HEC Opponent watch

[Golf Man]

If Rob Kearney did exactly the same today against Toulon (no intent to injure, eyes on the ball all the time, did not see Delon Armitage/Goode until he jumped in towards him) & Wayne Barnes gave a red card I think we would all feel hard done by.

I like most people put a priority on player safety just think for this incident a yellow was sufficient.

Ashton not as bad as D.Armitage or L.Williams but he is bloody annoying. May he drop one before touching down against Clermont it would give a lot of people a laugh.

Much more importantly I think we have a good 50:50 chance today on what could not be a more difficult assignment - COYBIB

Agreed
Certain high profile case was viewed differently last season though

Paulie kicking Dave K in the head? No comparison! The charge there was he could see Dave and the ball and made the reckless decision to try and connect with one with his boot while not caring for the safety of the other player. O'Connell faced no danger in kicking Dave and was as aware as any player can be in the tumult of a game what he was attempting- that was not the situation yesterday. Paulie dodged a bullet there no mistake. Don't grudge him or Munster the chance to play Clermont in the semi- but he was very lucky! Don't try to pretend there equivalence there.

On the other hand Payne and Goode were going 50:50 for the ball unseeing of each other. It could easily have been the Ulster player that was injured as the Scracen- and would Goode have been red cared then? I'm not even sure it was a penalty at all. It was a unfortunate 'racing incident'- as they say in Formula 1.

Completely agree that POC got off lightly => no way should it have been anything other than a citing. The comparison with Payne is valid though.

Payne was running through, looking at the ball (all fine so far) but made no allowance for the fact that there was always going to be a player in the air coming towards him - that may seem harsh, but he has to be responsible - he essentially made the play as if there was going to be no-one contesting with him - ie had no regard for the safety of the other player. I have no issue at all with it being red and it should be. Where I would sympathize is that this type of tackle generally hasn't been red and there is a chance that Garces was swayed by the extent of the injury, which shouldn't have been the case. It was reckless and made no allowance for the safety of the other player - same as teh POC one (and the POC one happened much quicker - Payne should had his 4/5 seconds of his run up to check, allow for a what could happen, but didn't)

[simonokeeffe]

I refer all y'all to ROG v Steyn

[Golf Man]

I refer all y'all to ROG v Steyn

Its 5 years ago and irrelevant at this stage. Warburtons red provoked outrage at the time, but looking now it was teh right call and has led to red being teh norm for that type of tackle. Garces decision is a huge one (like Rollands was) but was the correct one

[AdamK]

Point me to a red card being brandished for an accidental aerial take out and I'll be impressed.

[simonokeeffe]

I refer all y'all to ROG v Steyn

Its 5 years ago and irrelevant at this stage. Warburtons red provoked outrage at the time, but looking now it was teh right call and has led to red being teh norm for that type of tackle. Garces decision is a huge one (like Rollands was) but was the correct one

its a carbon copy so highly relevant
nobody and I mean nobody at the time was calling for a red card there

[Dave Cahill]

its a carbon copy so highly relevant
nobody and I mean nobody at the time was calling for a red card there

Different regulatory environment then though, the refs are being to told to shift a lot of the responsibility back on to players for what might be described as being reckless as to other players safety.

[[Jackass]]

The reckless nature of the incident was Payne not jumping. Had he of jumped, he wouldn't have taken out Goodes legs and thus his fall would not have been as severe. Payne absolutely watches the ball until the last moment (he looks up about 1 metre away whilst running at full tilt).

It was reckless, but definitely not to the extent that "he should have known better", in so far as saying when running for the ball, he should have known it was probable he would seriously injur someone, and he's entitled to contest (again, had he jumped, it wouldn't even be a penalty offence, as it would have been contesting a 50/50 ball).

There was no malicious intent either, and on that basis it just simply is not a red card.

Comparrisons to Warburton are not similar either, as lifting a player off the ground is a very deliberate action, and you are in control of the situation to make sure you don't drive them down into the ground and that you don't tip them over and let them go. If you lift a player in the tackle you are resonsible to make sure you dont lift so high that they will tilt and land on their head.

It was an incorrect decision sending Payne off. Of that there is no question. I'm amazed anybody agrees with it and I suspect they are being swayed by the injury rather than the actual incident. (9 times out of 10 a player being taken out in the air, intentionally or otherwise, does not result in an injury and very very rarely results in anything more than a yellow card, and I've seen a lot worse than that i.e intet, not getting a red card).

[Dave Cahill]

The reckless nature of the incident was Payne not jumping. Had he of jumped, he wouldn't have taken out Goodes legs and thus his fall would not have been as severe. Payne absolutely watches the ball until the last moment (he looks up about 1 metre away whilst running at full tilt).

It was reckless, but definitely not to the extent that "he should have known better", in so far as saying when running for the ball, he should have known it was probable he would seriously injur someone, and he's entitled to contest (again, had he jumped, it wouldn't even be a penalty offence, as it would have been contesting a 50/50 ball).

There was no malicious intent either, and on that basis it just simply is not a red card.

Comparrisons to Warburton are not similar either, as lifting a player off the ground is a very deliberate action, and you are in control of the situation to make sure you don't drive them down into the ground and that you don't tip them over and let them go. If you lift a player in the tackle you are resonsible to make sure you dont lift so high that they will tilt and land on their head.

It was an incorrect decision sending Payne off. Of that there is no question. I'm amazed anybody agrees with it and I suspect they are being swayed by the injury rather than the actual incident. (9 times out of 10 a player being taken out in the air, intentionally or otherwise, does not result in an injury and very very rarely results in anything more than a yellow card, and I've seen a lot worse than that i.e intet, not getting a red card).

Intent is irrelevant. It just doesn't come in to it. What Payne's biggest mistake was was leaving the ref to answer the question was it a red or not (because it was certainly a yellow) and once you're in that zone, you only have a 50-50 chance of staying on the pitch.

[[Jackass]]

Well, I'm not up to speed with the law book, but even if it doesn't describe intent as a factor, I would wager if Payne belted into that challange like he was looking to make a massive hit whilst Goode was in the air, there would be no debate, he deliberately smashed him in the air and thus deserved a red card. The fact that he was contesting (if not jumping) for the ball, I would wager is a mitigating factor. When Garces looked at that replay over and over again, I think that's exactly what he was looking for, intent. And in slow motion he saw Paynes head come up and is probably what justified the red card in his mind. I think he over analysed it.

[simonokeeffe]

its a carbon copy so highly relevant
nobody and I mean nobody at the time was calling for a red card there

Different regulatory environment then though, the refs are being to told to shift a lot of the responsibility back on to players for what might be described as being reckless as to other players safety.

by precedent are we now looking at any player not jumping for a contestable culpable of recklessness?

[Lar]

Quinlan had a piece in the IT today that was very confused in its thinking. But I think it is a confusion that is widespread and probably needs greater thought by the rule makers.

On the one hand he commends Garces' bravery for making the hard call. He says it is important for the rules of Rugby to demonstrate that player safety is paramount. He also says that Garces was right according to the rules to send Payne off.

But he then goes on to say that no one believes that what occurred was anything other than an accident and that if the outcome had been Goode getting up and playing on then both sides would have been entirely happy with a penalty and yellow card to Saracens from the incident. Therefore the extent of the injury turned the card from yellow to red which he argues is wrong and he also argues that it is fundamental that a player should not be red carded for what was clearly an accident. Therefore the rule book is wrong..... Do we create a rule that if you come into contact with someone in the air while you have at least one foot on the ground you are automatically penalised regardless of intent? But is the sanction red depending on whether the player is hurt or not?

What about something like the Black Card in GAA? Similar but not identical. Would it demonstrate a serious deterrent to players if they were sent off for the rest of the game but that as a team the side were only down to 14 for ten minutes and could then bring on a sub to replace the penalised player? This might have been far fairer last Saturday as the entire rest of the game would not have been as badly affected as it was by a red card.

Rugby is also having to face the concussion question more seriously. Maybe it needs to be a wider debate and to include what constitutes reckless play? Fundamentally many elements of rugby that are perfectly within the rules might arguably be reckless in any other environment. Its a hard game and players do get hurt inevitably. If injuries are inevitable how can we penalise players who cause them accidentally?

[Edna Kenny]

This seems to be a bit of a grey area because it's hard to say Payne tackled Goode in the air, it certainly didn't look like a tackle, his head hit him first and his arms were open. Also, at the point of contact Payne was in the air, albeit only just. Technically it could be considered a mid-air collision. Because Payne was nearer the ground it seems to have been him who is responsible though. Both could argue they were going for the ball.

The "intent" question was used by many former players when discussing the Warburton incident at the world cup. Lots of commentators said it was an accident and he didn't mean it etc. Intent only comes into question during a citing. There are much clearer rules around the tip tackle as it is a red card if the tackled player is turned beyond horizontal. As we now know Rolland made the correct decision by the letter of the law, he couldn't bring emotion into it and think about the good character of Warburton or his intent.

With contests in the air it is less certain. Is there a minimum height a player needs to be off the ground to be considered to be contesting for the ball? If one player is travelling faster towards the other are they more responsible even if in the air at the time of contact? It seems to be up to the ref to determine if it is a fair contest in the air or not so it is open to very different interpretations. The potential seriousness of the injury seemed to swing this decision in favour of the red card.