IRB: Payne decision correct

[cbusbyni]

Hi Guys,

In an attempt to give some closure to the whole Payne incident, I thought I'd pass on an IRB clarification regarding taking a player in the air which I got today through the refs branch.

I said at the time that I didn't agree with the decision but the text below and video (which uses Payne as an example) makes it very clear that I (like many) was wrong. According to the IRB it was a clear RC:


Steps for consistency in making a decision:

Principles: 
* Safety requirement - protect players in the air.

* Unintentional act does not mean no YC/RC (recklessness,
dangerous act).

* For chasing players, saying they have their eyes on the ball
is not a strong enough argument - they have a responsibility for the
safety of the receiver.

Legal actions: 
* Both players are in the air at the same level/height and
contesting the ball at the same time.

* The jumping player jumps into a stationary player (or not) and
falls to floor: play on.

Illegal actions: 
* A player jumps without really contesting for the ball. For
instance, he is jumping into the player who is trying to catch the ball
mainly to disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player is not really contesting for the ball. For instance,
he is running into the player who is trying to catch the ball mainly to
disrupt the reception of the ball.

* A player not jumping to contest the ball must not take out a
jumping receiver. Looking at the ball does not make this action legal. 
Decision:

* Like the tackler, who is responsible for the safety of the
tackled player, the chasing player is responsible for the safety of the
player in the air.

* For any illegal action, like for a tip tackle, it is the way
in which the player falls and the part of the body that the player falls
on which is relevant. If a player lands on his head/neck, it should be a
red card. 


Please view the following movie:

Collisions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CavuYu3 ... =​youtu.be



Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Snipe Watson]

Interesting and in fairness you could have allowed it to slide rather than say you got it wrong. I salute you for that.

[rocky]

The only logical follow on from that is to ban players from jumping for the ball except in the lineout, because it is now a safety issue.

[Gary]

That's the way I see it too Rocky.

However, this clarification is nothing of the sort. It doesn't clarify the relevant law - it changes it. Nowhere in the laws, I understand, is any advantage given to the receiver. Indeed, who is the receiver? When Jackson kicked the ball, he could argue that Payne was the intended receiver. I have been led to believe that if the matter of Payne's red card had been referred to the Court for Arbitration in Sport, the outcome would have embarrassed the IRB.

[cbusbyni]

I think this is a clarification of the law about playing the man in the air.

It basically says that a player not in the air has a very clear responsibility towards a player who is.

Much like Warburton's tip tackle in the World Cup, I believe this will be the incident that makes all refs sit up and take notice, and that you'll see an awful lot more consistency in the way it is handled now (something which clearly wasn't the case beforehand as was highlighted at the time).

This comes from the top man in refereeing in the world (Joel Judge) so you can bet that every ref, particularly at the top level will be putting it into action.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[Hans Indaruck]

I think this is a clarification of the law about playing the man in the air.

It basically says that a player not in the air has a very clear responsibility towards a player who is.

Much like Warburton's tip tackle in the World Cup, I believe this will be the incident that makes all refs sit up and take notice, and that you'll see an awful lot more consistency in the way it is handled now (something which clearly wasn't the case beforehand as was highlighted at the time).

This comes from the top man in refereeing in the world (Joel Judge) so you can bet that every ref, particularly at the top level will be putting it into action.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Consistency is what everyone wants - but it's clearly not there yet! We can but hope!

[Cap'n Grumpy]

The main reason (as I saw it) that Jared wasn't in the air to contest the ball fairly was because he slipped.

I can understand the rationale behind what has been stated here, but there is no rationale in any law or interpretation that says a player has to be held accountable because of an accident. Had he deliberately not jumped, or jumped in such a way that could have caused injury to his opponent, then of course he must accept responsibility for that and the card that goes with that, but I don't understand that any law in a sport such as rugby which is full of violent contacts, should hold someone to blame in such a severe way for having an accident, even if that accident has repercussions for someone else.

This is a very dangerous precedent and completely changes the laws of the game.

Either the law is an ass, or the interpretation is an ass - either way, it's not good for the sport, especially when more cynical and deliberate actions are ignored, or penalised much less severely.

[Cockatrice]

That's the way I see it too Rocky.

However, this clarification is nothing of the sort. It doesn't clarify the relevant law - it changes it. Nowhere in the laws, I understand, is any advantage given to the receiver. Indeed, who is the receiver? When Jackson kicked the ball, he could argue that Payne was the intended receiver. I have been led to believe that if the matter of Payne's red card had been referred to the Court for Arbitration in Sport, the outcome would have embarrassed the IRB.

If this decision had been made in a court system you can't help feel that it would be quickly overturned on appeal. Do they just make it up as they go along?

[Snipe Watson]

The main reason (as I saw it) that Jared wasn't in the air to contest the ball fairly was because he slipped.

He slipped because he tried to pull up a split second before his head hit Goode's leg. How could that possibly have changed his decision to jump?

[Cockatrice]

The main reason (as I saw it) that Jared wasn't in the air to contest the ball fairly was because he slipped.

He slipped because he tried to pull up a split second before his head hit Goode's leg. How could that possibly have changed his decision to jump?

Mentioned at the time that he appeared to slip when his foot seems to go from under him (blame the Ravenhill carpet) but would be interested if this was ever put forward in the hearing. Did I read somewhere that UR might appeal or can they ?

[Snipe Watson]

He has served his ban, how or why would they appeal?

[Cockatrice]

He has served his ban, how or why would they appeal?

here as well which is why I asked…. Whilst this wasn't the article in question it may be I read an old story being repeated more recently…

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/u ... -1.1756403

[ulsterrr]

As soon as it happened I said red. And stand by that call! If it was other way round we ALL would of been screaming if it had of been a yellow. It was Jared's responsibility not the player in the air. Was an accident but reckless regardless.

[Jockster]

Watching the Toulouse v Oyonnax match. Toulouse player tackled in the air---tackler clearly went for the legs and it could have been very nasty. luckily player not injured but not even a yellow!

[Snipe Watson]

He has served his ban, how or why would they appeal?

here as well which is why I asked…. Whilst this wasn't the article in question it may be I read an old story being repeated more recently…

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/u ... -1.1756403

I haven't read the article, but UR had three days to appeal after they received the written judgement.

edit: that article was last Thursday.