Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[munstermuffin]

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.

@Amiga Technically it could've been deemed a tip tackle which is a red card as Payne did not TECHNICALLY challenge as he didn't leave the ground. So it's how the ref saw it. I couldn't hear what ref asked or said so I don't know what he said but I wouldn't slam ref as if he saw it 1 way then he did enforce laws 100% correctly.


@UlsterRugby I don't know if it did influence his decision but I do applaud him for taking his time over the decision and not panicking in making a rushed call. Again I'm not saying call was right or wrong but if he saw it as a dangerous tackle it is a red card per laws.

 

[Amiga500]

@Amiga Technically it could've been deemed a tip tackle which is a red card as Payne did not TECHNICALLY challenge as he didn't leave the ground.

How can it be a tackle when the "tackler" is unaware of the player he is supposed to have tackled right up till the last second, then headbutted his shin and not used his arms?!?

 

[TheSaffycen]

How can it be a tackle when the "tackler" is unaware of the player he is supposed to have tackled right up till the last second, then headbutted his shin and not used his arms?!?

You're right ! He didn't use him arms I would be surprised if he didn't get at least a 5 week ban for this !

 

[goodNumber10]

How can it be a tackle when the "tackler" is unaware of the player he is supposed to have tackled right up till the last second, then headbutted his shin and not used his arms?!?

Of course he was aware of him.

A: it was an up and under, to not expect someone to be "Under" the ball is utterly preposterous, it's the whole point - otherwise jackson would have just chipped the ball.

B: He would have seen Goode or at least known someone was there from his peripheral vision - he would not have run 30 metres only looking up, his head comes up and down as he runs to make sure he's ina position to compete for the ball and adjust his run to other players on the field.

Did he mean to run into him? No. Was it an accident? yes.

Is he responsible for the man in the air? Absolutely.

Is it under the tackle law? No, it's under the dangerous play - you cannot make contact with a player int he air, unless you yourself are competing in the air.

It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[goodNumber10]

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?

so what you're saying is Payne should be let off because other people got let off previously? and because someone else didn't enforce the laws, the current referee shouldn't either?

The laws are the laws, players should know them, and to be frank EVERYONE knows you cannot play the man in the air, either deliberatley or accidently. Some one has to enforce them or we may as well just play touch rugby in the park.

It will be interesting to see if he gets a ban.

 

[munstermuffin]

How can it be a tackle when the "tackler" is unaware of the player he is supposed to have tackled right up till the last second, then headbutted his shin and not used his arms?!?

Well if he was unaware then it's reckless. 2nd of all that's why I said technically because it might not have been a tackle but in the laws he didn't compete for kick but stayed on ground and hit man so technically it's a tackle. The fact he ran in to Goode isn't anyone's fault. As I said fact he didn't jump doesn't help him. You might not agree but it's way ref looked at it and he enforced his punishment based on that

 

[goodNumber10]

Paynes hearing is today, he's been charged under:

Law 10.4(g) - Dangerous charging or knocking down an opponent with the ball

Law 10.4(i) - Tackling, tapping, pushing or pulling an opponent jumping for the ball in open play.

He's going to get a ban.

 

[ruggabee]

so what you're saying is Payne should be let off because other people got let off previously? and because someone else didn't enforce the laws, the current referee shouldn't either?

The laws are the laws, players should know them, and to be frank EVERYONE knows you cannot play the man in the air, either deliberatley or accidently. Some one has to enforce them or we may as well just play touch rugby in the park.

It will be interesting to see if he gets a ban.

Well AFAIK the law doesn't say it's a red card so going off previous decision why the change?

 

[Amiga500]

so what you're saying is Payne should be let off because other people got let off previously? and because someone else didn't enforce the laws, the current referee shouldn't either?

Let off because everyone else has been let off previously (let off in this instance being penalised and sometimes yellow carded).



Can anyone give me another instance of a player being sent off on in a game for challenging a high ball? [preferably professional]

 

[goodNumber10]

Well AFAIK the law doesn't say it's a red card so going off previous decision why the change?

if you scroll back through the thread i posted an IRB memo from 2007 - head contact with the ground due to tip tackles etc... = red and work backwards dependent on incident.

 

[Amiga500]

He's going to get a ban.

I'd agree he will get a ban - if only for ERC to be seen to be backing their referee.

 

[goodNumber10]

Let off because everyone else has been let off previously (let off in this instance being penalised and sometimes yellow carded).


Can anyone give me another instance of a player being sent off on in a game for challenging a high ball? [preferably professional]

No, but then i doubt anyone here has access to that wonderful world wide database of all red cards ever given... :/

 

[goodNumber10]

I'd agree he will get a ban - if only for ERC to be seen to be backing their referee.

oh well.

Maybe next time he wont' clatter a player int eh air.

 

[Amiga500]

No, but then i doubt anyone here has access to that wonderful world wide database of all red cards ever given... :/

Right, so if there are no examples over the next few days, we can presume that no-one on the forum has seen what is a very common occurrence being punished with a red card.

 

[goodNumber10]

planet rugbys take on it:

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16993_9254691,00.html

 

[goodNumber10]

Right, so if there are no examples over the next few days, we can presume that no-one on the forum has seen what is a very common occurrence being punished with a red card.

Lol! you're still going?

Well someone always has to eb the first, he'll get banned and we'll start to see others getting the Red - will you be happy then?

 

[ruggabee]

if you scroll back through the thread i posted an IRB memo from 2007 - head contact with the ground due to tip tackles etc... = red and work backwards dependent on incident.

Yes but to me that memo is irrelevant because I don't believe his head hit the ground first. He clearly lands on his side.



If that's what you believe warranted the red card then in my opinion you are wrong. However, if the red card was handed out because of the challenge in the air then we must question the inconsistency of such a decision.

 

[Amiga500]

Lol! you're still going?

Yep, 'cos your still not comprehending the issue.

Well someone always has to eb the first, he'll get banned and we'll start to see others getting the Red - will you be happy then?

He got 2 weeks.

If such interpretation is now applied consistently, I'll begrudgingly accept it.

If such interpretation is never applied again, I'll resume being f__king seething over it. The laws have always been open to interpretation - but the accepted interpretation cannot be changed on the whim of one referee in one match - otherwise it'd be chaos.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes but to me that memo is irrelevant because I don't believe his head hit the ground first. He clearly lands on his side.

View attachment 2783

If that's what you believe warranted the red card then in my opinion you are wrong. However, if the red card was handed out because of the challenge in the air then we must question the inconsistency of such a decision.

I don't think a paused photo of him about to hit the ground proves that. He was rotating, to me he landed simultaneously more on his kneck then his head or shoulder...

Regardless if i'm right or wrong you are literally arguing about milliseconds here, in detail and somethign the Referee would not have access to.

if he hit his head first or second the effect would have been instantaneous and the damage similar. He could have rolled up and across his neck.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yep, 'cos your still not comprehending the issue.

I get the point/issue completely i just think you are looking for a way to justify your anger towards Garcia.

He got 2 weeks.

Seems fair considering his hostory and that there was no intent involved, he can count himself lucky.

If such interpretation is now applied consistently, I'll begrudgingly accept it.

If such interpretation is never applied again, I'll resume being f__king seething over it. The laws have always been open to interpretation - but the accepted interpretation cannot be changed on the whim of one referee in one match - otherwise it'd be chaos.

It wasn't, it was followed to the letter of the law...