Payne

[Russ]

Cave out yet?

[Cornerfleg]

Are you saying he needs to get a cake from Ashers?????

[Russ]

Are you saying he needs to get a cake from Ashers?????

Should have had some cake with my coffee now you mention it.

Is Jared clean living?

[rumncoke]

Then again Rory my son neither has is the term "reckless pushing " but what the hell lets not let that fact ruin a good witch hunt.

"What was my offence ref ?"

"Reckless pushing with Ze head "

Rooster anticipation with regard to the actions of two people is a mutual obligation unless the law states otherwise nowhere, as yet, in the laws of in open play , and the player is on side ,has another player a prior right to play the ball

so if Payne was meant to anticipate the full backs jump then the full back had an equal responiblity to expect Payne to try and catch the ball and avoid the contact , and by jumping it might be concluded he did anticipate Payne going for the ball and getting there before him and therefore he was the player who caused the contact .

But its all water under the bridge but there are those who repeating the myth that Payne didn't apologise exactly what and how does he apologise for a mistake made by a referee ?

My point with Nigel was that if he considered by using a card he could reduce the likely hood of further violence then he can justify his decision. The fact that further violence did not occur shows his decision was right.

[Snipe Watson]

Snipe

The answer have I proof experience of interviews and hearings of a similar nature lead to that conclusion because the only time an Accused would fail to question his Accuser is when the Accused is already aware of the sentence .

Which in Payne's case was two weeks holiday with pay .

Secondly Snipe there is the fact that during the hearing the evidence is manipulated to support the conclusion .

Two cars collide -- going in opposite directions - which car is pushing

According to the hearing the driver without the seat belt and on the wrong side of the road is innocent if you can accept the comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is all a load of hogwash Rum'n. You have no evidence you just make stuff up and post it.
Why did you raise the issue of Payne's red card again anyway?

[Dave]

Then again Rory my son neither has is the term "reckless pushing " but what the hell lets not let that fact ruin a good witch hunt.

"What was my offence ref ?"

"Reckless pushing with Ze head "

Rooster anticipation with regard to the actions of two people is a mutual obligation unless the law states otherwise nowhere, as yet, in the laws of in open play , and the player is on side ,has another player a prior right to play the ball

so if Payne was meant to anticipate the full backs jump then the full back had an equal responiblity to expect Payne to try and catch the ball and avoid the contact , and by jumping it might be concluded he did anticipate Payne going for the ball and getting there before him and therefore he was the player who caused the contact .

But its all water under the bridge but there are those who repeating the myth that Payne didn't apologise exactly what and how does he apologise for a mistake made by a referee ?

My point with Nigel was that if he considered by using a card he could reduce the likely hood of further violence then he can justify his decision. The fact that further violence did not occur shows his decision was right.

Rum you can't include every type of body movement into the laws. A push can mean a variety of different movements anyway. Essentially a push can be described as the following 'exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself.'

[rumncoke]

Why allow the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt

nothing I have written has been made up .

let me quote from the report of the hearing

The Judicial officier concluded on that basis that the proper classification for this type of incident is 10 (40 ( I)

The judicial officier was also satisfied that the application of force by way of forward motion by one player to anothewr could be constitute a push for the purposes of 10 (4)(i)

Note he defines it as forward motion the fact is that Payne did not apply forward motion at the time of contact Payne fell backwards . ( a fact which nobody at the hearing identified nor was the statement challenged in any way but when two bodies meet going in opposite directions is there anyone able to define which body is pushing .)

The report then continues the crux of the question in this case was whether the actions of the player were accidental, in which case NO OFFENCE would be made out or whether they were reckless in which case 10 (4) (1 ) had been contravened .

The Judical Officer was was satisfied that the player had looked up field ... and he was aware that Goode was in a position to challenge for the ball or he reasonablly ought to have been aware of that .


" The Judicial Officer determined that the following factors were relevant to entry point

( A) The offending had not been intentional or deliberate

If the offending had not been intentional or deliberate the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was accidental if to quote the judicial officer " the crux in this case was whether the actions of the player were accidental in which NO OFFENCE would be made out .

[Dave]

nothing I have written has been made up .


Note he defines it as forward motion the fact is that Payne did not apply forward motion at the time of contact Payne fell backwards . ( a fact which nobody at the hearing identified nor was the statement challenged in any way but when two bodies meet going in opposite directions is there anyone able to define which body is pushing .)

Now you are attempting to rewrite the laws of physics Rum. How could he not apply forward motion after running flat out into him. How can you deny this? It is irrelevant whatever force Goode applies to Payne, as Goode is the one in the air committing no offence. Taking the man out in the air is the offence.

[Cornerfleg]

I'm sensing some yoghurt has been curried!

[Dave]

I'm sensing some yoghurt has been curried!

It's the yoghurt's fault for allowing the curry to take itself out in the air. Sorry, feck that, I blame gravity.

[Russ]

Payne didn't try and catch the chuffing ball

[rumncoke]

Russ

You have no proof to support that statement that may be your opinion but the judicial officer did accept he was trying to catch the ball .

As I have said you can 't beat a good witch hunt bring out the ducking stool the fact is it was an accidental collision between two players an not an offence . Many players have collide with players in the air . The only mistake Payne made was to have two feet on the ground .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snipe Watson]

Why allow the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt

nothing I have written has been made up .

let me quote from the report of the hearing

The Judicial officier concluded on that basis that the proper classification for this type of incident is 10 (40 ( I)

The judicial officier was also satisfied that the application of force by way of forward motion by one player to anothewr could be constitute a push for the purposes of 10 (4)(i)

Note he defines it as forward motion the fact is that Payne did not apply forward motion at the time of contact Payne fell backwards . ( a fact which nobody at the hearing identified nor was the statement challenged in any way but when two bodies meet going in opposite directions is there anyone able to define which body is pushing .)

The report then continues the crux of the question in this case was whether the actions of the player were accidental, in which case NO OFFENCE would be made out or whether they were reckless in which case 10 (4) (1 ) had been contravened .

The Judical Officer was was satisfied that the player had looked up field ... and he was aware that Goode was in a position to challenge for the ball or he reasonablly ought to have been aware of that .


" The Judicial Officer determined that the following factors were relevant to entry point

( A) The offending had not been intentional or deliberate

If the offending had not been intentional or deliberate the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was accidental if to quote the judicial officer " the crux in this case was whether the actions of the player were accidental in which NO OFFENCE would be made out .

Why are you arguing this case again now?
Payne fell backwards befause he ran slap bang into Goode, he did not reverse into him. You are a complete fantasist.

[rumncoke]

The judicial officer did ask him why he didn't jump

The smart Brennan answer to that question of course would be " I never realised it was compulsory "


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snipe Watson]

I'll make it very simple for you.
A player on the ground ran into a player in the air (the player in the air is protected by the laws, not the one on the ground). The player in the air came down on his head and shoulder area. The full time IRB international referee, one of the best in the world, ruled after looking at it numerous times that it was a red card offence and the disciplinary panel agreed with him.
The contrary view comes from a poster on a rugby message board, who has little or no knowledge of the laws of the game and probably never refereed a game in his life. He says there was no offence because Payne fell backwards. Further more the poster cites some short excerpts from the hearing report and then adds his own spin to them as evidence.

ps believe what you want.