The curious case of Wycliff Palu’s yellow card
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 18 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Grand Slam rugby, Ireland Rugby, Jonathan Kaplan, Rob Kearney, Rocky Elsom, Rugby Union, wallabies, Wycliff Palu
219 Have your say
5,574 readsRelated coverage
Australia's Ben Alexander, front, grapples with Wycliff Palu during a team training session in London, Tuesday Nov. 3, 2009. Australia will face England for an international rugby union test match at Twickenham Saturday Nov. 7, 2009. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
Late in the first half of the absorbing drawn Test between Ireland and Australia, Wycliff Palu, the monster Wallaby number 8, was given a yellow card by the South African referee Jonathan Kaplan for allegedly making a shoulder charge on Rob Kearney, Ireland’s fullback.
I use the word ‘allegedly’ because it was Kearney who made the shoulder charge on Palu while he was carrying the ball upfield.
Later in the Test, Kearney repeated the infringement with a shoulder charge on Rocky Elsom as the Wallaby captain dived across the line to score a try.
Kaplan is regarded as one the top referees in international rugby.
He showed no rugby nous or understanding, though, with both decisions he made: first, when he gave a yellow card to Palu and, second, when he did not give a yellow card to Kearney.
In the Palu incident, Kearney fielded the ball outside his 22. He decided to run the ball back rather than put in a towering kick.
Palu closed in on him.
Kearney raced towards Palu, turned his shoulder and smashed into Palu shoulder first (a shoulder charge in other words). Kearney was bumped to the ground and rolled forward, uninjured, with the ball firmly in his grasp.
Palu met the shoulder charge with his body square to the tackler.
He did NOT turn side on in preparation for a shoulder charge. Kearney’s sudden explosion of speed caught him slightly unprepared. Kearney smashed into Palu’s upper body at about the same time as the tackler was trying to get his arms around the runner.
Kaplan was behind Palu when the incident happened.
He saw Kearney bounce off Palu and presumed – incorrectly as it happened – that it was Palu who had made the shoulder charge.
With the Elsom incident, it was obvious that Kearney had used his shoulder to charge the Wallaby into touch. This should have been identified by the assistant referee, who was on the spot and the referee, who had a good view of the incident.
Kearney should have been given a yellow card, which probably would have ended Ireland’s fight-back. And the Wallabies should have been awarded a penalty kick on the halfway mark after the conversion.
Given the Daniel Carter precedent, too, Kearney should have been put out for a week by an IRB judicial review committee to make up for the failure of the match referees to get the decision on the infringement right.
I have argued for some time now that too many yellow cards are wrongly handed out.
There should be a video replay before a card is handed out. The impact on the game of a yellow card warrants this type of accuracy.
As it happened, Ireland did not score with Palu off the field. But the Wallabies were well on top at the time, and with Palu breaking through the middle, they may well put more points on the board.
The irony about the curious case of Wycliff Palu’s yellow card is that there were a number of slow-motion replays of Kearney’s shoulder charge on Elsom while the video referee was working out if a try was scored or not.
Spiro Zavos, a founding writer on The Roar, was long time editorial writer on the Sydney Morning Herald, where he started a rugby column that has run for nearly 30 years. Spiro has written 12 books: fiction, biography, politics and histories of Australian, New Zealand, British and South African rugby. He is regarded as one of the foremost writers on rugby throughout the world.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
November 18th 2009 @ 3:52am
Matt0931 said | November 18th 2009 @ 3:52am | Report comment
Spiro, although I agree with you in regards to the Palu tackle not being a charge I find it hard to swallow that Kearney shoulder charged Palu. Kearney clearly steps off his left foot and launches to his right and in doing so makes contact at an angle into Palu’s arm but there’s no way I can agree to call that a shoulder charge.
Below is the you tube link to the Palu tackle and the Kearney shoulder charge on Elsom which went unpenalised.
And below is the link to some stills of the Palu tackle. His arm may have been a touch high but as it clearly wasn’t intentional the worst the ref should have done was give Palu a warning on his tackling and then moved on with the game.
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=98149
November 18th 2009 @ 8:54am
Darwin hammer said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Having watched the link above – and seeing it for the first time – I think Kaplin got it right ….and no way did Kearney shoulder charge Palu (how anyone can come up with that is beyond me) … there were no arms in the Palu “tackle” – nothing new there he’s got form with that …. so the decision is is correct …
November 18th 2009 @ 2:05pm
Uncle Eric said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Sorry Darwin Hammer but I think you should get your eyes checked. The only reason Palu didn’t get his arms around Kearney was that the poor fellow bounced so quickly that Cliffy couldn’t catch him. Want to see a shoulder charge? Get yourself a bigger TV screen and watch Kearney’s hit on Elsom as he scored the try. Kaplan is, in my view, a poor referee (but he’s no orphan there) and he salvaged the game for the Irish when he failed to penalise their scrum going down on the last play of the game.
November 18th 2009 @ 3:55am
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 3:55am | Report comment
Spiro – re, the Kearney shoulder, it would seem to me that as it occurred before the try was scored a penalty on halfway following the conversion wouldn’t be the correct call. That call is when an infringement occurs after the ball has been made dead – eg when the try has been scored.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:05am
mitzter said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Corredct jerry, there are no 8 point tries in union and the restart with the penalty kick is only for infringements after the try has been scored.
Of course he could still give out a yellow card but there would be no penalty because advantage had been played ie the try
November 18th 2009 @ 1:19pm
Wally James said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Agree completely. The offence (if there was one) occured while the ball was in play. Therefore the penalty is at the place of infringment. If the ball was out of play the place of penalty is where play would next have restarted.
Having said that my view is it was a clear shoulder charge. He did not attempt to use his arms in the tackle.
Elsom was knocked sideways and did not score as close to the posts as he might have. If but for the foul play of a defender a try might have been scored in a more advantageous postion, a penalty try should be awarded. A penalty try is not just awarded when a try has not been scored because of the foul play. A bit harsh in this instance probably but law nevertheless. It would have taken a brave ref in front of the Croke Park faithful to do that.
November 18th 2009 @ 4:33am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:33am | Report comment
Isn’t that funny, Spiro, I saw and remembered it completely differently.
Even more curious, there were also a number of slo-motion replays of the illegal tackle by Palu, which I watched in the ground and afterwards.
Here’s one clip –
In my view, Palu led with his left shoulder into the oncoming Kearney attempting to smash the ball from his grasp. Kearney was clearly going by him on Palu’s left. The pictures show Kearney running forward, feinting and stepping at the waiting tacklers of Giteau, Pocock and Palu. He feints and those goes to his right to get around Palu. It is NOT true to say that he turned his shoulder into Palu to shoulder charge him.
Palu leads with his left shoulder high into Kearney, which Kearney meets square on and is rocked backwards by the impact and lands on his side holding onto the ball. He does not ‘roll forward’ either.
Palu doesn’t have time to get his arms around Kearney probably because of the force of the impact of his leading shoulder.
Whether it would have affected the outcome of the game is conjecture. If Palu stayed, O’Gara may have chosen to take the penalty kicks later on offer, etc, etc.
In the other incident, Kearney ran into Elsom, nothing more. It occurred before the try, not after it.
November 18th 2009 @ 4:59am
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:59am | Report comment
I didn’t think it was high, it hit Kearney on the chest and ball. It wasn’t even a penalty, IMO. I don’t think Kearney tried to bump off Palu, but you’d think he might try and be a bit more elusive when faced with a tackler who’s about 20kg heavier than him.
As regards the Kearney/Elsom tackle, I think it probably should have been a yellow also given the one already awarded against Palu. Kearney had his arms tucked tight against his body which is the classic shoulder block technique. It was probably an instinct reaction as Elsom does take a step infield (in order to make sure he stays in play after contact) which meant Kearney probably got to him a split second before he’d anticipated. However, it was a pretty clear shoulder block – what would the call have been if Elsom had landed in touch?
You can’t help but get the feeling that the refs are considering the outcomes, rather than the actions, in these incidents. Kearney gets knocked back by a big guy, so Ireland gets the penalty and a card is issued. Elsom gets hit by a smaller guy and still gets the try, so no further action is taken.
November 18th 2009 @ 5:32am
Matt0931 said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
‘I saw and remembered it completely differently.’
Of course you saw it differently pothale. You are Irish and wanted him to be penalised. You were also caught up in the atmosphere at the ground which also helps with making up your mind.
By showing the replay again and again, just like the Carter tackle in Wales, is going to do nothing but wind up the locals.
Funny how even the Irish commentators thought the tackle was ok….
November 18th 2009 @ 5:56am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Thank you for pointing out the bleedin obvious Matt.
I didn’t want Palu to be penalised – it seemed to me to be a fair but hard tackle, but the ref was behind Palu and had the perfect angle to see what was going on.
Did you see Kearney purposely shoulder-charge Palu as Spiro claims? I didn’t – and no-one else has claimed this either.
There were two replays of the tackle from different angles – standard treatment for particular moments in a game. Kaplan had already made his mind up before they were replayed.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:07am
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
I dont think Palu shoulder chagred anyone and am in no doubt the ref was wrong. I haven’t watched the clips again yet, but my first thoughts were that Palu made contact with the ball first causing Kearney to ‘bounce’ back and not allowing Palu’s arms to wrap around him. His arms were in the motion of wrapping as Kearney went backwards.
There is also no doubt Kearney should have been carded for his shoulder charge on Elsom. Regardless of where it happened it was illegal reckless and potentially dangerous.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:26am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
“replays of the illegal tackle by Palu”
then
“it seemed to me to be a fair but hard tackle”
Those statements seem a little contradictory, pothale. The Palu tackle (as I have written in Spiro’s match review) should be celebrated, not penalised. The only reason that it looked in any way borderline, as Spiro correctly points out, is because Kearney speeds up suddenly and into Palu and catches him in the motion of tackling a little early. You can see Palu’s arms raised and motioning towards wrapping around Kearney, but he doesn;t get there a) because the tackle happens earlier than Palu originally expected (probably) and b) because Kearney flies back about 10 THOUSAND metres before Palu has a chance to wrap his arms around the far flung and flapping Kearney.
Fair hit, incorrect and shocking decision. Enough said on the matter. As for the Kearney incident well, players will do almost anything to sweep a player about to score into touch. I don’t mind that incident, but I suppose in the name of consistency……..
November 18th 2009 @ 8:08am
BennO said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
“because Kearney flies back about 10 THOUSAND metres before Palu has a chance to wrap his arms”
Exactly. His arms are outstretched as he makes the hit and they wrap around briefly but because Kearney was flying so far back Palu couldn’t grab him. Yet another terrible decision by Kaplan.
The correct decision was penalty Australia for Kearney not releasing the ball.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:51pm
Dublin Dave said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
“The correct decision was penalty Australia for Kearney not releasing the ball”
Er, no. He wasn’t tackled.
You know what a tackle is, don’t you?
November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
He may not have been tackled, but he was on the ground and there was an Aussie (Stephen Moore) on his feet legally playing the ball. Though Kearney did actually release the ball, so it wouldn’t have been a penalty regardless.
November 18th 2009 @ 3:06pm
BennO said | November 18th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
turn it up Dave.
He took 3 seconds to release the ball from going to ground to releasing it to Moore. Palu went into contest the ball and he didn’t release. Palu was driven forward by the arriving Aussie forwards and still Kearney didn’t release. Finally Moore ripped it out of his grasp as Kaplan arrived 3 seconds after he hit the ground.
November 18th 2009 @ 4:28pm
Cattledog said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Pothale, what Spiro has indicated is off the mark, but you do youself no favours at all by saying that tackle was illegal. Kaplan himself would, with hindsight and replays, have changed his ruling, except for a vocal, obviously uneducated on all things rugby crowd. You are taught to tackle using your shoulder and arms. A front on tackle of that nature can in no way be considered an illegal tackle (note I say illegal tackle and not shoulder charge as this is another form of illegal tackle). There was no ‘intent’ whatsoever from Palu. Tackling using the shoulder in that way is the norm. Kearney happened to bounce off him before he could wrap his arms around him. Kearney quite frankly ran into him incorrectly with poor body position and paid the penalty.
Kearney should have then been sent to the bin without question on his tackle (blatant shoulder charge) attempting to prevent Elsom’s try. Be passionate about your NH sides, no problem with that whatsoever, but don’t let emotion cloud your ability to be objective with your comments.
November 18th 2009 @ 4:53am
Dublin Dave said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:53am | Report comment
Spiro, that’s a study in impertinence that betrays either a complete lack of knowledge of the laws of the game and an ignorance of how it has been played since time immemorial, or alternatively a compulsion to wind up supporters of any team outside of Australia. Congratulations! You’ve succeeded on the second count.
First off, “shoulder charging” is NOT the issue. There is no law against shoulder charging in the 2009 IRB Law Book. (available for perusal or download here http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/irb_law_book_2009_en.pdf)
On the contrary, it is expressly permitted in the very first item under the section Foul Play (law 10) To quote:
“Charging or Pushing
When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other EXCEPT SHOULDER TO SHOULDER”
(My emphasis).
And to suggest that a ball carrier leading with his shoulder is an offence is just plain ridiculous. Any tight forward who ever lived and who ever took the ball in his hands has dropped his shoulder to try and make up with bulk and momentum what he lacks in twinkle toed running skills. There is nothing at all wrong with that and the laws permit it.
What IS prohibited under the laws is DANGEROUS tackling, in as many words. To quote again:
“Law 10 e Dangerous Tackling.
A Player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously
Penalty: Penalty Kick”
There follows some examples of what constitutes dangerous tackling, such as:
“A Player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick”
or later
“Law 10 g Dangerous charging.
A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick”
There are various other clauses in this section covering such things as stiff arm tackles and playing a man whose feet are off the ground but it seems to me, not being a lawyer, that the key statement is the first one: a dangerous tackle is not allowed and it is up to the referee, guided by the explicit examples in the laws, to determine whether a tackle is dangerous or not.
Palu hit Kearney high and without using his arms. It is debatable whether he TRIED to use his arms or not, which is all that he is required to do under the laws. But he had hardly crouched at all and appeared to connect with Kearney under the chin. That IS an offence, as Law 10e makes clear, whether or not he intended to hit him that high. Kaplan was entirely within his rights to adjudge that as a dangerous tackle.
As to whether the later failed attempt by Kearney to tackle Elsom as he scored his try: that wasn’t a charge, it was a good old fashioned push and it was qualified by the presence of another defender (I think O’Leary) coming up to tackle Elsom from behind. I don’t think that could be interpreted as “dangerous charging” because he was clearly not trying to knock Elsom down but rather to shove him into touch.
These were two fifty fifty calls (to be generous) that went Ireland’s way. The referee wasn’t wrong in either of them.
Can we stop the whinging please?
November 18th 2009 @ 7:11am
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:11am | Report comment
“without trying to grasp that player” watch the replay and watch Palu try to graso the player. No card no penalty.
“failed attempt by Kearney to tackle Elsom as he scored his try: that wasn’t a charge, it was a good old fashioned push” – wrong it was a charge with his shoulder. did he try to grasp the player?? no he tried to knock him down without doing so. Penalty as you’ve pointed out.
The Palu decision did alter the game and needs to be correct. Its not whinging its a fact. The wallabies played with14 men for 10 minutes when they should not have been. They also missed out on a counter attcking opportunity that was coming from the Palu tackle.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:29am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
The laws were incorrectly applied in this circumstance, as is the point of the story. But thank you for googling the laws and giving us all a needless refresher course that reminds us of this.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:19pm
Dublin Dave said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
I didn’t “Google it” Fox. I referee at schools level and have a permanent copy of the law book on my system. I even read it from time to time. Clearly many people here haven’t, so I don’t think it’s all that “needless” to point out what the laws actually say.
Incidentally, if you listen to Kaplan as he brandishes the card, all he says is “dangerous tackle”, which is all he need do to brand it a foul. He doesn’t say whether it was because he considered it high or because Palu didn’t use his arms. The fact is, Kearney was hit on the chin and that is illegal, regardless of what Palu might have tried to do with his arms.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:09pm
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Er, no. He did say “No arms”.
Check this video at the 34/35 second mark. He also signalled ‘no arms’ rather than ‘high tackle’.
November 19th 2009 @ 7:00am
fox said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Yes Jerry you are correct, Kaplan made that stupid wrapping motion with his arms like he was limbering up for the next opportunity to blow his whistle and command centre stage.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:17am
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Dave – this is absolute bull. The primary charge you make is false and that is that Palu hit him above the line of the shoulders. I watched Pothale’s video replay that he linked to, about 10 times. Kearney lowers himself to set himself for the hit. Palu does likewise and hits him below the shoulders with his arms around his shoulders that Kearney then breaks away from.
You are correct about a shoulder charge being legitimate and I had no issue with the Kearney one against Elsom. The impact of this stupid decision has played itself out and as you say all is speculation. All of these ref decisions have a serious impact on a game and I wonder if the ref’s are taking their responsibility as seriously as others are doing. They also seem to work in a information vacuum nobody knows what their MO is or what bloody stupid hobby horse they have jumped on this year.
If it was more transparent and there was penalties for getting it wrong, when it affects the outcome of a game, then fair enough but these guys seem to wander on regardless picking up a solid salary for little risk to the $’s or the position. This is all wrong to my mind.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:44pm
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Dave sorry I got it wrong. You cannot charge a player carrying the ball without using your arms. Penalty 10.4(g) same as the ruling he gave on the Palu incident. I got mixed up with 10.1(a) charging or pushing shoulder to shoulder.
I should read the rule book before making comments, it is now 2 years since I blew the whistle and it is obviously disappearing fast!
November 18th 2009 @ 5:34pm
Cattledog said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
And therefore you should agree that Kearney’s charge on Elsom was illegal.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:23am
Tim said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
The penalty was given for a shoulder charge as indicated by Kaplan after the incident, not a high takle. That was not a shoulder charge.
I say Australia should wear black arm bands against Scotland to protest
November 18th 2009 @ 8:25am
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
One other piece of clarification if you shoulder charge a player as a substitute for a tackle that can also be misconstrued as a tackle with no arms. I have seen penalties awarded for fullbacks doing just what Kearney did on Elsom many times. It is not correct but it happens a lot and the ref can just call it a dangerous tackle regardless of how it happens.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm
AC said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
No, he was wrong on the yellow card. I’d suggest all the hoo-ha from the Dan Carter incident was at the forefront of Kaplan’s mind as he was preparing for his whistle show, that 80k Irish packed Croke Park to see to be sure!
November 18th 2009 @ 4:33pm
Cattledog said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Sorry Dave, not 50/50 calls at all, Kaplan got it wrong on both occasions. By the way, how are the sisters?
November 18th 2009 @ 5:53am
katzilla said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
It was a great hit. Palu was unlucky that Kearney went down like a rag doll. Had Kearney not been off balance and fallen so quickly then Palu would have wrapped him up (you see in the videos Palu’s hands touch the back of Kearney as he hits him)
Just as the Irish commentators noted an attempt was made to use the arms, at worst a penalty.
November 18th 2009 @ 5:59am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Kearney wasn’t off-balance – he was going forward and moving around Palu when he was hit. His arms came after his shoulder hit him.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:09am
katzilla said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
You watch the video with only one eye open and i watch it differently………all there is to it.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:16am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Of course.
And I’m right as well obviously.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:12am
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
nothing in the rules state the order in which the arms need to come into play. They just have to try and grasp which he was doing
November 18th 2009 @ 8:11am
Bill said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Exactly!!! In a “text book” tackle the first contact the defender will make will always be with the shoulder and not the arms!
November 18th 2009 @ 8:03am
Matt0931 said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Thats a pretty standard tackle then. When you tackle someone front on you often make body contact before you close your arms around them (if that makes sense).
November 18th 2009 @ 8:22am
BennO said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
It does mate, how else can you make a tackle? You’re not going to gently wrap your arms around them and then go in with the shoulder are you? It’s just not possible to tackle any other way. Palu’s arms are around the back of the blokes body at the moment of the hit.
If someone looks at that on video and thinks it’s a shoulder charge it just tells me they’ve never actually made a tackle themselves.
November 18th 2009 @ 5:56am
Davo said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:56am | Report comment
It was a great tackle plain and simple….and a legal one too. The fact Kearney dropped quicker than a Guiness on a Friday night and the fact that Palu is a giant Islander deceived Kaplan into making one of the many bewildering calls he came up with in this match.
For me the worst part is that this monster hit will likely further discourage fullbacks from running back the ball….something we dont see enough of in this age of hoisting high balls.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:06am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:06am | Report comment
It was an illegal tackle plain and simple. The fact Kearney dropped and held onto the ball despite being illegally tackled by a player showed his presence of mind despite the cheap shot.
Luckily enough – eagle-eyed Kaplan made a brilliant refereeing decision in spotting the infringement and sending the SH thug from the pitch.
It’s difficult enough for NH teams to beat SH opposition without having to put up with that kind of behaviour.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:13am
katzilla said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:13am | Report comment
Do you think if Keaney hadn’t of stayed on the ground like a wendyballer, Kaplan would have sent Palu off?
Surprised he didn’t grab his shin and start rolling around.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:21am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:21am | Report comment
What’s a wendyballer?
You mean when you’re hit by an overweight wrecking ball who couldn’t be arsed to use his arms, you would have stayed standing? Or you would have stayed on the ground and held onto the ball for long enough so that your team would get it?
Tough choices.
Shin-grabbing is preserved for soccer matches only. It’s in the rules.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:26am
katzilla said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
‘You mean when you’re hit by an overweight wrecking ball who couldn’t be arsed to use his arms’
Overweight? I think thats a bit harsh, sure his BMI says Obese no doubt but the Body Mass Index wasn’t designed for Polynesian body structure.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:34am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Kat, there is no point arguing this. He’ll defend his position until the end of time. If Palu had been Irish and made that hit they would be singing about it in the streets of Dublin and it would make all the highlight packages. He’d probably get a Guiness sponsorship. But no the picture of Kearney flying backwards is just too much for fragile Irish egos and so they will hold on with a white knuckle grip to the Kaplan ruling, as if his decision is divine. We are talking about Kaplan here for chrissakes……
November 18th 2009 @ 9:23am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Guinness must be the best cited brand in the world. Mention Ireland and within 5 minutes someone can’t resist throwing it in.
But you’re right there’s no point in arguing with an article that claims that Kearney shoulder-charged Palu and Australia should have been awarded a penalty.
And that Kearney shoulder charged Elsom and Australia should have been awarded a penalty after they scored their try.
It must be right.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:12am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I do like guiness. I like the Irish as well. I respect the way the Irish play rugby and I have the utmost affection for O’Driscoll and various past players such as Keith Wood etc. I do rather suspect though on this issue that your judgement is clouded, regardless of what Spiro has written above – and I do not agree that Kearney had any cause for a case either for or against him. He definitely did not warrant a penalty for shoulder charging while carrying the ball, that’s just hard running (and everyone lowers shoulders to tacklers when running), albeit met with a harder (and fair) tackle. But that is all from me on the issue. I won’t nit-pick, as it doesn’t change the result.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:00am
JER said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:00am | Report comment
I think that the simple fact is that the Wallabies did a marvelous job to obtain a draw with the referee that that was imposed upon them.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:15am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Is it just me or is the curious case of Wycliff Palu’s yellow card simply a smokescreen for the curious case of why Australia don’t seem to be improving under Robbie Deans?
November 18th 2009 @ 7:45am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
The two are unrelated. Except in your mind.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:49am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Of course. I’m sure Mr Zavos decided to ignore the case to write an article about how Australian rugby has only shown marginal improvement (and only in the forwards) since the tenure of Robbie Deans began because the yellow carding of Palu is so profundly interesting and significant to the game at large. Two matches in, 40 minutes of solid rugby, one win against England ‘C’ and kick and drive rugby against Ireland and Mr Palu is the subject of debate this week. How very coincidental. Go Wallabies!
November 18th 2009 @ 7:58am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
It amazes me that you keep coming back to this site, which commercially benefits someone you actually cearly despise. No matter, we are all aware of your spiteful interest in the Wallabies. The fact of the matter is that there has been plenty of improvement that is yet to translate into consistent success. I can hear the arguments coming at me already, so please do spare me the rhetoric. But I do thank you for putting the boot in. It’s nice to know you care.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:05am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
I’m going to ignore your childish and mildly offensive tone and attitude and suggest one thing: get a sense of humour asap. Perhaps you should root out all the people who play out their anti-English/anti-SA agenda on this site if fair play is the aim of your game. I doubt it, however, as we see with your laughable anti-Irish drivel. Nice to know you care, eh.
I have no spiteful interest in the Wallabies simply because I have no real interest in them beyond occasionally watching them play. Were I to have a spiteful interest then I would be knocking around on countless threads ‘putting the boot in’ – and not sharing the occasional spot of humour with some witty and likeable Australian Roarers – pointing out that there has not been ‘polenty’ of improvement and that the only improvement has been in the scrum. The lineout, ability to contest rucks, back play, tactical nous and team cohesion has remained remarkably static or regressed at a real rate of knots. Obviously you disagree, but then Al Capone’s guns don’t lie, and neither do countless crapulent performances in a row. Is that spiteful enough for you?
November 18th 2009 @ 10:02am
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Well ignored.
November 18th 2009 @ 11:58am
MarkR said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
KO – bear in mind the Oz supporters I talk to (all two of them in Melbourne) are more than happy with one win & ione draw so far given they only have Scotland & Wales left.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:16pm
AC said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
So you reckon Ireland’s rucking has gone backwards then, if Australia’s hasn’t gone forward? Ireland were completely out-played at the ruck.
The lineout has been a total embarrassment for a while. Our lifters must be weak as p1ss or is it just crap throwers… At least they were straight though!
November 18th 2009 @ 8:38pm
mick h said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
I thought it was “Al Capone’s guns don’t argue” a ripper of a song. If you get a chance to listen to it it should chill everyone out here a little.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:06am
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
I too am happy to ignore the Wallabies supposed non-improval over this bad decision which could one day affect the outcome of a game.
It was a legit, massive tackle, that should the Wallabies should have been rewarded for as Kearney was holding onto the ball on the deck. Instead, Palu was sent off.
That fact concerns me more than the wallabies drawing with the six nations champs. I can seen improvements in the team. These improvements aren’t translating into wins, YET. I would like to give the team the benefit of the doubt and suggest that in time they will translate to wins.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:13am
Matt0931 said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
KO, why is it that the wallabies are ‘not improving’ but are still way better than the England team?
Why are they still ranked 3rd in the IRB rankings if they are no good as your threads so commonly illustrate?
How can they manage such a high ranking but have one of the youngest average ages of the top 10 rugby nations?
Maybe it’s time for you to concentrate some of your energy on your countries poor excuse of a rugby team rather than constantly spewing irrelevant venom in the direction of a rugby team that is clearly in a building phase and working toward a distant goal.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:24am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
The Grand Slam is over and there’s an apparent air of spite and bitterness on this thread. Which is sad.
What does the Wallabies not improving have to do with the England rugby team? The current state of Australian rugby has nothing to do with the England rugby team. Essentially, what you are saying is this: “Yes, we’ve been pretty poor for nearly two years now, but hey England is even worse so have some of that.” What an unfortunate mentality. However, I have no doubts that had England’s missing army been fit that they would have beaten Australia. Come the 72nd minute Australia were two points ahead of an England team with a new front row, new back row, new haf-back pairing, new midfield pairing and new back three yet Australia had played roughly 10 tests together with England having played none. Does that worry me? No. Does it worry me that an Australian side with nearly 40 caps per man struggled to beat an England team with 24 injured players and only 20 caps per man? Not in the slightest. Perhaps you should concentrate on your own poor excuse of a rugby team rather than constantly spewing irrelevant venom in the direction of a rugby team that is clearly in a building phase and working towards a distant goal.
‘How can they manage such a high ranking but have one of the youngest average ages of the top 10 rugby nations?’
Two weeks ago at Twickenham England had 10 players aged 24 or younger in their matchday 22 and the Australians had 9. Regardless, what does age have anything to do with anything? Australia manages such a high ranking because it has a better record than the teams below it. You forget that this sudden influx of youth has only happened over the past few months. It’s hardly as if Deans has been a trendsetter and Australia has been playing a team of 18 year olds week in week out for ten years. In any case it seems abundantly clear that Ireland and France, and perhaps Wales, are better than Australia, which again leaves me to consider what you think age has to do with anything? It surely hasn’t claimed any success yet. Unless of course you consider that nice big wooden spoon a claim to fame?
‘Maybe it’s time for you to concentrate some of your energy on your countries poor excuse of a rugby team rather than constantly spewing irrelevant venom in the direction of a rugby team that is clearly in a building phase and working toward a distant goal.’
This is offensive drivel and it reflects very poorly on you. Perhaps you can find and highlight where I have spewed this irrelevant venom. I can only see a couple of petulant juveniles taking offence at nothing in particular. As it happens I have commented countless times on England so know your history and avoid being misinformed. An aimless rant is never going to be improved by lack of accuracy.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:25am
Parisien said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
In all fairness Knives Out, I don’t think Palu’s card or this thread is a smokescreen, its just another talking point, like after any match.
If you want to see criticism of Australia, its backline, lineout, strategies and even their coach, there’s plenty of it on the main thread dedicated to the game, and most of it from Wallaby supporters. Even Spiro whose journalism I suspect you don’t like raised some valid criticisms on this blog. There has also been some praise about the positives.
It may be too soon to raise the point of Deans straight after a disappointing draw that ended the Grand Slam hopes with all the subsequent mixed emotions as I think most Wallaby supporters are waiting for the november tour to finish first. Most Wallaby supporters are very disappointed so any comment that appears like gloating will be seized upon. We are all hoping to see improvement after a disappointing 3N. I don’t think it is an issue that anyone is avoiding and there have been lots of opinions expressed already especially during this last season. Incidentally, I think there has been some improvement and other areas that are still very worrying, but I await the next two games to be sure.
Perhaps after the tour games you could write an article yourself on the Wallabies and what you feel to be their strengths and weaknesses, where they’ve improved and where they haven’t, and raise those questions you have about Dean’s coaching.
Also and sincerely, what do you really think about England at the moment? Is it right for Johnson and his staff to be criticised so harshly in England when they still have a couple of games to complete? Are they improving or stagnating, or will you wait to see how the 6N goes before making any conclusions or even perhaps call for MJ’s head.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:28pm
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Mmm… very measured, Parisien. Unfortunately there’s been some ridiculous accusations brought about by one throwaway line (which contained no hint of gloating), which is peculiar given that I haven’t commented on any other Ireland v Australia threads.
In all honesty I’ve seen very little criticism of Deans/Australia recently. I saw a lot during the 3N and after, but none recently apart from ‘We’re turning into a great young team’, which if I’m being honest astounds me. I think a lot of people are avoiding the topic, so we shall just have to agree to disagree. Not that I’m starting a ‘Deans is Crap’ campaign, I merely say this in response to previous comments aimed at me.
Now call me cynical if you will, but given that rugby is a minority sport in Australia and Mr Zavos is allegedly one of Australia’s most notorious rugby union commentators it surprises me that he basically avoids any real discussion of one of the most important games in the history of Deans’ tenure to focus on what is essentially an irrelevance. Further, Mr Zavos does have a long history of aiming barbs at other nations and other players (SA, England.. NZ). Perhaps this is base tabloid intent or perhaps Mr Zavos really feels the discussion of Palu is more important than the second game of a Grand Slam tour? Either way, I don’t think I’m out of line in making the suggestion.
What do I think of England? What I said prior to the tests: this series is damage limitation. Hopefully some players will shine and even if they don’t then you know who is not capable of playing test rugby (Deacon, Crane, Geraghty at 12, Banahan, Monye at 15). Dick Best gave a thoughtful appraisal of the situation the other day. I would have no qualms with John Wells or Mike Ford being replaced but certainly not Johnson. His selections (prior to the injury burst) have been consistent, aimed toward youth and apparently he is the first English coach of recent years to correspond regularly with the players and their clubs. You have some malcontents in the media moaning that England should win all three games because they will have been in camp for three-four weeks, which makes me wonder if that means Australia and NZ should lose because they have been in camp for over three months? Had all the injured players been fit then I would have demanded (as far as a fan can) that England beat Australia and Argentina comfortably. They’re not fit so Johnson has a free run as far as I’m concerned.
November 18th 2009 @ 12:11pm
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Pretty much.
What was that rub of the green nonsense from Deans? Actually, it’s pretty wiley when you think about it. Deans has made little to no progress all year but most Australians believe they never get a fair shake from the ref. Tap into that and you can deflect criticism from your results.
I don’t think Spiro is capable of critising Deans at this point. It’ll never happen despite Deans making the same mistakes he made with the All Black backline.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:23am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:23am | Report comment
They are improving – they drew with the 6 Nations champions.
And I bet they’ll beat Scotland next week as well.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:32am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Obviously… I mean, let’s be realistic now: ‘I think that the simple fact is that the Wallabies did a marvelous job to obtain a draw with the referee that that was imposed upon them.’
November 18th 2009 @ 7:14am
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
ah KO – found something more fun than the realities of Pommy rugger then?
November 18th 2009 @ 7:35am
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Yeah… the realities of Australian rugger. It’s a real hoot and full of some real jokers, and you know what a precious commodity humour is.
November 18th 2009 @ 11:45am
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
dunno about the precious commodity of humour, its seems the English have in spades at the moment. That would explain the 2 80 miinute skits they’ve put on at Twickers the last couple of weeks. How long is the show set to run? Will it get promoted to the West End? I read they dropped Lawes from the squad to include 36 year old Shaw. The jokes just keep on coming.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:01pm
Justin said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
Ah but Craig the game is so healthy in England
Massive week in week out crowds at GP matches and so much youth coming through!
November 18th 2009 @ 8:47pm
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:47pm | Report comment
I think the show is set to run as long as basically half the first team absent. What your typical Aussie wit misses, Craig, is this: that the current England set up is basically England ‘B/C’, with new units in the front and back row, half-back, midfield and the back three. That sort of scenario might make you want to question the Wallaby performances, no?
Shaw as in the world class lock who played one of the best games ever against SA? That Shaw? Of course he’s been included. He’s a fantastic player, the best 4 lock in the world, whose bulk will improve the scrum, whose ability to counter-maul will be a massive aid and whose dynamic rucking will galvanise the ruck contest. That Lawes isn’t playing test rugby speaks volumes for the English depth, as Justin alludes to. Keep plugging away, guys.
November 18th 2009 @ 6:32am
Colin N said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Talking about poor refereeing decisions, what about the ‘hand of Johnson’ in the Saracens-South Africa game.