Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[Peat]

I might agree with you if you presented me with a crystal clear set of rules and a set of referees that gave the same decisions consistently. But as you can't, I won't. The issue is greater than the idea of all paying for the sins of one.

And there are plenty of frequently dangerous pieces of play in the game that are legal ergo the game doesn't come down hard on all dangerous play. That is for the preservation of spectacle. It is a principle already in the game.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I think we should all just end this because we can't agree on it. Or make a separate thread about it ?

 

[goodNumber10]

And there are plenty of frequently dangerous pieces of play in the game that are legal

Such as?

 

[Amiga500]

Payne has all the options as he is on the ground and in full control,

You ever tried stopping from a full sprint in 10 cm?



Both intended to play the ball. JP didn't realise Goode was there till the ball virtually landed in his hands, at which point collision between the two was long since inevitable.

If one were to assign blame to Payne for not being aware of Goode's presence and adjusting his run appropriately, then the exact same charge can be levelled at Goode for not being aware of Payne and adjusting his jump appropriately [those that would say this is impossible just don't know how to jump for competed ball].

Is it a red? Its certainly a dangerous situation for which Payne is at least partially responsible for. But then so is collapsing a scrum and pulling down a lineout jumper... neither offence sees red.


I can see why the referee has gave it, the act of not jumping always looks bad. Do I disagree with the law stating it can be a red card offence? No, serious injury could result. Do I disagree with the brandishing of the red card in this instance? Yes.

I have no recollection of red cards being used for such scenarios in the past, and deciding mid-way through a knock-out competition to change the implementation or interpretation of the laws is not on without a wide edict going out. Same as Warburton in the world cup, you cannot make fundamental changes to the interpretation of the rules of the game without actually letting the players know!

 

[goodNumber10]

You ever tried stopping from a full sprint in 10 cm?

I wouldn't run full pelt into that situation for a start.

Payne knows where he is in relation to the catch zone, he is clearly not going to jump for it as he doesn't slow down at any point, he therefore should be aware that Goode most probably will be jumping.

Both intended to play the ball. JP didn't realise Goode was there till the ball virtually landed in his hands, at which point collision between the two was long since inevitable.

If one were to assign blame to Payne for not being aware of Goode's presence and adjusting his run appropriately, then the exact same charge can be levelled at Goode for not being aware of Payne and adjusting his jump appropriately [those that would say this is impossible just don't know how to jump for competed ball].

Goode knows exactly where Payne is, which is why he jumped to secure the ball first. Good is in the right position, knee leading body square onto the ball - he is ready to compete in the air, shoulder to shoulder if Payne Jumps. what he's not prepared to do is a somersault.

Is it a red? Its certainly a dangerous situation for which Payne is at least partially responsible for. But then so is collapsing a scrum and pulling down a lineout jumper... neither offence sees red.

Two wrongs and all that...

I have no recollection of red cards being used for such scenarios in the past, and deciding mid-way through a knock-out competition to change the implementation or interpretation of the laws is not on without a wide edict going out. Same as Warburton in the world cup, you cannot make fundamental changes to the interpretation of the rules of the game without actually letting the players know!

they've been the rules for years.

 

[Amiga500]

I wouldn't run full pelt into that situation for a start.

Of course you wouldn't.

Its all very clear on TV what you'd do isn't it.

Payne knows where he is in relation to the catch zone, he is clearly not going to jump for it as he doesn't slow down at any point, he therefore should be aware that Goode most probably will be jumping.

Probably.

Goode knows exactly where Payne is, which is why he jumped to secure the ball first. Good is in the right position, knee leading body square onto the ball - he is ready to compete in the air, shoulder to shoulder if Payne Jumps. what he's not prepared to do is a somersault.

You lead with the knee toward the other guy, thus he cannot get near you to compete for the ball.

Two wrongs and all that...

Indeed. Yet, here we are with a red card out of the blue for a collision with a jumper in a contested high ball.

they've been the rules for years.

Read what was written again.

 

[Peat]

Indeed. Yet, here we are with a red card out of the blue for a collision with a jumper in a contested high ball.

Meanwhile, in a Super Rugby game very recently there was a virtually identical incident with no card at all. http://www.mobypicture.com/user/mickobrien1/view/16745988 - I don't think there can be any denying there is a problem with consistency when you put those two together.

For what its worth, I found that on a rugby refs forum, where they are using intent heavily in their discussion on what the appropriate sanction is. Some are saying its not relevant, others that it is. Feic says that intention is not mentioned in the rule book, but an awful lot of things are not mentioned in the rule book - there's nothing saying not to take it into account either. There are plenty saying it wasn't a red, plenty saying it was and one saying he believes that T14 refs are being encouraged to use red cards more.

Again, anything else apart, more issues with consistency.


GN10 - Start with the tackle and breakdown, there's two highly dangerous activities completely legalised by the game; could get more specific but don't see the point. Player safety is important, but its not the core of the game. That is the key issue.

 

[goodNumber10]

Of course you wouldn't.

Its all very clear on TV what you'd do isn't it.

that makes no sense what so ever.

You lead with the knee toward the other guy, thus he cannot get near you to compete for the ball.

Isn't that what i've said?

Indeed. Yet, here we are with a red card out of the blue for a collision with a jumper in a contested high ball.

Not out of the Blue, in keeping with the guidance

Read what was written again.

I did, you wrote this:

deciding mid-way through a knock-out competition to change the implementation or interpretation of the laws is not on without a wide edict going out. Same as Warburton in the world cup, you cannot make fundamental changes to the interpretation of the rules of the game without actually letting the players know!

which is simply not true, and based on your own assumptions.

 

[goodNumber10]

Meanwhile, in a Super Rugby game very recently there was a virtually identical incident with no card at all. http://www.mobypicture.com/user/mickobrien1/view/16745988 - I don't think there can be any denying there is a problem with consistency when you put those two together.

Lol, love how it says "this ref is right"

If you listen to that ref he talks about responsibility over the player in the air, and then clearly says at the end "that is why it's only a penalty" - indicating that he felt things were different he'd have been in his right to give a yellow/red card

Nigel owens discusses this in some depth on Full Contact on Talk Sport... it's interesting i suggest people listen to it.

GN10 - Start with the tackle and breakdown, there's two highly dangerous activities completely legalised by the game; could get more specific but don't see the point. Player safety is important, but its not the core of the game. That is the key issue.

Both are very different to completely inverting a man in the air so he comes down from great height on his head (still think he lands on his head at the same time - sorry Rats).

I would say player safety is paramount in the game, as i say it is a dangerous enough sport with out stupid and reckless challenges creeping into it. Payne is an experienced professional player, he knows the rules he knows the situation he made a mistake that put another player at serious risk - he rightly got sanctioned.

I would also point out that there is a level of a language barrier between the ref and Payne/Muller so the point he's making about the head may not come accross right to everyone.

Will be interesting to see if Payne is given red card sufficient at his hearing.

 

[collace]

I didn't catch Full Contact. What was the gist of what Owens was saying?

 

[goodNumber10]

I didn't catch Full Contact. What was the gist of what Owens was saying?

probably easier to just grab the podcast from playfm, and skip to the last 15 minutes or so - it's quite a discussion and he clarifies the rules and how it's opent in interpretation - he doens't give a comment ont eh actual incident and seldom questions his colleagues decisions but it's a good insight into it all.

If i get time i'll try and transcribe ti for everyone.

 

[SimonG]

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.

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.

The ice hockey suggestion is a good one. In terms of commiting a foul, there are two levels that result in a red card, one that is intentional, and one that isn't. The Payne incident was the latter as there was no intent, it was just wreckless. A red card and a sin bin period would have been about right. It just seemed so harsh to essentially decide a game on a player not looking at what was in front of him...Payne also got a good whack on the head for good measure. A deliberate incident would be just a straight red with no sin bin option.

 

[munstermuffin]

Lads at end do day some see it as a red others not but that's sport. There's no need to be calling for rule changes etc. The rules are perfect as is. Fact is ref made call and depending how you look at it some agree others not and if you agree then Payne got what was deserved. If you disagree well then you see it as tough luck and ref got it wrong. That's beauty of sport. Ulster weren't the 1st and won't be the last to suffer.

 

[Amiga500]

The rules are perfect as is.

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they are, but there is an awful lot wrong with scattergun implementations of them...


For instance, if you were pulled up and done for doing 71 mph on a motor way*, you'd be feeling pretty hard done by**, even if by the letter of the law, your in the wrong.


*or 120 km/hr in the Republic
**assuming you couldn't bribe the Guard.

 

[munstermuffin]

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they are, but there is an awful lot wrong with scattergun implementations of them...


For instance, if you were pulled up and done for doing 71 mph on a motor way*, you'd be feeling pretty hard done by**, even if by the letter of the law, your in the wrong.


*or 120 km/hr in the Republic
**assuming you couldn't bribe the Guard.

Yes but my point is it depend what cop you get or in rugby what ref you get. That is sport sometimes things go your way other times they don't.

 

[Amiga500]

Yes but my point is it depend what cop you get or in rugby what ref you get. That is sport sometimes things go your way other times they don't.

Have you ever seen or heard anyone done for doing 121 km/hr on the motorway?


I have never seen or heard of anyone getting a red card for an aerial challenge. Ever.

 

[munstermuffin]

Have you ever seen or heard anyone done for doing 121 km/hr on the motorway?


I have never seen or heard of anyone getting a red card for an aerial challenge. Ever.

Ha in Ireland I have seen people doing 63km/hr on a 60 limit and be pulled. Well if you look hard enough I sure Payne wasn't 1st ever red card for that offence. And as I said already in thread. I spoke to a ref sat night who said Paynes failure to jump was part of issue. Not saying it was right call or wrong but no need to change rules. Ref was well within his rights to call it. Had he went the other way and said accidental clash I'd have accepted that too and another ref would've done that.

 

[ruggabee]

Looking over at the refs forum even they can't decide on what's the correct decision.

 

[Amiga500]

Well if you look hard enough I sure Payne wasn't 1st ever red card for that offence.

Thats the point!

You'll have to do some serious searching to find an instance of it happening before. Yet there are contested garryowens in every match with some players making hard landings as a result.


I don't mind the rules being enforced as happened on Saturday, but I very much take issue with them being enforced so inconsistently. If something has been punishable through a penalty or penalty/yellow card for years, why should that change, in a knock-out game of all places, without prior warning?

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

My only problem is I think the outcome influenced the referees decision as it took a long time for him to come to it, as a human not a robot he's obviously going to have a different thought process when seeing a guy in a bad state getting taken off in a stretcher compared to him say jumping up after the incident. i just can't help but think if he wasn't injured he would have given a yellow, which isn't right.