Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Its a tough one... entirely unintentional... but sometimes in rugby you can't just punish intent/the lack of it, alone. As with spear tackles, the purpose of refereeing this area strongly is to discourage dangerous tackling, regardless of whether they are intentional and regardless of what happened to the player being tackled. At the risk of sounding dramatic, on another day Goode could have landed just 15% more vertical and suffered some lasting damage. As it is, he landed on his head.

It was a knockout game and personally I would have only given a yellow - but I can see why the officials felt the need to go one further. The recent incident in Rugby league shows the things which can happen.

 

[Big Ewis]

how the hell do the Ulster guys just pretend like it wasn't that bad when they see the guy again in the locker room and later during that night and that entire week to come ??...
I'd be the first to try and relieve a friend/teammate, pretend like it's not that bad, but this is just near tragic for a pro athlete.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Its a tough one... entirely unintentional... but sometimes in rugby you can't just punish intent/the lack of it, alone. As with spear tackles, the purpose of refereeing this area strongly is to discourage dangerous tackling, regardless of whether they are intentional and regardless of what happened to the player being tackled. At the risk of sounding dramatic, on another day Goode could have landed just 15% more vertical and suffered some lasting damage. As it is, he landed on his head.

It was a knockout game and personally I would have only given a yellow - but I can see why the officials felt the need to go one further. The recent incident in Rugby league shows the things which can happen.

He didn't. He landed on his shoulder and his head whipped down.
I'm not disagreeing with you - but I think it's an important distinction.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Why on earth do you think thats an important distinction? It was close enough that his head was hitting the ground at the same time as his shoulder. The tackle was still the same and the result could have been worse.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Why on earth do you think thats an important distinction? It was close enough that his head was hitting the ground at the same time as his shoulder. The tackle was still the same and the result could have been worse.

Again... he didn't - he landed on his shoulder.

It's an important distinction because you need to be accurate in your analysis of the event.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Its a tough one... entirely unintentional... but sometimes in rugby you can't just punish intent/the lack of it, alone. As with spear tackles, the purpose of refereeing this area strongly is to discourage dangerous tackling, regardless of whether they are intentional and regardless of what happened to the player being tackled. At the risk of sounding dramatic, on another day Goode could have landed just 15% more vertical and suffered some lasting damage. As it is, he landed on his head.

It was a knockout game and personally I would have only given a yellow - but I can see why the officials felt the need to go one further. The recent incident in Rugby league shows the things which can happen.

The rules can't change based on the importance of the match. THe officials must be able to make the big decisions in the big games, and I think they got it spot on today.

 

[munstermuffin]

The rules can't change based on the importance of the match. THe officials must be able to make the big decisions in the big games, and I think they got it spot on today.

I agree 100% with that. Was actually asking a well respected AIL ref tonight about incident and if it was right call as it changed game. His answer was like yours Feic - It doesn't matter if it was in minute 1 or 80 or first round or QF the ref has to deal only with the incident. And on the tackle, regardless of it being intentional or not, it is technically a tackle where he lifted the player above hip level and failed to bring him down safely which is deemed a red card offence. And well I thought that explanation sealed it for me

 

[ruggabee]

So it seems a red was the right call. But if we were critiquing the rule, isn't it a bit harsh? There is no logical reason that competing by jumping is any safer than keeping your feet on the ground. If Payne jumped and Goode still landed dangerously, there would have been no card shown. Makes no sense. Check this contest from last year, this time the man who contested by keeping his feet planted on the ground gets knocked out by some flying ninja knees to the face.

The sport is dangerous and chaotic with any action capable of causing injury much like the one on Alex McKinnon. I always felt reds were for those who were villainous or of malicious intent and would have thought a yellow card would have been sufficient. Then again it's difficult to identify intent and rules are rules.

 

[munstermuffin]

So it seems a red was the right call. But if we were critiquing the rule, isn't it a bit harsh? There is no logical reason that competing by jumping is any safer than keeping your feet on the ground. If Payne jumped and Goode still landed dangerously, there would have been no card shown. Makes no sense. Check this contest from last year, this time the man who contested by keeping his feet planted on the ground gets knocked out by some flying ninja knees to the face.

The sport is dangerous and chaotic with any action capable of causing injury much like the one on Alex McKinnon. I always felt reds were for those who were villainous or of malicious intent and would have thought a yellow card would have been sufficient. Then again it's difficult to identify intent and rules are rules.

Contesting by jumping would really decrease possibility of serious injury. Hit would've been at similar height meaning both players fall back and fall at a safe angle decreasing chances of serious injury but you'll probably be winded etc.

 

[ruggabee]

Contesting by jumping would really decrease possibility of serious injury. Hit would've been at similar height meaning both players fall back and fall at a safe angle decreasing chances of serious injury but you'll probably be winded etc.

I imagine that's what the rule is based on but just think it's unfair all responsibility is placed on the man who decides not to jump while the person who jumps can do so without a worry that their boot or knee will collide with a face.

 

[munstermuffin]

I imagine that's what the rule is based on but just think it's unfair all responsibility is placed on the man who decides not to jump while the person who jumps can do so without a worry that their boot or knee will collide with a face.

Well that just from my background of PT. As I said earlier I think it technically was deemed a tip tackle which is red. My own view is for that area a ref should use common sense as well as his own judgement. Like I think Saracens fans were just as shocked to see the red and effectively it gave them game although Ulster made sure it wouldn't be easy

 

[ruggabee]

Well that just from my background of PT. As I said earlier I think it technically was deemed a tip tackle which is red. My own view is for that area a ref should use common sense as well as his own judgement. Like I think Saracens fans were just as shocked to see the red and effectively it gave them game although Ulster made sure it wouldn't be easy

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.

 

[bops39]

Except it wasn't a tip tackle as there was no tackle attempted. I can see why it was a red although in my opinion a yellow card would have been the right decision. The worst part about the decision for me was the time it took for the ref to make his mind up... by which I mean that he could see that the player was injured and that fact might have influenced his decision in some way which is wrong. It was careless of Payne for sure, however if the player had not been injured and been on his feet afterwards, I am not so sure we would have seen a red. Maybe.

 

[goodNumber10]

it was dangerous and irresponsible challenge if not malicious.

And whilst i felt for Ulster a Red was absolutely right, Goode was stretchered off for god sake. if it had been Payne on the stretcher and Goode getting the card would everyone be calling for a yellow? doubt it.

 

[munstermuffin]

Except it wasn't a tip tackle as there was no tackle attempted. I can see why it was a red although in my opinion a yellow card would have been the right decision. The worst part about the decision for me was the time it took for the ref to make his mind up... by which I mean that he could see that the player was injured and that fact might have influenced his decision in some way which is wrong. It was careless of Payne for sure, however if the player had not been injured and been on his feet afterwards, I am not so sure we would have seen a red. Maybe.

Technically when the contact is made it's deemed a tackle so it was a tackle. Did Payne mean it or was it malicious, no but that didn't matter. It was action that was judged

 

[TheSaffycen]

And whilst i felt for Ulster a Red was absolutely right, Goode was stretchered off for god sake. if it had been Payne on the stretcher and Goode getting the card would everyone be calling for a yellow? doubt it.

I must admit the ref showed some balls to send off a Ulster player at Ravenhill. With the tackle shown above I actually I think slade was in the wrong, luckily the jumping player sees him running straight at him and makes sure his studs aren't showing and puts his arms out to brace his fall. I definitely think that if Goode had got up it would have been yellow.

 

[Big Ewis]

mmmm, scuze me but, since when did we start giving a shhit about Colin Slade ?! Take that thing out of here !..

 

[UlsterRugby2012]

The thing is, if we had lost by 20 points I think I'd be less annoyed than right now losing by 2. I can't complain about the red, but if Goode got up straight after I don't think he would have given a red which isn't right.
Last year Saracens were the better team alright, but not this year. No chance in hell was Ashton scoring that try if we had another back covering, and Farrell was absolutely shocking.
How Saracens didn't get a yellow is beyond me, I think it was around the 60 minute mark were they had 4 penalties within 5 minutes.

To beat 14 mean for 75 minutes by 2 points is really just unimpressive, really does leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

I just want want to add this: Trimble and Bowe were absolutely outstanding. Their work rate was incredible, and some of Trimble's hits were huge.

 

[Thingimubob]

Just seen the incident, no way was it a red! It's very clumsy, maybe worth a yellow at most, as his eyes are fixed on the ball pretty much right up until he collides with Goode. I've seen worse one's than that go unpunished tbf...

 

[Feicarsinn]

Just seen the incident, no way was it a red! It's very clumsy, maybe worth a yellow at most, as his eyes are fixed on the ball pretty much right up until he collides with Goode. I've seen worse one's than that go unpunished tbf...

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.