in my view and any possibility of tackling a player the air should be removed by making it compulsory that if you want to compete for a high ball you must jump. Again, I can fully understand why a red card was given but I don't agree with the law and think there are better ways of handling it.

 

[TheSaffycen]

For people asking if Payne had jumped aswell would it have been a foul/red this is the closest I have found in which he got a yellow probably because the guy got straight up, I actually think this is as bad as Payne's

 

[goodNumber10]

If you watch the video he did look to see who was coming but on the ball's descent his eyes and arms were upward. This comes down to human error. This doesn't matter though as the law doesn't take anything into consideration other than the contact on an airborne player. I'm not saying Goode is at fault either as he simply took a different approach towards competing for the ball and under the law it is regardless what he does. To me the only thing that is flawed in this is the law. It's much to narrow. I think the red card was even more controversial because we rarely see them given out especially 5 minutes into a game. I was just searching on YouTube "tackled in the air rugby" and every incident didn't result in a red card (Habana/Montgomery, Tuohy/Tonks, Harley/O'Mahony & Slade/Proctor) accept the Tuilagi/Cueto incident that was also due to punching off the ball. If a rule is so inconsistent then it is a flawed law in my view and any possibility of tackling a player the air should be removed by making it compulsory that if you want to compete for a high ball you must jump. Again, I can fully understand why a red card was given but I don't agree with the law and think there are better ways of handling it.

you understand it's not just because he hit him in the air, right? it's an accumulation of things, partially it's because due to his challenge he tips through the horizontal and lands on his head (he does land on his head his shoulder and head hit at the same time).

If you lift someone through the horizontal and their head makes contact it's technically a red - it's the same - if he'd come down on his knees it's likely to have been a yellow. if he'd landed on his backside it's also likely it would have been a yellow.

It's inconsistent because each scenario is different, the two facts are: He hit him in the air he landed on his head -that is a red card.

 

[ratsapprentice]

(he does land on his head his shoulder and head hit at the same time).

No they don't.

His shoulder hitting the grout first actually causes his head to whip down - watch a high quality video of it and you will see.

 

[goodNumber10]

not sure i can get any higher quality than 720 on youtube via the internet mate.... but for me they hit together - we can slow it down and argue it but in real time they hit in unison.

Regardless his head wouldn't be in that situation if not for Paynes challenge.

Anyway, i suggest we're all arguing semantics now, so i shall bow out.

 

[collace]

Meh, it's a bit late 15-20 minutes after the fact. The Sarries players gave him a shove but it was all over bar the shouting about 2 seconds later... he was was waving his hands at them and saying "what, what?"




Out of curiosity, what WOULD have made it Red in your eyes?

I'll admit I've went and tried to have a look for the relevant laws on what governs whether incidents are yellow/red card and not had much luck. The IRB rules on it's site dictates what is foul play but doesn't really go into how such foul play should be treated. If anyone could point me in the right direction in that regard I would appreciate it.

My thinking has always been along the lines of whether Payne made a genuine attempt to play the man - this might depend on what is provided in relation to my above question. My viewing of the incident is that he certainly made a genuine attempt to play the ball and not the man but was careless in his execution of that. For example, if he had jumped, but jumped later than Goode, and Goode had still gone over the top of him - would that still be a red?

It would seem to me that any mistiming of a challenge for the ball in the air could result in something similar and the likihood of this mistiming, particularly for a very high kick where you are looking straight up and not at the man coming, is quite high. This is something you rarely see a red card for and I had always assumed that this was due whether the offending player had attempted to play the man - if it was a genuine challenge for the ball a red rarely seems to come out.

 

[collace]

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ulster-tactics-saracens-1402096-Apr2014/

Interesting to read the thoughts of Muller and Bowe on the incident.

 

[ruggabee]

you understand it's not just because he hit him in the air, right? it's an accumulation of things, partially it's because due to his challenge he tips through the horizontal and lands on his head (he does land on his head his shoulder and head hit at the same time).

If you lift someone through the horizontal and their head makes contact it's technically a red - it's the same - if he'd come down on his knees it's likely to have been a yellow. if he'd landed on his backside it's also likely it would have been a yellow.

It's inconsistent because each scenario is different, the two facts are: He hit him in the air he landed on his head -that is a red card.

To me it doesn't look like he hit his head first. He fell on his side and his head whipped down onto the ground from the impact of his body much like when you tackle someone legally their head can whip back and hit the ground as well:



Also, I wasn't aware that there was an accumulation of other things and didn't think the above played a role in the referee's decision. I thought the rule was as follows and no where does it say it depends on the situation.

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The names of players that I mentioned earlier from those YouTube results were involved in collisions where they were actually trying to tackle the man in the air. Payne wasn't even trying to tackle Goode in the air yet he got a red. If the red card is the right decision then fair enough but when a rule like this is so inconsistent where reds are rarely shown then it's not hard to understand why people would question such a match defining decision.

 

[goodNumber10]

To me it doesn't look like he hit his head first. He fell on his side and his head whipped down onto the ground from the impact of his body much like when you tackle someone legally their head can whip back and hit the ground as well:



Also, I wasn't aware that there was an accumulation of other things and didn't think the above played a role in the referee's decision. I thought the rule was as follows and no where does it say it depends on the situation.

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The names of players that I mentioned earlier from those YouTube results were involved in collisions where they were actually trying to tackle the man in the air. Payne wasn't even trying to tackle Goode in the air yet he got a red. If the red card is the right decision then fair enough but when a rule like this is so inconsistent where reds are rarely shown then it's not hard to understand why people would question such a match defining decision.

Plucked froma refs forum.

(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst
that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come
into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanctionenalty kick

MEMORANDUM
To:Referees
Citing Commissioners
Judicial Officers
Non-legal Judicial Committee Members
Fromaddy O’Brien, IRB Referee Manager
Tim Gresson, IRB Judicial Panel Chairman
Date:8 June 2009
Subject: Dangerous Tackles
In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws DesignatedMembers Ruling which
essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and
tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and
constitute dangerous play.

At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were
advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and
work backwards.

Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this
memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all
those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the
differences between the application of the red cardtest by referees and judicial
personnel is highlighted.
In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and
then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with
severely.

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:
∞The player is lifted and then forced or “speared†into the ground. A red card
should be issued for this type of tackle.
∞The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the
player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
∞For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty
or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what
they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based
on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) ofthe circumstances of the tackle.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

This is a serious incident - as such you should be accurate in your description of the events.
His head did not hit the ground first - saying it did is inaccurate.

 

[ruggabee]

Plucked froma refs forum.

(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst
that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come
into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanctionenalty kick

MEMORANDUM
To:Referees
Citing Commissioners
Judicial Officers
Non-legal Judicial Committee Members
Fromaddy O'Brien, IRB Referee Manager
Tim Gresson, IRB Judicial Panel Chairman
Date:8 June 2009
Subject: Dangerous Tackles
In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws DesignatedMembers Ruling which
essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and
tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and
constitute dangerous play.

At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were
advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and
work backwards.

Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this
memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all
those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.

Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the
differences between the application of the red cardtest by referees and judicial
personnel is highlighted.
In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and
then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with
severely.

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:
∞The player is lifted and then forced or "speared" into the ground. A red card
should be issued for this type of tackle.
∞The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the
player's safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
∞For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty
or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what
they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based
on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) ofthe circumstances of the tackle.

I don't think that rule applies to a player jumping in the air as there's no lifting involved.. Section (i) is in relation to jumpers in the air.

Anyway what is done is done. Cheers for bouncing off ideas. I'm bowing out too.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

This is a serious incident - as such you should be accurate in your description of the events.
His head did not hit the ground first - saying it did is inaccurate.

I am being accurate, you saying his head didn't hit the ground first is innacurate.

Regardless the ruling is head or upper body.... Garcia says head hit the ground he's the one that matters - head hits the ground red, work backwards - dangerous play resulting in his head hitting the ground = Red.

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't think that rule applies to a player jumping in the air as there's no lifting involved.. Section (i) is in relation to jumpers in the air.

Anyway what is done is done. Cheers for bouncing off ideas. I'm bowing out too.

have a good un mate....

 

[ratsapprentice]

I am being accurate, you saying his head didn't hit the ground first is innacurate.

It quite clearly didn't and I do not accept that there is any any other interpretation of the video.

Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make.

This is a serious incident - as such you should be accurate in your description of the events.
His head did not hit the ground first - saying it did is inaccurate.

To be fair I don't actually think he's watched it, apparently his head hits the ground first which it didn't and Payne's eyes aren't on the ball according to him which they clearly are.

 

[goodNumber10]

To be fair I don't actually think he's watched it, apparently his head hits the ground first which it didn't and Payne's eyes aren't on the ball according to him which they clearly are.

Dry your eyes pal.

 

[goodNumber10]

It quite clearly didn't and I do not accept that there is any any other interpretation of the video.

Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Sorry. I forgot only your point of view was valid.

I disagree and even if I am wrong it doesn't some how make the incident any less dangerous which is what you are insinuating.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Out of interest/laziness, have we heard SmartCookie on this one?

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

Dry your eyes pal.

Dry my eyes? I have no harsh feelings, it's sport, but I'm sorry some of your posts were just silly. Good luck in the Amlin.

 

[Peat]

The only reason people are talking about this not being a red is because Ulster are upset they lost at home and by only 2 points to sarries who had a man more.

Chill homie. Given the scale of the reaction in the media, given that you've got completely non-biased guys coming in and saying they disagreed with the decision, there is clearly more involved.

It was a controversial decision and it decided the game. I don't think anyone would have been surprised if the ref had only shown a yellow, regardless of circumstance, regardless of their own personal thoughts on what the decision should be.

I am not personally arguing with the red, it was always a possible reaction from the ref under the current laws. But I am disgruntled by the following points

1) The lack of clarity in the law
2) The lack of consistency in application - both in the sense of general refereeing for collisions in the air and in the sense that having gone with the harshest line possible for dangerous play early in the match, it was not followed consistently through the match
3) The reffing on result - To my mind, Garces very clearly made his decision in no small part on the seeming severity of Goode's injury.

I feel absolutely certain we will see similar offences with less sanction; we will see lesser offences with the same sanction. That grates heavily. It was a 50-50 and, fundamentally, I do not think it is acceptable that the sport has such important events (i.e. deciding the result of a match) decided on so random a result. And I would have felt heavily for Saracens in a reverse scenario, and slightly bitter there as well. I wanted Ulster to beat Saracens, not to be handed the match after four minutes due to a relatively innocuous event.

Having thought the matter through, and possibly with some bias in my mind, I do not think the laws can make the reaction consistent - just like the rules on spearing hasn't made that consistent.

Which to me, means you have to take some power from the referee, so that inconsistent decisions are less impactful - and I believe less impactful decisions would be made more consistently. I would like to see Rugby follow Ice Hockey's example. A red card means a sin bin period for the team and the end of the game for the player. A substitute can be sent on at the end of the sin bin. Ulster lost under the current rules, fine. Fair enough. But I would like to see games settled on rugby, not reffing decisions/moments of madness. Possibly bias. But it was a non-Ulster fan that suggested it to me.