Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Saturday Dec 12, 2015

Comparing the Jared Payne and Michael Rhodes cards for similar incidents

Comparing the Jared Payne and Michael Rhodes cards for similar incidents
39
Comments

Two very similar incidents occurred during the Europeans Champions Cup over the last two seasons between Saracens and Ulster, but both had different outcomes. After a number of requests to look at both, here’s a quick comparison.

Ulster’s Jared Payne received a red card for a nasty collision with Alex Goode when the Sarries fullback was collecting a high ball in last season’s encounter.

Both Payne and captain Johann Muller argued that the New Zealand-born back’s eyes were on the ball the whole time, but referee Jerome Garces was unmoved.

Payne received a further two week ban, and was just the latest in a long line of decisions by World Rugby when they were cracking down on challenging in the air, including this by Stuart Hogg on Dan Biggar.

During Ulster’s 27-9 loss to Saracens in November, Andrew Trimble was the recipient of a tackle in the air by Michael Rhodes. While it doesn’t look as bad as the Payne/Goode incident, Trimble’s back still smashes into the ground and commentator Austin Healey immediately calls for a red card.

What makes it look worse is the fact that Trimble keeps his leg airborne and his momentum coming down means that he collides quickly with Rhodes.

Referee Romain Poite and the TMO both agree that the tackle was worthy of a yellow card and for once, the slow-motion replay works in favour of the tackler as the challenge doesn’t look too bad.

Do you agree with the outcomes of both tackles?

You can view both incidents below, Payne first then the more recent Rhodes challenge

39 Comments

  • sangdue
    7:46 PM 29/12/2015

    The second tackle is far worse, intentionally tackling the player in the air. The first one is a collision. My view yellow or the first one, red for the second one.

    Reply
  • drg
    3:08 AM 20/12/2015

    It really isn't... Rugby is not a black and white game, yet the world tries to pose black and white laws on the game.... Therefore, follow suit, ban jumping and you suddenly have less arguments..

    Reply
  • facepalm
    9:21 PM 18/12/2015

    Banning jumping is one of the most ridiculous things anyone's ever posted on a rugby forum of any kind ever.

    Reply
  • boybath
    9:17 AM 17/12/2015

    Just ban jumping to take the ball - its rugby not aussie rules and with one stroke of the law book the game becomes better and safer.

    Reply
  • drg
    6:45 PM 16/12/2015

    Yeh, if you're not interested, don't read my posts..

    Reply
  • 10stonenumber10
    11:54 AM 16/12/2015

    First thing we should point out is the lack of technique from the leaping players. The First Rule of the high ball... you always lead with your knee. The Second Rule of the high ball... you ALWAYS lead with your knee. Not only does the action help with upwards momentum and a greater jump, it also protects you from taking a shoulder to the family jewels a la Andrew Trimble. The upper body position it creates is also beneficial to cradling and protecting the ball if you do take a hit, meaning you keep hold of it when you land, and don't expose your ribs either. 2 clumsy incidents, 2 clumsy defenders, and 2 attackers not preparing themselves adequately to field the high ball. If you can take the ball in your stride and stay on the floor like Gav Henson did for Ospreys all those years ago (fielded an up and under and ran 50m untouched straight through the defence), TAKE IT IN YOUR STRIDE. It seems players are throwing themselves up into the air for every single ball hoping to make defenders stop and check. Sure, it looks athletic, but with the strength of modern players these guys are catching the ball 9 or 10ft in the air... even Michael Jordan was put on his arse going for a slam dunk from the penalty line.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    9:19 AM 16/12/2015

    There's a conclusion?!?

    Reply
  • drg
    8:46 PM 15/12/2015

    Sorry guys, I've done as much commenting as all of you out together, but last one for now... My problem is that looking at the second one, we see a player taking Trimble out in the air... It was a tackle or an attempt to disrupt. The reason I cannot draw a big comparison between the two incidents is that Payne did not tackle or attempt to disrupt Goode, you may all view Payne as in the wrong, but forget intent, *we are punishing Payne for not being aware of his surroundings when legally playing rugby*... That sticks in my craw...

    Reply
  • drg
    8:41 PM 15/12/2015

    Perhaps there are too many opinions being mixed into one pot. I suppose I was referring to the fact that players should have a regard for their own safety as well as others. My argument would be that Goode perhaps recklessly jumped into the air when Payne was clearly running for the ball... Then I spun off on a 'if/but' and brought up the Scotland player who got carded after being ko'd and connected that incident up with the latest Tuilagi ban for 'kneeing' a player.. Then proceeded to connect all dots and say that potentially players jumping for the ball who knee other players could be punished for what they do...(stay with me here), which could then start to suggest that they have control or as much duty of care as the player on the ground.... Therefore, Goode should have been as aware of Payne and therefore is partially to blame.... Or something like that anyway hahaha... I suppose I don't like seeing complete accidents such as this being viewed as offences when I don't think it could even be chalked down as reckless... Anyway Eddie, apologies for the confusing string of events leading to the conclusion...

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    8:15 PM 15/12/2015

    Not sure there are many ifs and buts here... Jared Payne was red-carded for running into space where he should have known a defender was likely to be contesting for the ball in the air, and failing to see a defender doing just that. That's it. There's a general principle (what a "reasonable" person should have known) at work that could, I agree, be over-broadly applied in a high-intensity collision-sport like rugby. But I don't think it is. I mean, apart from the high-ball situation, is there any other example of where players are held similarly responsible?

    Reply
  • dancarter
    7:17 PM 15/12/2015

    I'm more curious about the fact that you have an account named Alex Goode, which you then use to discredit Alex Goode. Can there only be one or something?

    Reply
  • flanker2712
    6:48 PM 15/12/2015

    Agree entirely with first two paragraphs. He was knocked out when his head hit the ground (involuntary arms in the air), so not sure how quickly he could be expected to bounce back up on his feet anyway. I'm an Ulster fan.

    Reply
  • drg
    6:26 PM 15/12/2015

    Not* Dammit...

    Reply
  • drg
    6:15 PM 15/12/2015

    Also is it no filibustering as opposed to filbustering? Or am I making a case for being a pedantic filbusterer...

    Reply
  • drg
    6:12 PM 15/12/2015

    Point is dear fellow that whilst you and I can both agree that the Tuilagi carding was an atrocious officiating decision, it: A) still happened B) was backed up, as shown by the ban he received.. So we may both think it was an outrage, but it shows that in our differences, we're still vastly out of touch with the 'world rugby' bunch who control rugby... It also goes to show that knees = ban, whether you jump for a ball or run at someone.. Which shows that a duty of care is not only for the man running for the ball, but also the player jumping for it..... That is if any consistency is to be had...

    Reply
  • drg
    6:08 PM 15/12/2015

    Not at all, I dislike ifs and buts because there is no way to know the true outcomes and where do the ifs and buts end? If Goodes mama ran onto the pitch and started hitting Payne, would Paynes mum do the same, then who'd get carded? Especially IF Goode had landed on a stray stud with his temple and had died... ^^^ why I dislike ifs and buts. Point still stands however!

    Reply
  • stroudos
    4:24 PM 15/12/2015

    Scotland thing rings a bell. Can't remember any details of it though. The Tuilagi knee thing was just an insane decision. In the Rhodes incident above, Jacques Burger very nearly got a mouthful of studs. I'm amazed serious facial injuries don't happen more at this level, because it's not unusual for leaping players to flail their legs about at head-height in the way that Trimble did here. And, but the way, it's clear from this incident that sticking your boot out while you're in the air doesn't actually deter tacklers anyway.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    4:14 PM 15/12/2015

    Apart from the "simples" bit, I could get on board with this, mostly because I'm shit at jumping so this could allow me to be a bit more competitive at high-ball time.

    Reply
  • drg
    1:34 PM 15/12/2015

    I agree with your observation there. Is it just an observation or are you making a point also? Or do you believe there is a point to be made? Tuilagi got banned for 5 weeks for kneeing an opponent... Is jumping in the air and hitting an opponent with knees a cardable offence? I mentioned all this above ^^^ I looked for the video, but can't remember enough details, but a Scottish player ran for the ball, got a hip (or knee) to the head, he went down cold and was stretchered off and yellow carded at the same time I believe. Should the jumper have been red carded as well for the knee(?)

    Reply
  • drg
    1:25 PM 15/12/2015

    I think "duty of care" is a fair comment though Stroudos.. I am not in the same boat as you regarding the incident, however I understand what you're saying and I think without allowing that terminology to be our sole focus, players have a duty of care to each other, as well as a care to themselves..

    Reply
  • drg
    1:22 PM 15/12/2015

    ...apportioning blame. Either Paynes incident was a freakish accident of which we are now at the understanding that players can be punished for freak accidents.. Or we apportion blame which really means we have to start delving into the nitty gritty's and starting punishing 'Player As'... Sorry for the long comment, but another way of looking at it is that 'Player B' has undertaken a calculated risk by diving at the feet of a kicking player.. he knows he could get a ball in the face, he knows he could get a boot in the face... so he has made it his duty to take that risk.. As has Goode by jumping into the air. Blame everyone or blame no one..

    Reply
  • drg
    1:16 PM 15/12/2015

    We're going to delve deep into the if's and but's here which I'd rather not do, but to make my point: Had Goode not turned his back and jumped in a forward fashion, he could have caught Jared in the face with a knee etc... now who has the duty of care? We saw it a while ago a Scot got ko'd doing the same thing, I think he was yellowed as he left on a stretcher... but surely running around jumping with knees at head level is extremely dangerous.. Tuilagi got carded for kneeing a player recently... The point of my comments is more to play devils advocate, we all want to be highly critical and scrutinise everything, therefore we require tighter and tighter laws... if those laws get tighter then more and more loop holes or eventualities must be explored. You say Jared ran round like a speed boat with no driver and that was dangerous..."You can't hold a player responsible for his own safety when he's playing within the laws"... surely there is a small conflict just there? You're allowed to run, you're allowed to catch, you're allowed to run and catch... but if a player jumps into your running space, that is now your fault... Player A sees player B running, player B trips and as he falls player A decides to kicking him in the melon....Kicking someone in the head is against the laws of the game, is it not? Ok, now? Player A has the ball and is getting ready for a drop goal, Player B dives at the feet of Player A to charge the ball down, Player A kicks Player B in the melon as part of his follow through... It's an accident... or is it? Player A who was playing within the confines of the law must surely have known that by taking the chance for a drop goal, someone might have tried to charge it down.. therefore surely he has a duty of care to that person who may get a kick? People are drawing an awful lot of black and white conclusions to a lot of decisions that are apparently very simple, but the reality is they are far more complex if you want to start...

    Reply
  • reality
    1:09 PM 15/12/2015

    It seems like the only feasible option!

    Reply
  • squeak37
    1:08 PM 15/12/2015

    He did come back out, but he was by no means faking the injury. Before I start I'll point out I'm a Leinster fan, so I'm leaning Ulster if anything in this situation. He landed hard, all precautions had to be taken. Player choice is out the window if the medical staff think the neck could be affected, then rules MUST be followed, he MUST be put in a neck brace and taken off for a scan. The scan takes longer than 10 mins so he can't come back on after. He came out later and was happy they were winning, said hi to his mates, can't hold that against him. I don't for a second believe Saracens deserved their win, but I don't think there was malice on Goode's part. To me both were yellow/red, but both deserved the same punishment regardless. Both took a guy out in the air, If anything the Saracens take out looked like it had intention behind it (he was going slowly enough that he could have pulled out, but he did get unlucky with the leg getting caught up at the shoulder).

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:52 AM 15/12/2015

    I'd like to add one further observation if I may. There's long been a tendency for players catching a high ball to lead with their boots or knee, presumably as a defence against being tackled in the air and to deter tacklers from hitting them immediately on landing, basically trying to give themselves a bit of time and space. Self preservation to some extent. Now my point is if Trimble had caught the ball and landed after his jump in what I would call a normal action, I reckon he may have had at least one if not both feet in the ground when the tackle came in. Instead of that we have Trimble basically trying to Jackie Chan Burger in the noggin and that action, in my opinion, is what left him in the air for longer and put him in that awkward position when tackled, with one foot over his shoulder.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:37 AM 15/12/2015

    "Taken through the horizontal" is not mentioned in any rugby law though. (To be fair, neither is this "duty of care" thing that I've made up). By the way, sanction for both "tackling in the air" (Rhodes) and "dangerous charging" (Payne) is a penalty kick. The cards come out for the level of danger introduced in each case. On this basis I would say Rhodes's fractionally mistimed tackle is less dangerous than Payne's charge. The problem is of course that at this point we are getting quite subjective, so probably best to simply agree that I'm right. ;)

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:30 AM 15/12/2015

    Did he?? I didn't know that or see it at the time. Scumbaggery of the highest order if that's true.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    8:28 AM 15/12/2015

    I take your point but for the difference is fractional miscalculation versus total disregard for other players.

    Reply
  • elvis15
    10:15 PM 14/12/2015

    Tough one's for each. One is unintentional but should have had more care for the space and time he had to be aware if he'd make contact, while the other is meant to be a hit and ends up really poorly timed despite being in control. I'd lean to the second being the worse of the two, but the cards indicate otherwise.

    Reply
  • reality
    9:38 PM 14/12/2015

    To the people that claim Rhodes tackle isn't bad and is just a fraction early, I'd like to remind you that Trimble actually lands on his shoulder/neck area before anywhere else, therefore he's 'taken through the horizontal'. As well as that, it doesn't matter if Rhodes was 'only' half a second early, because Trimble was only in the air for 1 or 2 seconds, so half a second is a relatively large amount of time. By the letter of the law it so should have been a red card. You could even make the argument that the laws aren't sufficient for what Payne did, because the laws talk about tackling people in the air, not recklessly and accidentally clashing with them. Either Ulster were screwed over and Saracens treated fairly, or Ulster were treated fairly and Saracens got off lightly. Either way, the difference in treatment is as clear as day.

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    7:51 PM 14/12/2015

    I think the only "duty of care" imposed in the game's rulebook is when a tackler lifts an opponent. Then you have a duty to bring the tackled player back to earth safely. The ball in the air situation is more one of "use common sense" - when an up-and-under is kicked, we are all expected to know that a defender is likely to be contesting for the ball in the air. So if you run around like a speedboat without a driver and collide with a bloke while in the air trying to catch the ball, you're at fault. And you can be carded for this - a red if the ref thinks it's serious enough. To me, the Payne incident wasn't smart at all, a borderline yellow/red call, and the red was a fair enough decision. Ps. You've also got the onus of who's responsible for his own safety backwards. You can't hold a player responsible for his own safety when he's playing within the laws and the risk he's running is that he's a victim of foul play. That would be an absurd standard to apply.

    Reply
  • drg
    7:26 PM 14/12/2015

    To the above few, Stroudos et al, you guys mention "duty of care"... Are we not at a cliff edge of 'elf n safety'? I mean, you lift a man hole cover to work and a person not paying attention falls, it's your fault.. Forgetting that the same victim if walking through a field would look where they put their feet... Does Goode not owe himself a duty of care to not recklessly throw himself into the air? I mean Payne was going full tilt putting himself in potential harm (let's say Goode was a Pacific islander 2 metres back lining Payne up to be SMASHED), Payne selflessly disregarded himself to take the ball on the tilt, but he gets punished because Goode had zero regard for his own safety... I think the whole topic is getting us somewhere close to "no jumping for the ball"... Or some BS like that. You can't expect someone to have duty of care to a guy that has no regard for his own safety.

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    6:05 PM 14/12/2015

    My first question would be if World Rugby has come out with new directives on these types of tackle incidents. While I thought the Payne red-card was harsh, I was also pretty convinced that under the letter of the law, it was the correct decision. Recklessly running into a bloke challenging in the air for the ball is a red-card offence. By the same token, I suppose Rhodes could have been red-carded here. But clearly what's different is that Rhodes wasn't reckless here - it was a very deliberate tackle, just fractionally mistimed. He also did not take Trimble through the horizontal; whether that was deliberate or not, I'm not sure, but it usually means the tackle looks less serious. But unless World Rugby has changed their rules or directives, he is still a bit lucky. Trimble was in the air, and fair or not those can be red-cards.

    Reply
  • dancarter
    3:29 PM 14/12/2015

    Totally agree. I don't think Payne had any malicious intent, but he was careless and still took Goode out in the air. The outcome is still the same regardless of whether or not it was done on purpose, and it would be chaos if we tried to make decisions based on what a player meant rather than what actually happened.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    9:12 AM 14/12/2015

    I seem to remember arguing at the time of the Payne one that the "eyes on the ball" defence is total bollocks and I maintain that view now; you have a duty of care to be aware of other players in the vicinity and cannot assume that you're the only person who's going to be contesting that catch. The new one I think was nowhere near as bad. Not even in the same category. Just unfortunate timing; quarter of a second later and it's a wonderful tackle. The ball hung in the air a deceptively long time, and that was clearly the cause of the mistimed tackle. So, undeniably it's an early hit so a penalty had to be given and I wouldn't argue against the yellow, but these calls for a red are wildly inaccurate. In my view, the officials got both decisions about right. (Payne's ban seemed a bit unnecessary to me, especially as he missed 75 minutes of that game already!).

    Reply
  • dancarter
    6:53 PM 13/12/2015

    I think Payne's was definitely a red card. I have watched Rhodes' multiple times and still can't decide if it's a yellow or a red. I can see why Poite gave a yellow but I think it would be hard to argue with a red card too. I think Payne's was the worst of the 2 by some distance though. Rhodes was marginally early with a tackle as Trimble was on his way down, whereas Payne ran in like a headless chicken and took Goode out as he was at the highest point of his jump.

    Reply
  • drg
    5:40 PM 13/12/2015

    Yeh, but both incidents were saracens indiscretions, and both times they were inadequately punished!

    Reply
  • reality
    1:33 PM 13/12/2015

    They're so comparable though. Same teams, same venue, box kick, guy takes out jumping player in the air, only 4 minutes gone, French referee stops and decided the punishment. The only difference is that one was accidental and resulted in a nasty fall, one was on purpose and thankfully resulted in a less nasty fall. Well, the other difference is that Ulster a lost a possible Heineken Cup, and Saracens lost nothing.

    Reply
  • drg
    11:37 AM 13/12/2015

    First video was a horrendous example of assing someone in the face, I'm still perplexed as to why the victim of such an assing was red carded, it makes no sense to me, he was on the attacking front, eyes on the ball, reaching for it, when Goode recklessly threw an ass in there. Second incident was easily red cardable, but clearly was not done on purpose, I think yellow is maybe fair(?). Don't think the incidents are really comparable though..

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
Comparing the Jared Payne and Michael Rhodes cards for similar incidents | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos