By Spiro Zavos
November 18th 2009 @ 2:08am
Related coverage
The curious case of Wycliff Palu’s yellow card
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.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(219)
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QroApDIBeGc
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
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 …
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.
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.
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
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.
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 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP6qELeH9JQ
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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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……..
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSn2dW_yaQ
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.
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.
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!
Cattledog said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
And therefore you should agree that Kearney’s charge on Elsom was illegal.
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Of course.
And I’m right as well obviously.
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
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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……
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.
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.
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.
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?
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
The two are unrelated. Except in your mind.
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!
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.
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?
fox said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Well ignored.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
CraigB said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
ah KO – found something more fun than the realities of Pommy rugger then?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
There’s an even more curious case emerging from the Italy/NZ match last weekend and the farce of the last ten minutes.
The curious case of Martin Castrogiovanni’s boring technique.
Paddy O’Brien has publicly apologised to the All Blacks according to the New Zealand Herald. Apparently he called in specially into the NZ hotel in London today to let them know this, and to say that the Italian scrum was completely at fault, or more specifically Castro was for boring in.
In an exemplary use of independent and unbiased language as the chief representative of international referees , he said: “They’re crying up here that it was a penalty try. It should have been a penalty first scrum to the All Blacks.”
He went on to comment on the young AB prop who had suffered so badly in the match: “You’ve got a young guy trying to launch his test career and get things right and the referee is inaccurate. Then it’s our problem,” said O’Brien. “We’ve got to deal with the ref, which we will, just like Graham deals with a player who is not playing well.”
Obviously, the All Blacks didn’t really know much about the whole incident. All Blacks assistant coach Wayne Smith said today the team was going about its front-row work “as usual” though he had noted the “publicity” around the scrummaging.
I love that – he ‘noted the ‘publicity’ around the scrummaging.
It comes as such a relief that Paddy and Graham are the best of buddies again, and that Paddy dealt with the matter so delicately, and even-handedly. And that he gave an exclusive interview to a NZ newspaper before meeting the AB management.
It’s such a pity he couldn’t have been around to discuss the high profile accusations of similar boring in during the first Lions test.
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Why didn’t this goon come out and apologise to the Lions after the 1st test?
stuff happens said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
I don’t remember much about refs but I do recall O’Brien as the ref in a France/ Fiji group match in the ‘99RWC and doing everything possible to ensure France won.
His treatment of Fiji, including a perfectly legitimate try that was disallowed, was appalling.
Killerwhale said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Is he right or wrong, that is the most important thing not if he’s hurt anybodies feelings. The scrum was a mess for the entire game and Crockett certainly questioned his rulings and interpretations. Watch the footage, seems pretty clear cut and good on him for admitting that Stu was getting it all wrong. Killed the game as a spectacle which is the biggest issue.
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
This is a poor show of support for Dickinson (who I think is a real cowboy), but it is striking why O’Brien would only see fit to comment on this.
mitzter said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
KO Yes that’s what I think. If the refs were transparent about all their decisions i wouldn’t care but going on about the allblacks game is asking the question ‘is there favouritisim for nz in refereeing cirlcles?” – the answer is yes
katzilla said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
Can i also speculate that there is life on Mars – Yes
Also allow me to speculate on the mating habits of the pterodactyl.
Got im´ Gooone! said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Any person that thinks that Palu´s tackle deserved even a penalty is about as hardcore as un Ugg-boot! and should take up watching snooker or lawn bowls! However i don´t think we can say we would have won the match if he was not sent to the bin. I hope we see a bit more running this weekend.
Brett McKay said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
I’m not sure about Kearney leading with the shoulder, but I thought Palu was very hard done by too. It was a big tackle that had to be made, and it was made with interest. I haven’t studied slow-mo clips (and don’t see a lot of point, for it’s done now), but I always though Palu’s contact was shoulder and bicep, and I couldn’t say with any certainly which came first. All I do know is that I reacted in a manner at 2:40am that was cause to remind myself that people were still asleep, and that such reactions would not be well received if heard!!
RugbyThinker said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Spiro you are right about the Paul tackle. It wasn’t high, late or illegal. If the TMO is available I agree he should be used to review such cases to ensure fairness and consistency. Kearney was guilty of a shoulder charge not on Palu but Elsom and he wasn’teven spoken too. But the big issue here is the damned inconsistency of the referees we have in international rugby at present. I watched five Test matches over the weekend and having played and been involved in Rugby at a senior admin level for many years I am utterly confused. It is fair to say the crop of refs we have at present are poor. Many of them seem more determined to show us their microscopic understanding of the Laws than letting the players play the game. Kaplan ruined the Sydney Bledisloe and was again whistle happy on the weekend. And when will Rugby give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. The game craves more tries but we are getting whistle happy refs, more penalties and conservative coaches [not prepared to gamble with the finnicky refs] who instruct players to kick. Nigel Owens cost the Pumas a try against England when they were clearly on top and attacking but somehow were penailsed for something that most refs would have let go. Martyn Williams went to tackle an All Black in Cardiff two weeks ago. In the tackle his arm deflected the ball that was being passed. Penalty or accidental……it clearly looked accidental but any doubt and it must be a scrum not a penalty which was kicked. Don’t get me wrong anything clearly illegal or dangerous should be penalised. But we are seeing a rash of yellow cards which I believe is a cop out for referees especially in the 22. Why don’t they award more penalty tries when professional cheating is stopping tries. How on earth did Dickinson not award Italy a try in Milan when its scrum destroyed the All Blacks?
If the IRB derives income from participation in the Olympics it should be channelled into refereeing – development, coaching and establishment of a fulltime international panel that is managed professionally by one unit so we are not left with referees coming out of Unions with different philospohies and standards. Sorry about cliche but refs should be seen not heard!!!!
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Totally agree Rugby thinker. Why in a professional time are ref’s allowed to be in a professional free zone? It is like they have there own world.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
For a rugby thinker, you obviously don’t have much of a grasp on the laws of rugby. The reason Italy weren’t awarded a penalty try is that they never looked like pushing the AB scrum over the line.
Uncle Eric said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Possibly because the AB scrum caved in every time!
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
That’s right, of course. Every time. Except when they didn’t. And even when they did, the scrums were going sideways.
Dean Pantio said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
“How on earth did Dickinson not award Italy a try in Milan when its scrum destroyed the All Blacks?”
Probably because he didn’t have the first clue what was going on, but was obvious to the rest of the world:
IRB referees boss Paddy O’Brien has apologised to the All Blacks for Stuart Dickinson’s performance in the test against Italy. LONDON – International Rugby Board (IRB) referees’ boss Paddy O’Brien has given Stuart Dickinson a rev-up and apologised to the All Blacks for the Australian whistler’s errors at the scrum last weekend.
“The best example I can use is in the last 10 minutes there were eight scrums, of which seven, the tighthead for Italy is purely illegal,” O’Brien told Fairfax media.
“Up here they’re crying that it should have been a penalty try. It should have been a penalty first scrum to the All Blacks.”
AC said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Yep, the clue is in the name, “refer”. As in, “the players refer to the referee on law rulings”.
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Are you people for real? Straight up, I think Spiro’s claim about Kearney leading into Palu with his shoulder is a fair bit off. Most ball carriers lead with their shoulder into close contact.
The fact that people might claim it was worth a penalty even, is amazing in my eyes. I still play rugby. I am no big man, but I have hit people in the right spot at the right time, and they do go down faster than you can wrap your arms. The fact that I led with my shoulder first is irrelevant. What do you want me to do Pothale? Grab the bloke first, then put my shoulder in? That is poor defense in my, and just about everyone’s eyes. And you know it. And yes, I think Kearney was lucky, as he should have been pinged for holding onto the ball, rather than the insane yellow card for Palu after what was a great TACKLE.
There is a clear difference between Palu’s TACKLE, and Kearney’s SHOULDER. I am amazed that Dublin Dave can seriously (?) argue that Kearney should not have been penalised for his shoulder, because he didn’t intend to shoulder, he intended to push Elsom out. WTF? You can not be serious to suggest that Palu’s was a shoulder charge, even though he clearly has his arms up for the tackle, and Kearny had no such intention as to shoulder charge, when his arms were tucked in and he hit with the SHOULDER? Perhaps Palu intended to push Kearney back to the try line Dave.
As for you quoting the rules Dublin, the first one you quoted, Foul Play law 10 I think it was:
“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).”
What even made you put that in? To my understanding, that law is to do with a kick chase, and has nothing to do with the tackle situation. So you saying that shoulder charging is expressly permitted in the rules (within the tackle context) is surely ridiculous isn’t it?
For Dublin Dave and Pothale to sit there and think that was an illegal tackle by Palu and then try to defend Kearney for his illegal tackle, I am shocked and chagrined. That is so far past ridiculous it isn’t funny. Come on fellas. Get real.
Dublin Dave said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
The issue isn’t whether the shoulder was used, Hoy; the issue is whether the actions could be termed “dangerous”. That is what the laws say in the first instance. They then give some specific examples of what is not permissible. Nowhere do they say that if you hit somebody with your shoulder per se, you should be penalised. After all, the first lesson you teach kids when tackling is to hit with the shoulder before wrapping round with the arms.
Kaplan deemed Palu’s tackle to be dangerous without specifying exactly why. He did seem to draw his hand up his arm but that might have been to indicate that it was high or that Palu didn’t attempt to use his arms. Who knows? He was within his rights to penalise it.
That the Kearney “shoulder charge” on Elsom was a foul is a nonsensical claim, as even some of the Aussie posters here concede. Kearney clearly pushes Elsom with his right hand, which he is perfectly entitled to do. See Law 7 “Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball”
Again, what Kearney is doing with his left shoulder is irrelevant. The acid test is “Is it a DANGEROUS charge?” If he is trying to nudge somebody with his left shoulder while pushing him with his right hand (go on, try it) it’s a pretty innocuous action. There were no grounds for penalising it. Even if he had succeeded in knocking Elsom into touch.
Which he didn’t.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Dave – that’s a pretty poor example of statutory interpretation, there.
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
The heading is “Dangerous charging” with the next sentence providing a definition of what that is. It doesn’t say “A player must not charge or knock down and opponent dangerously”. It defines what is dangerous, ie – tackling without trying to grasp that player.
MyGeneration said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
He might have been within his rights, but he got it wrong. If a referee can penalise simply because he thinks a tackle is dangerous, without reference to anything else, then surely a majority of tackles are penalisable. Defenders don’t go into tackles with the attackers well-being in mind. Some of the best tackles end up with an attacker prone on the ground, maybe just with the wind knocked out of him. Should a referee be able to interpret any negative outcome to the attacker’s physical well-being as penalisably “dangerous”?
Matty P said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment
“Kaplan deemed Palu’s tackle to be dangerous without specifying exactly why.” Dave, this is the second time you have stated this, and it is not a correct statement. Kaplan clearly says, while brandishing the yellow, “no arms”. So while your analysis maybe correct in theory, it is irrelevant. The facts are that Kaplan gave the yellow for a failure to use arms in the tackle.
jim_bar said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:16am | Report comment
I certainly don’t think Palu intended to hit as high as he did, look at the way he reacts to the yellow card. However i’m certain Palu was aiming to knock Kearney into LaLa Land.
Sometimes you’ve got to just cop it on the chin, [as Kearney did in the physical sense, and Palu did in the metaphorical sense of the Sin Bin].
MM Fike said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
I like the idea of a video replay before a yellow card is pulled from the referee’s pocket. The penalty of playing a man short for ten minutes is a huge one.
I think Ireland is a very good rugby team. I think Australia is a good rugby side and headed for the top of the mountain. England will get there again. The All Blacks are out on their own and always have been. The wheels have fallen right off South Africa. I wonder what that countries rugby forums read like?
Rugby’s biggest problem is the referees and the laws they interpret. There is no consistency of interpretation because the laws are fundamentally flawed. Why? It’s because nobody understands a lot of them. How many sports leave the spectators, players, coaches and commentators dumbfounded as to why a penalty is awarded?
There is something seriously wrong when the referee is the only one who knows. And a lot of times everyone knows the ref was only guessing.
Jameswm said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
There are some very odd claims going on here and, unsurprisingly a couple of our Irish friends see the incidents in a way that accord with their nationality.
1. Kearney has the ball and cannot shoulder charge anyone. When referring to this, I don’t think Spiro meant an illegal shoulder charge, more something we refer to as a Maori sidestep. Pretty stupid to try it on Palu though and poor tiddums if he got hurt.
2. Palu had his arms up, not by his side, and makes some attempt to use them, therefore it is a legal tackle. It seems pretty much accepted that he did make an attempt to use them but by the time the unfortunate tacklee had been hit he’d rebounded too far. It reminds me of the old Umaga line to a ref:- “we’re not playing tiddlywinks you know”.
3. With Kearney’s tackle on Elsom as he scores, Kearney’s arm on the side hitting Elsom is at his side. It is a plain and simple shoulder charge (no attempt to use arms) – basically your classic example. If it wasn’t a try it should have been a penalty try, and arguably a yellow too.
I don’t really see how any of this can be disputed. It’s black and white.
Yes we’ve all had the benefit of slo-mo replays, and it isn’t a bad idea for a ref to ask the TMO to check if he’s going to bin someone.
Parisien said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
agree with you James and I love the Umaga quote.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
“When referring to this, I don’t think Spiro meant an illegal shoulder charge, more something we refer to as a Maori sidestep. Pretty stupid to try it on Palu though and poor tiddums if he got hurt.”
James – go back and read the article.
Here’s a relevant extract: “….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.”
Spiro is specific in saying that Kearney made an illegal shoulder charge on Palu. I’m not familiar with the phrase/tactic Maori sidestep – what does it mean or entail a player doing?
Now look at the video clips referenced in this thread, and see if the following happens:
“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.”
In reality, Kearney started to move away from Palu and the two defenders beside him, and go past him on the outside. Palu moves to his left to stop him at the point of impact. Kearney’s head rockets back with the impact and he goes backwards and then falls to the ground keeping the ball on his team’s side. That’s what actually happens in the clip.
Then think about this, and agree/disagree with the following statement: “He saw Kearney bounce off Palu and presumed – incorrectly as it happened – that it was Palu who had made the shoulder charge.”
Implicit in this is that the ref made the call on the wrong player – it should have been Kearney who was penalised for a shoulder charge.
With regard to the Elsom try, Kearney did have his hands up and was trying to grasp Elsom at the same time as O’Leary was. He whacked into him from the side, Rocky stumbled but made it over the line. It reminds me of the old Umaga line to a ref:- “we’re not playing tiddlywinks you know”.
I don’t really see how any of this can be disputed. It’s black and white.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Well, I’d certainly dispute your view of the Kearney hit on Elsom. His right hand was extended up, but his left hand was tucked in around his stomach, and he hit with his left shoulder.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Ok
Justin said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Pot – your colours are showing bigtime here.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Do you think? Damn – thought I was being subtle.
Campbell Watts said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Pothale
The Maori sidestep involves no such thing – rather an intention to use ones large natural Polynesian physique to run straight over the top of any hapless defender.
Picture Johan Lomu steam-rolling Mike Catt and many other English players!
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Pothale, you cannot be serious can you? I have just looked at it again and again and again. Kearney makes no attempt to use his arms at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pff_iNiRVNY&feature=player_embedded#
Try looking at this and freezing it at 1:10. This is by defninition a shoulder charge. He did not have his hands up in contact, from side on no less. Hell, freeze it at 0:39 and see Palu tackling Kearney.
You must concede that if you seriously think that Palu made an illegal tackle, Kearneys was just as bad if not worse, as he made no attempt to use his arms AT ALL.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
“Kearney makes no attempt to use his arms at all.”
He does. you can see both of his arms quite clearly on Elsom when he hits him.
Interesting clip though. If you look at 46″, you can see Pocock making a highly questionable no-arms tackle/hit on Flannery as he’s already being tackled that bends him backwards. Quite dangerous. Hadn’t seen that before.
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
You must be winding me up. You cannot be serious. Surely?
His arms are on him, if by on him you mean touching him, but there is no intent to wrap his arms around Elsom.
I hope you are winding me up, because you cannot be defending Kearney seriously and then turn around and say Pococks tackle was dangerous.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
About which, Hoy?
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Well I could – since they’re two different things.
But I won’t. with O’Leary already wrapping himself around him, I doubt that Kearney could have, and we are talking split-second stuff here. Anyway we’ve done that to death now.
So you agree Pocock’s tackle was dangerous then? Or was illegal in some way? I don’t even know if the ref blew up for it or not, i just happened to notice it in the news clip you cited. I don’t have sound on my laptop, so I don’t know what the commentary was saying at the time.
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
I don’t agree about Pocock’s tackle being dangerous at all. I can’t help but feel you are being unrealistic about what you deem dangerous and what you feel a tackle should look like. In both Pocock’s and Palu’s tackle the intent was there to wrap the arms. I think that looks pretty clear really.
There are times when the intent is there to wrap the arms, however it isn’t possible. As in the case with Pocock. He had intent, however old mate was being pulled backwards, and the contact also drove Pocock backwards, and so he couldn’t get his arms around the Irish hooker in time. Nothing was said about it by anyone, and the ref did nothing about it either, nor should he have.
This was also the case with Palu’s hit. Kearney dropped too quickly for Palu to catch him. And by catch him, I mean bear hug him to death.
In my opinion, Kearney clearly makes no attempt at tackling Elsom, rather tries to hit Elsom so hard with his body check that Elsom goes into touch. With his arm at his side, this is the definition of a shoulder charge surely.
No there was no damage done, and he probably would have been better using his arms, but that doesn’t make it a legal tackle, and with Palu in binned for what I feel was a legal tackle, I find it amazing nothing was done about Kearney’s clear charge.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I don’t think Pocock makes any attempt to tackle with arms at all. He just hits Flanney straight and blows him backward. there seems to be such a fine line about was there intent in these kind of tackles – Australia is not the only one guilty of them.
Surely the point about bringing up your arms is presumably because you are meant to cushion the tackle in some way with the player, particularly with upper body tackles. It’s easy enough to fake bringing up your arms without having to use them – which is what you’re saying Kearney did. Pocock does the same.
There’s going to be a serious injury out of these kind of tackles at some point.
That’s my lot on the subject. I’m done.
Have only just found out that Saracens beat SA tonight at Wembley. Three on the spin for the Boks?! PdV won’t live this down.
Retribution in Rome is coming methinks with the bigger boys back.
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Agree to disagree on this one I think. Difference of opinion on intent to use arms.
It will be very interesting what sort of spin is put on the Saffas now. All conquering, to beaten by club sides. Yes, yes they are mid-week Springboks, and certainly clubs can give international teams a run for their money, but still, all can’t be good there.
Who do the Saffas play this weekend?
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Italy.
Should be easy. Right?
Except Martin Castrogiovanni and the Azzuri will be pissed as hell over O’Brien’s very public rebuke of him personally and of the team. That should put a bit of edge in the match, and no doubt Mallet will stoke it up for them.
Be interesting to see who P Divvy picks cos he’ll have one eye on the final test against Ireland which he will not want to lose.
Ireland are down Fitzgerald, but have a good replacement in Keith Earls. Kidney has picked 8 new players for this week’s match against Fiji in the RDS. It’s almost the team that I would have liked to see play Australia in some ways with some of them newer/younger players being blooded. Looking forward to seeing how Sexton does at 10 – big day for him with his first cap.
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
Martin Castrogiovanni is an awesome, awesome prop.
If it had been a NZ tighthead getting the wood over a rookie Italian prop, the shoe would’ve been on the other foot, but hey, that’s NZ rugby for you. We may have been in the right in this case, but I don’t think we’ve ever been shy in engaging in the dark arts, have we? Oh yeah, in Milan. God that was pathetic.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
“both of his arms”? Seriously, Pothale, you need to get your eyes checked if you think his left arm is doing anything like trying to grasp Elsom. At point of contact, his left elbow is tucked in under his ribs.
Working Class Rugger said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
It’s quite clear that Palu’s hit wasn’t a shoulder charge just a bloody good tackle. One you’d expect from little man vs big man situation. By definition Kearney’s was a shoulder charge, however, it probably wouldn’t have been given a yellow card for the action as it really ended up being nothing more than a bump.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Good teams make the ref and the ‘rub of the green’ irrelevant to the result………they just get on with it and win the majority of their games. The Wannabe’s aren’t a good team yet, but the signs are there we are on track for 2011.
Kaplan was consistently bad to both sides…….he should be dropped to refereeing the Cobar Camels 4th grade…..and even that might be an insult to the mighty Camels.
The Palu hit is one of the reasons I played rugby…….to be able to pull off a hit like that must feel absolutely awesome. Everyone has agreed so far that the tackle wasn’t high and he led with his arms….therefore it was legal according to the laws…Kaplan was behind and unsighted…..he made a bad call…….it was a great takle, end of story.
Don’t take the bait of the English Petals and the even more delicate Irish Shamrocks. If they can’t take the tackles, then they should open flower shops.
PS Spiro you are a stirrer and knew this would happen, but hey, that’s what journalisms all about huh????
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
What was Spiro stirring?
Pete said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
has Palu been cited for his “dangerous” tackle. As far as I am aware he hasn’t… because everyone knows Kaplan stuffed up and they don’t want to draw attention to it…
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Why would he be cited, Pete? the issue was dealt with on the field – rightly or wrongly.
Pete said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
This is a genuine question: Are indiscretions on the field, even if punished by a card, reviewed by a post-match committee or is a shoulder charge not serious enough to warrant further attention and potential ban?
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Kearney has been cited for dangerous play and faces a ban for his shoulder charge tackles on Palu and Elsom and causing a draw for Australia.
Kearney muttered something about tiddlywinks as he was hauled off in chains to sit in Bridewell prison for the night.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Incidents can still be cited even if punished by the ref. The technical requirement is that the citing officer considers the offence could have been a red card (though in practice it’s clear they are citing many incidents that wouldn’t be close to being a red card). They can cite even if the ref has seen the incident and deemed it only a yellow (eg the Schalk Burger gouging incident) or even deemed it not a penalty (eg the Brad Thorn dumping of John Smit which Stu Dickenson had a clear view – despite what he claimed subsequently – and for which he didn’t even deem a penalty necessary).
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Yellow cards are a blight on the game and they should get rid of them altogether. All it leads to is a meandering ten minute period where nothing happens one way or the other. Palu’s sinbinning had no bearing on the game whatsoever and Australian fans are grasping for straws if they think that cost them a victory. The entire card system is one of those stupid IRB mandates designed to make the World Cup attractive to a worldwide audience. It’s useless and completely ineffective.
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:08am | Report comment
that’s a bit strong, OJ. Cards are effective in handing advantage to teams a lot of the time, and scores do happen in the ten minute absence of the offending player.
Ireland got a penalty in front of the posts during the period Palu was off. O’Gara decided to be ‘enterprising’ and cross-kicked for Bowe in the corner. Unfortunately it didn;t come off. But it would have been a dead cert 3 points.
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
So, let me get this straight… They played a one man advantage for ten minutes and the net result was a penalty goal opportunity. That’s a complete waste of time. I’m willing to bet that if you look at all the yellow cards handed out in Test matches since the Rugby World Cup, you’ll find that sides barely scored at all during the ten minute period. The defence goes into shutdown mode and kick for territory and a one man advantage doesn’t help spluttering backlines. Once upon a time it may have made a difference, but teams are able to manage the clock these days. From memory, the South Africans tried experiementing with a 5 minute cooling off period, but nooo… the IRB has to sanitize the game further and further. It’s only just starting. As we head into Rugby World Cup 2011, the officiating will become a nightmare.
Craig said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Spiro,
Your continual bias is both pathetic and getting to the point of ridiculous.
If Palu was Bakkies Botha in this situation and Kearney was Barnes, I can say with a great amount of certainty this article would have been more along the lines that a yellow card for the shoulder charge (which it was – a ball carrier cannot shoulder charge a tackler in the rules of rugby) was too minor punishment and Botha should be banned for 5 months.
Your continual attempts at trying to prove that you are a rugby ‘fan’ with your calls for less yellow cards is then overshadowed by your crying like a little school girl whine ‘Kearney should have got a little card’. Spiro, he didn’t get a yellow card. Neither him nor Palu deserved one.
But this yellow card did not cause the draw, nor did the ref as you somehow believe in your rugby absent mind. Ireland set up a great center move off the base of the scrum. It was in a nutshell a world class center with 100 caps to his name against an inexperienced opponent.
All your ‘Should haves’ and ‘Could haves’ really amount to nothing more than a disgrunted individual looking for something to vent his fustrastions on.
Plain and simple; it was not the Wallabies day and once again the inexperience of the team under an average captain let them down.
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Just be grateful Palu wasn’t cited for no reason whatsoever. 10-1 says he would’ve been cited and suspended if Australia had won the game.
MarkR said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
OJ – It could be worse, imagine how Tialata feels now, carded then told by the refs boss that the AB scrum was fine.
Nipper said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Palu hit him clean across the chest with his shoulder, and likely would’ve wrapped him up had Kearney not rocketed backwards at a rate of knots… When the Irish commentators are saying he was hard done by, suffice it to say he got screwed.
I know I’m going to regret opening this can of worms, but over the past few weeks it seems like the trend is that if you’re a big island boy and you lay someone down with a nice hard tackle, you’re yellow-carded. the other case was the Wales/Samoa game with Lolo Lui (I think) getting sent off in the first minutes for a similar situation. However, if you are Dan Carter or even Rob Kearney, “boy will be boys – it’s a tough ‘ol game”… Reeks of a double-standard.
Let’s face it, had the boyos running the video screen at the Millennium Stadium not replayed it countelss times and gotten the locals into a lather, Carter wouldn’t have had so much as a talking to.
Wix said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
The Palu/Kaplan incident, correctly analysed by Spiro, raises the question of referees generally. Of all the football codes, the most difficult to referee is undoubtedly Rugby. This is because, unlke other codes, the laws are so damned complex (much to the shagrin of many). Also the laws are very difficult to apply in the 3 areas where the majority of infringements take place, namely the breakdown, line out and set scrums, in other words amongst the forwards. This is not new information, because we all know that 80% of the game takes place up front.
To make matters more difficult, in 2 of these areas “visibility” is close to zero, because of the pile-up nature of the game. In the case of set scrums I am convinced that referees at all levels do not understand what is going on, even though we armchair specialists can see it as plain as day.
Therefore, like no other code, referees should have plenty of playing experience. The higher the level of playing experience, the higher would be their refereeing career path. But alas, the overwhelming majority of referees at the higher levels have little or no playing experience. Furthermore the trend to recruit young referees, mitigates against the need for playing experience.
The lack of playing experience manifests itself in many ways, the most serious of which is to have no sympathy whatsoever for players and what motivates their actions. This results in their talking down to players and generally treating them as “the bad guys”, not to say imbeciles. The majority of punch-ups are the result of player frustration with the referee. (I invite any former or current players to dispute that statement)
So what is the solution?
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Wix – in my years as a player and many more as a ref the main reason there is a punch up is due to a few things:
1) They hate the opposition and always have in the current players memory, but this can get passed on from gen to gen.
2) They are being worked over badly by opp forwards and the losing forwards lash out.
3) A player gets an overdose of ‘righteous indignation’ over a tackle or foul play and starts something.
Ref’s can throw petrol on a fire if they dont act harshly and immediately on an incident.
JimC said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
This is rather like the debate over the deliberate knock on. Rugby union’s rules are full of grey areas and in the professional era that is untenable.
As someone pointed out – all text book tackles lead with the shoulder. But then again most of Sonny Bill Williams best hits in the NRL were when he is square on to the ball carrier, just like Palu, yet the refs in french rugby union think it’s a shoulder charge. Go figure.
Jerry said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
No arms tackles are legal in League.
Hoy said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Sonny Bill was a shoulder charging phenomenon. They were all square on in front, but SBW never really hit front on, he always braced himself with his good left shoulder and drove up into the runner.
You can see it when he rocks Joel Clinton. And just about everyone else, god love him.
Jameswm said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
A Maori sidestep is running right over the top of someone, usually with bodyweight low and forward so you bump them off.
CaughtOffside said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Spiro, whilst I agree that Kearney should have had a talking to about his attempted shoulder contact on Rocky, why do you think the asssitant Ref should have got the veiw you describe. Hopefully his primary duty was to the line of touch. Also your summation of a PK at halfway, please describe how that would eventuate as the laws are written?
You are a rugby writer, therefore you should know what the law outcome should be….
Campbell Watts said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
HA!!!!
Looking at the photo accompanying this article it looks like Palu is going the old “reach-around” and Alexander looks to be enjoying the attention!!
Shifty stuff Wallabies!!
Frank O'Keeffe said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
You know I watched a replay of the that Test and I didn’t think Kaplan did such a bad job. Sure he got Palu’s decision wrong, the Irish commentary even admitted that, and Kearney should have been sent off in the second half, but on the whole it wasn’t a bad refereeing performance.
I think the only disappointing thing, aside from the Palu and Kearney decisions, was that Kaplan didn’t ref the suprerior scrum. It’s something Rod Kafer, who is actually unbiased, commented on very well.
I don’t think Palu getting sent off cost Australia the game. Maybe Kearney getting sent off would’ve lost Ireland the game. Territory was so important and Kearney won the kicking duels for Ireland.
At least Australia scored a well worked try in that second half too. We need to see more that!
Brett McKay said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Frank, I thought the same thing watching the game live, but hadn’t dared to admit it!!
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Frank O’K He, like 90% of ref’s cant ref the scrum, it is hidden from view and a lot goes on in there. Pulling down, boring in and hands in the scrum they might (note: Might) pick the rest is lost in mist. Pulling back, dropping the shoulder slightly, putting your feet back further and I am sure some of the ex props on here can add to this are totally unpick-able that is why the secret society of the front row use them.
As you say a decent rule is if one scrum is superior, the other has gone to the dark side for answers.
MarkR said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Frank – Kafer is only unbiased if Australia win, his knowledge of tactics is very good but his rule knowledge is rubbish.
Bob McGregor said | November 18th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
I think your analysis is correct Spiro. UNFORTUNATELY just another example of Kaplan getting it wrong yet again – and to think you rated him highly some years ago. But the guy continues to make bloopers and is DEAF when it comes to guidance from the assistant referees when they make a call to him. Also he fails to pick up blatantly crooked throws into the lineout. If he did the final lineout of the game would have been a scrum – OZ ball. Game over – no draw.
I’m sorry the guy just can’t help himself to come up with the correct decision -especially where OZ is involved! When I heard he was to officiate I remarked OZ would not win – you just have to look up the loss/win rate under him. Game set and match!
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
Bob Mc – In his defence or small mind you choose, he hates us and for some good reasons. We have paid out on him big time every time he ref’s us. This started several years ago when we started to play the ref but not too smartly in my book and reached its height with that great SA ref? telling George G to stop trying to ref the game or he was going to send him off or something like that.
We are very naive when it comes to these issues and the NZers are miles ahead of us. Thus they tend to play to the ref’s weakness if that is offside line then offside they are, if it is blindness in the breakdown they are all over the breakdown etc etc.
What do we do? we whinge and squeal like stuck pigs. We have to get smarter rather than upset, it seems girly sometimes to me.
Don’t get me wrong here, I have no time for Kaplan the guy is a wasted in reffing he should be a traffic cop.
Bob McGregor said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Stillmissit.
What you have to say is ‘correct’ but I was always taught – and believe it to be true – that one HAS to play within the Laws of our great game. Continual cheating at the breakdown – circa AB’s – ALWAYS bites them on the bum come RWC time when one of the better referees admonishes them and they end up out of the competition.
Although Barnes was incompetent in the France/Ab 1/4 final RWC 2007 match in Wales, he is one of the better referees going around NOW and referees as per the Laws of the game. OZ always responds positvely to such referees and this was evidenced by TN game in Brisbane. The AB and Sth Afr teams are so used to ‘cheating’ 100% of the time at the breakdown they react badly when called to account by referees such as Barnes. Usually OZ gets NZ or Sth Afr referees who are ‘used’ to refereeing their countymen being offside 100% of time at the breakdown. I believe our success rate in TN is a function of their ‘blindeyes’ to such behaviour.
We need more referees like Barnes.
stillmissit said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Agreed Bob. There are a few refs who stand up and make the right calls rather than the politically correct or populist calls. I thought the Aussie ref with the squeaky voice tried to do that in NZ and was hung for it.
The last ref I thought got to that level was Andre Watson in his last few years . Strong hard nosed calls and rarely questioned by me anyway.
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
Since when were the All Blacks ever penalised out of a World Cup? We’re perfectly capable of losing at a World Cup without any myths built up about it.
Speaking of which, the biggest myth on this website is that the Wallabies play to the rules, which feeds into the whole victim complex Australian rugby has over Kaplan and other referees. This is such a widespread myth perpetuated by everyone from the television commentators to Bob Dwyer that we have to constantly read about how hard done by Australia are because of their own inadequacies. This was something I thought Robbie Deans might weed out of the Australian rugby mentality, but even he’s joined the choir of late. Funny how things change, because when he was coach of Canterbury and the Crusaders, even his players’ All Black teammates used to get frustrated with their tactics.
Anyway, you keep dreaming that referees would help the Wallabies win the Tri-Nations. Good guys never prosper and all of that.
Joh4Canberra said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Watching those incidents with either my Wallabies supporter’s or referee’s glasses on leads to the same result: Palu’s tackle was legal and Kearney’s shoulder charge on Elsom was illegal. Whether Kearney’s shoulder charge on Elsom was worthy of a yellow card I’ll come to in a minute but as others have already said even if the referee deemed Kearney’s shoulder charge on Elsom illegal (and therefore worthy of a penalty) Australia should NOT have been awarded a penalty kick on half way as Spiro suggested. The laws only allow for a penalty on half way if the foul play occurs AFTER a try has been scored. But because Kearney charged Elsom BEFORE he got the ball down the ref has two options if he deems Kearney acted illegally: (1) play advantage and award the try (2) award a penalty try if he believes the try would have been scored in a more favourable position but for the foul play.
One frustration of mine (and I’ll repeat that I’m a referee and generally don’t like to bag the whistle-blowers — I can tell you it’s a lot easier being an armchair critic of referees than it is to referee) is that far too many refs fail to give out a yellow card if they play advantage for foul play and a try is scored. For example, if A shoulder charges B but B (or a team mate) manages to score the try that tends to be it. Advantage is played and no yellow card shown to A. Yet if A (or his team) manages to prevent the try then typically a penalty is awarded AND 9 times out of 10 a yellow card will be shown.
Why the difference? Why do teams whose foul play fails to prevent a try all too often fail to be shown a yellow card yet teams whose foul play is successful in its aim of preventing the try are carded? This is perverse. Yellow cards are not given for preventing tries. The remedy for conduct which prevents tries being scored is the penalty try and not the yllow card. Yellow cards are given for foul play whether or not that foul play prevents a try. Even if advantage is played and a try is scored foul play should still be carded if the referee would have gone to the pocket for exactly the same kind of foul play in the event that the try was not scored. As far as the laws are concerned playing the advantage shouldn’t nullify the yellow card but psychologically the ref tends to be influenced by the fact that the try was scored anyway and not show a card. All too often players tend to escape a yellow card for foul play committed in the act of try scoring if their efforts fail to prevent a try being scored.
So was Kearney’s shoulder charge worthy of a yellow card? Some years ago you would have got away with just a talking to for a charge like that. Nowadays, however, referees are under much stricter instructions not to tolerate foul play and a card is the rule rather than the exception for no-arm tackles. Given today’s standards for referees it was deserving of a yellow card in my view. If I were refereeing a match involving two neutral teams and an incident like that took place I certainly would send the player to the bin and then play advantage for the try. (Personally I wouldn’t have awarded a penalty try — I don’t think it was probable enough that the player would have scored in a more favourable position).
Another pet hate of mine is related to this and it is not giving both a yellow card and awarding a penalty try in combination. It comes back to the point that yellow cards are not given because of conduct that prevents a try being scored. They are given for foul play, repeated or deliberate infringements etc. If a deliberate infringement or a piece of foul play etc is worth a yellow card in circumstances where a penalty kick is the right sanction then in a different set of circumstance where a penalty try is the appropriate sanction a yellow card should still be shown for the same kind of foul play. The fact that the referee deems a penalty try is in order does not nullify the need for a yellow card and vice versa. In these circumstances he referee should do both: send the player to the bin AND award a penalty try. But far too often you see refs doing one or the other but not both. Again it’s a psychological thing. The laws are clear that in many circumstances both are required, but psychologically a lot of refs seem unable to do both in combination and will opt for either one or the other but not both.
Wally James said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
Joh4canberra
A well reasoned discourse with which I agree in the main. The only thing I wonder about is the use of the expression “penalty” in the expression penalty try. There is a near certainty that the non-offending team will convert when otherwise it might not be so. So perhaps the lawmakers intended that to be the penalty rather than a yellow card as well.
Having said that, the penalty try Law was in decades before the card system. It may well exhibit no intention at all. Your argument makes sense. Perhaps the IRB should just bring in a law change to make it explicit.
On another point of Law, in nearly every test of late players have taken penalty/free kicks quickly from the wrong mark. This is especially so after a scrum. Having blown his whistle to stop play and point this out, the ref then has allowed the kicker’s team to take another kick. The law quite specifically requries the ref to disallow the kick and award a scrum feed to the non-kicker’s team (Penalty provisions to Law 21.2). That is a bugbear of mine, to add to yours.
And, as an aside, please tell me your nickname is a sarcastic self-indulgence.
Cheers
Wally
Joh4Canberra said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:05am | Report comment
Wally James, Spiro: thanks for your comments.
Re the screen name: yeah just having a bit of fun with it. Had to come up with something so I thought I’d make it a bit “out there” and have a bit of fun at the same time. I was also curious to see whether anyone here would even recognise the significance of it and comment on it
WJ, yes you’re right that the card system is relatively new and that penalty tries predate yellow cards. But the card system is not an entire novelty imposed on the game. It has its antecedents — in other words it evolved out of pre-existing things in the laws — and I would suggest that we need to understand what these antecedents are and how the introduction of the sin-bin/yellow card has psychologically affected referees. So prepare yourself for another discourse
First of all, I should point out that at some levels of rugby physical “cards” as such are not used. But the things the cards stand for (either a send-off or a 10 minute “temporary suspension” = “sin-binning” in common parlance) still exist at all levels of the game even if the ref has no physical red and yellow cards in his pocket. So when I say “yellow card” I just mean a sin-binning whether or not the referee has a yellow piece of plastic in his pocket.
I’m going from memory here and I really would like to consult my first law book as I’ve refereed a lot of games since I started as a 15 year old in 1994 and things have changed quite a bit since then but you’ll have to bear with my faded memory since I’m currently living overseas and my first law book on the other side of the world away at my parents’ place in Australia. So apologies if my memory is not 100% correct. Anyway, in the good old days if a player committed foul play then apart from the requirement to award a penalty (or a penalty try or play advantage) the ref had three choices of how to deal with the guilty player: (1) admonish the player (= give him a talking to), (2) caution the player (= put him on formal notice if her repeats an instance of foul play he’ll be sent off) or (3) send the player off. As a ref you HAD to do one of those three things. “Doing nothing” with regard to a player who had committed foul play was not an option open to you as a referee.
Now I’m fairly sure that the full international version of the laws did not have the sin bin (“temporary suspension” in rugby legalese) back then. I think that was a domestic variance for the game in Australia (and elsewhere too if the local unions adopted such a measure for their own back yards) but at international level I’m fairly certain there was no such thing as sin binning. And even in Australia where it existed it did NOT automatically attach to foul play. Basically it was for “professional fouls” (à la rugby league). If you committed an illegal or dangerous tackle back then you would NOT have been sin binned for it. If the ref didn’t deem it worthy of a send-off then you would have stayed on the field and either been admonished ( given a talking to) by the ref (eg “keep the tackles down”) or formally cautioned and told that if you committed another piece of foul play you’d be sent off. I can clearly remember an instance of this in an interstate match between Qld and NSW in the late amateur era (some time between 1992 and 1995 I think) where Wayne Erickson was refereeing and a Qld player (I think it was Paul Carozza but I could be wrong) was sent off fairly early in the match after committing two (fairly innocuous as these things go) high tackles in short succession. He wasn’t sent to the bin after the first one; just formally cautioned. And then upon committing the second one he was sent off as the laws required. At some point in time the sin bin then came into the full international version of the laws but again it was basically for “professional fouls”. Instances of foul play such as dangerous tackles did NOT attract a sin binning. For foul play of this kind the ref still had the basic three choices I listed above (admonition, caution, or send-off) and if the player was formally cautioned for foul play he stayed on the field.
The sin bin and cautioning for foul play were two very distinct institutions. Two things then happened (I think simultaneously) which brought about the current situation of how yellow cards work:
(1) The law was changed so that a formal caution for foul play would now automatically result in a sin-binning, and
(2) the law was changed so that a sin-binning would now automatically result in a formal caution.
==> What changed with (1) was that foul play deemed worthy of a formal caution would additionally result in an automatic sin-binning. Under both the old and the new systems two cautionable offences (eg two high tackles) in the one match = a sending off. What had changed was that under the new system you also have to spend 10 minutes in the bin for the first cautionable offence whereas under the old system you would have stayed on the field after the first offence.
==> What changed with (2) was that play previously worthy of a sin-binning (i.e. a professional foul) would additionally result in a formal caution so that a repeat cautionable offence (whether dangerous play or a professional foul etc) would result in a send-off. Under the old system it was possible to get sent to the bin twice (or more) in a match for professional fouls and still not be (permanently) sent off. And under the old system it was also possible to commit a cautionable piece of dangerous play, stay on the field and then commit a professional foul and only be sent to the bin. Under the new system two sin binnable offences (whatever their nature — whether professional fouls or foul play) now result in an automatic send-off.
So that’s how we have arrived the current situation of yellow cards. We’ve had a merging of the sin bin and the formal caution for foul play. Two previously very distinct institutions they are now one and the same thing. So we are now at the situation where two yellows equal a red regardless of what those yellows are for. If the first is for a dangerous tackle and the second is a repeat offence of killing the ball in your own twenty-two you WILL be shown red on the second offence which was not previously the case (since there was a clear distinction between the sin bin for a professional foul and a formal caution for dangerous play). When it comes to foul play nowadays refs still have the same three basic options for dealing with a player — (1) admonition, (2) formal caution and (3) send-off — but what’s different is that a formal caution automatically results in a sin binning nowadays.
Under the old rules advantage and penalty tries clearly existed alongside cautions for foul play. Referees could (and would) do two in combination if they thought the circumstances warranted it. Under the new rules cautions for foul play still exist but what has changed is that they now automatically attract 10 minutes in the bin. So the question arises as to what is the point of that change and whether it should have any effects on referees either with regard to judging the severity of the foul play in question (i.e. whether it’s worthy of an admoniion, caution or sending off) or the type of penalty awarded (i.e. play advantage, award a penalty kick, or award a penalty try). I think once you understand the laws and how they have developed the answer is no, this change shouldn’t have any effect. But in practice I think referees are doing things differently now because of the mandatory binning for cautionable foul play. In my view this changed has psychologically influenced referees to do things the law change never intended. So here’s the question for us all: Should the introduction of mandatory sin-binning for cautionable dangerous play (eg a late tackle) affect either (a) the referee’s decision as to whether to caution a player (as opposed to admonishing him or sending him off) or (b) the decision as to penalty/ penalty try/ or the application of the advantage law?
Some things for us all to consider:
(1) Are referees showing yellow for some things now that in the past would have warranted a send off? Are referees reluctant to show red for foul play because they can now show yellow when in the past that option wasn’t open to them (since after a formal caution the player still stayed on the field)? I think in some cases the answer to this is yes. Apart from stomping on someone’s head at the bottom of a ruck when do you ever see a player shown automatic red? Almost never. Referees always go to the yellow card. Now thankfully conduct that warrants an automatic red is a relatively rare occurrence. But occasionally it happens (eg dangerous trips or punch-ups) yet refs nowadays nearly always show yellow rather than red. In the past some of this conduct would have attracted a send off but refs are now thinking that showing a yellow card *is* in itself a sanction for foul play rather than the legally mandated consequence of a formal caution for fould play (which given the historical development of he laws I have outlined is how I would suggest the laws of the game view the yellow card).
(2) Are refs not awarding penalty tries because they can show a player a yellow card or vice versa? Again, I think the answer is sadly yes in many instances. The problem is again that referees are wrongly viewing a yellow card as itself a sanction for foul play rather than the legally mandated consequence of a formal caution for foul play.
(3) Are refs not showing yellow cards for foul play because advantage has accrued and a try has been scored? Again, I think that in many cases the answer is sadly yes. Same problem of mischaracterising the yellow card as a sanction for foul play rather than the legally mandated consequence of a formal caution for foul play.
johnny-boy said | November 18th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
OJ – out of curiousity (how do ya spell that) what do you think are the same mistakes Deans is making with the Wallabies backline that he made with the All Blacks ?
ohtani's jacket said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Screwed with the fullback, no centre pairing and an ineffective guy at first five, though that’s a little harsh on Spencer. There’s no way the Wallabies are going to win jack with their current backline. I dunno who this Richard Graham guy is, but the whole thing needs an overhaul and a proper selector needs to be brought in.
Ben C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Spot on. You would think as a former fullback, he would at leats get that position settled but …
I agree Deans needs a strong backs coach to balance out his strange selections.
Spiro Zavos said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Joh4Canberra makes some excellent points. I was being unduly provocative when I made the point that the shoulder charge in the Palu/Kearney incident was made by Kearney. I know the laws on shoulder charges or charges have been aired earlier in this thread but I have seen players penalised for undue violence when running with the ball. For instance, raising the knees in a dangerous manner. I’d be interested in what a referee has to say about the possibility of a runner being penalised for using his shoulder to charge into a tackler.
It seems to me if lifting the knees in a dangerous manner can sometimes warrant a penalty then using the shoulder in a dangerous manner should also sometimes (admittedly very rarely) warrant a penalty.
The point about Palu not using his arms raises an issue that referees and commentators need to understand. Sometimes when a runner accelerates into a tackle he hits the tackler before the arms can be used. This is what happened to Palu. His arms were out ready to engulf Kearney but Kearney actually smashed into his chest before he could get his arms into play.
Anyway, as people have pointed out in this thread it is not unusual for a tackler to take the impact of a runner on his body or shoulder (with a side on tackle) before he wraps his arms around the runner. This is clearly what happened in Palu’s case. And just as clearly, Palu had not turned his body and charged with his shoulder before the collision with Kearney.
His body was front on. How Kaplan and his assistant referees could get this wrong is beyond my understanding.
As for the Kearney shoulder charge on Elsom, it was clearly a shoulder charge, and it should have warranted a yellow card. As for the penalty on the halfway mark, I bow to the greater knowledge of referees like Joh4Canberra. But I will say that I have seen penalties awarded on the halfway for a similar sort of offence.
Finally, I was please to see that Bryan Habana was cleared off kicking an opponent in the France-South Africa Test. He should never have been charged in the first place. I saw the incident and at the time it seemed to me he was trying to extricate his leg from the clutches of a French player.
The whole citing business has been a mess in the last couple of weeks. Carter was cited and found guilty of for a tackle that is replicated time after time in Tests. In the same Test, Stephen Jones gets away with kicking Brendon Leonard in the head, hastening his departure from the field: no penalty and no citing.
Then Rob Kearney is NOT cited for a shoulder charge that was far more dangerous than the Carter tackle.
Then Bryan Habana IS cited to a tap with his foot on a pesky opponent who was holding on to him.
Where is the consistency or accuracy in all of this? That is the point I tried to make in the article.
Cattledog said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
Spiro, lifting the legs, yes, lifting the elbow, yes, using the shoulder, no, regardless of whether your carrying the ball in that arm or not. The use of the shoulder against a player carrying the ball is dangerous in so much as the player has less ability to defend against such action. Why it is allowed in league I can’t understand.
Pete said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
“I was being unduly provocative “.. I have come to the conclusion there are two Spiros: ‘The Roar Spiro’ who always plants a contentious statement in the posting to get us to debate.. and then there is the ‘newsprint Spiro’ who is just as entertaining but slightly less provocative. Its tabloid vs broadsheet.
Its like the Roar is Spiro’s venting forum for what he’d really like to say in the print but the editor says… wahooo hold on there. Love your work Spiro!
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:30pm | Report comment
You were being unduly provocative when you made the point about Kearney shoulder charging Palu, Spiro?
How about admitting you are just plain wrong -and that Kearney was attempting to go by him when Palu hit him – or Kearney hit Palu or they hit each other.
I note that you say that Kearney smashed into Palu’s chest. By all accounts, and if you look at the video evidence, Kearney runs into Palu’s left shoulder area. this happens because Palu has to move across to his left to prevent Kearney going by him. You can see quite clearly see Palu’s legs are to the right of Kearney’s body – therefore they are not meeting each other head on. You can see that Palu’s left shoulder rebounds slightly from the first impact with Kearney.
This is NOT Kearney leading with his shoulder to charge Palu.
How you could get this wrong is beyond my understanding
I think the issue of whether players use arms, or attempt to use them having made the effective impact/charge with their body is more widepsread than this particular incident. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Pocock made a similar tackle without really attempting to use his arms on Flannery who was already being tackled and could not defend himself as well.
I think players are taking advantage of the looseness of ‘attempting’ to use their arms to make more and more body-check tackles.
Dublin Dave said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:43am | Report comment
“I have seen players penalised for undue violence when running with the ball. For instance, raising the knees in a dangerous manner”
You know, Spiro, in a roundabout way you are actually getting to the nub of this issue. What referees have to limit is the “undue violence” that naturally attends this most physical of games. It is the spirit as much as the letter of the laws that they have to safeguard.
It is quite apparent that you can infllict serious damage on an opponent within the letter of the laws, and/or you can get badly injured without any malice intended. This is a risk and an eventuality that all real players are willing to endure, but that doesn’t mean that the laws shouldn’t be amended to limit unnecessary violence.
There is no law against shoulder charging .There is a law against dangerous charging and a case load of precedents which act as guidelines for referees. The spirit of the law is that a player running in posession can be legally stopped without having to be knocked senseless. The letter of the law which aims to realise this is that some attempt must be made to grasp the player in possession.
This wasn’t always the legal position. There is a famous incident from a South Africa Barbarians game on a Sprinboks tour in the early 1960s when a South African forward (I think Avril Malan) was charging down the touch line and the Barbarians full back Haydn Mainwaring body slammed him into touch knocking him out cold in the process. That was perfectly legal and unpunished at the time; nowadays Mainwaring would have been binned.
That being said, you are specifically allowed in the laws to push a player in possession of the ball. When a push becomes a charge is for the referee to adjudicate.
Now look at the two incidents in question. The effect of Palu’s hit on Kearney was exactly what legislators are trying to prevent. Kearney was sent flying backwards and was clearly stunned. He also was not held on the ground, leading to the reasonable suspicion that Palu did not attempt to grasp him, (refuted on looking at the replay) and Palu was standing upright leading to the reasonable suspicion that he had hit him high (confirmed on looking at the replay).
Kaplan was within his rights and within established guidelines to award the penalty and bin Palu. If Palu had crouched down and taken Kearney lower, he would probably not have been penalised.
In the second incident there is obviously some cognitive dissonance at work here. To my eyes Kearney is sideways on to Elsom and is clearly pushing him with his right hand. No case to answer. And even if he had hit him shoulder to shoulder it wouldn’t have been a foul. Shoulder to chin or shoulder to solar plexus with no attempt to grasp him, yes. Penalty and card. But as it was, nothing. Especially as it had little effect on Elsom.
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:21am | Report comment
Dave, you’re wide of the mark with this argument. Of course Kaplan was in his rights to award the penalty and sin bin Palu. The referee is the sole judge of fact and law. That does not make the decision correct, which in this case it clearly wasn’t.
Super rugby, were our boys have come from, is arguably the toughest provincial comp in the world. There’s no way one of those guys would drop like the proverbial bag of sh*t as Kearney did, and the other blowse who bounced off Pocock. Most of the Kiwi, SA and Aussie players would have more than likely taken both to ground whilst still going forward. Why Kaplan saw it as a penalty, he was partially unsighted, we’ll never know. The crowd reaction, however, then saw him take additional action. Bloody showpony!
You know, if the Wallabies go through this tour undefeated, a relatively inexperienced team of boys where many were playing schoolboy rugby only a matter of a couple of years ago, then the NH had better take a long hard look at itself. Although any mention of the word hard appears lost on many of the players.
Having said that, let me say that Brian O’Driscoll’s try was very well executed and I think very deserving of a great player in his 100th test. You would have thought, though, that this along with playing at home, undefeated 6 Nations champions etc etc would have been more than enough to put an inexperienced, faultering Wallaby team well and truely to the sword. Just goes to show the massive difference between the hemispheres.
pothale said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Cattledog – there’s always one person who has to step into the argument waving his mickey around – ‘our boys wouldn’t drop like the proverbial bag of sh*t as Kearney did, and the other blowse (sic) who bounced off Pocock.
Leaving aside the unecessary spurt of testosterone into the argument, which guy are you talking about who bounced off Pocock? If you are talking about Flannery, then you should look at the incident first.
The inexperienced, faultering team of boys as you describe them had many who were only playing schoolboy rugby a couple of years ago. Like who out of the starting XV fits into this category?
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
With an AVERAGE age of 24, you work it out, Einstein!
Knives Out said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:54am | Report comment
Australians seems to be very keen to facilitate this ‘We’re such a young team!’ attitude which strikes me as a smokescreen to cover poor results and middling performances. The average age of the current side would be increased by Barnes, Mortlock and Sharpe, methinks. Regardless, all teams have young players. When England played Australia the English side contained 10 players aged 24 or younger, and the Australian side contained 9. Ireland and France also has some very young players, so I think you need to get some clarity and accuracy, Cattledog.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 2:58am | Report comment
Clarity and accuracy…I’ll work on it. There’s lies, damn lies and statistics. You appear to have a preponderance of all three, KO.
pothale said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
If the average age was 24, then two years ago, on average, they would all have been playing rugby professionally, not schoolboy rugby, Cattledog. Thank you for making my point.
I note you didn’t respond on the Pocock question.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:06am | Report comment
Sorry Pothale, didn’t see the request. In between other commitments, this is just an aside rather than a slog. We’ll need to agree to disagree on the NH vs SH quests. I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and whether the NH is doing things right or the SH teams are doing things right will be revealed in 2011.
I certainly hope the Wallabies finish the tour undefeated. It would be a great boost for this young side but as I said earlier, I don’t see it as a huge feat. If you think the NH teams are going great guns, then so be it. I don’t, so beating them isn’t such a big deal, IMO. Our real test was the 3N and we came up short.
Pete said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
KO, Barnes is 24.
Colin N said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:29am | Report comment
“There’s no way one of those guys would drop like the proverbial bag of sh*t as Kearney did”
He looked pretty dazed for a few minutes afterwards.
Whether or not it was a penalty etc, it was still a hard hit that obviously affected Kearney.
Jerry said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:17am | Report comment
Dave –
Firstly – the Palu tackle wasn’t ‘confirmed as being high’ on replay, in fact even on slow mo replay it’s not entirely clear whether the hit was on the chest/ball or chest/ball/chin.
Secondly – what the hell is this ’shoulder to shoulder’ crap? The only reference to shoulder to shoulder that you’ve quoted is in reference to an entirely different situation. The laws on dangerous tackling don’t differentiate between a tackle to the solar plexus or one to the shoulder, knee or small of the back. You seem to be getting tied up in knots trying to rationalise the tackle as legal.
Joh4Canberra said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
@ Dublin Dave: You’re right that law 7 permits a player to “push” the ball carrier. The relevant section states:
“Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.” But that is qualified by two things: (1) the natural meaning of the word “push” and (2) the further statement in Law 7 that “whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.” (2) Means you can’t claim something is a legal push under Law 7 if that conduct is prohibited somewhere else in the laws. And (1) means that the word “push” has its own natural limitations and you can’t stretch it to claim that something outside of the normal definition of the word “push” is permitted under Law 7. As an illustration of this a “head but” would clearly not be a permissible “push” regardless of whether “head butting” is expressly prohibited (which as it happens is) because the word “push” in its natural meaning does NOT include striking with the head.
So what does the word “push” mean then? As both a referee and a lawyer I would respectfully suggest that the natural meaning of the word “push” involves the use of the hands or forearm. If you were standing on the street corner and someone came up to you at speed and made contact with you via his shoulder, chest, foot, knee, head, etc then as an independent witness I would not describe that as a “push”. Rather if someone made contact at speed with the use of the shoulder I would call that a “charge”. If, however, you were standing on the street and I observed you extend your arm and make contact with another person via your hand or forearm then I would definitely call that a “push”.
And so it is, I would submit on the rugby field. Making contact with the shoulder is not a “push” within the meaning of Law 7. Now that in and of itself doesn’t say that “shoulder charging” is illegal. All I have said so far is that you cannot claim that shoulder charging is a “push” permitted under Law 7 because the word “push” does not mean striking with the shoulder. So is “shoulder charging” prohibited by any of the laws? You are right to state that there is no law against “shoulder charging” *as such*. The laws do not use the expression “shoulder charge”. Instead they employ the more general expression of “charging” which as a general term includes specific instances such as charging with the shoulder. But potentially it includes other forms of “charging” as well (such as charging with the chest). Law 10.4(g) states: “A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.” The word “dangerously” is not there in the text of Law 10.4(g). Where it appears is in the *heading* of Law 10.4(g). As a lawyer I can tell you that that is an important factor to note because it affects how you interpret the law. “Dangerousness” is not an added element of the offence against Law 10.4(g). Rather “charg[ing] or knock[ing] down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player” is PER DEFINITIONEM “dangerous charging”. There is not some threshold of “dangerousness” that first has to be crossed for the kind of charging described in Law 10.4(g) to be illegal. *All* conduct covered by the terms of Law 10.4(g) is *by definition* “dangerous charging”
Now if as you suggested Kearney had “pushed” Elsom with his hand then, yes, that is permissible conduct under Law 7. No charge to answer whatsoever. He is entitled to attempt to push him into touch to prevent a try from being cored. But if Kearney hit Elsom with the shoulder without any attempt to grasp him then that is clearly illegal under law 10.4(g) and it is irrelevant to attempt to argue that the hit was “shoulder to shoulder”. That phrase comes from Law 10.1(a) which only permits two opposing players, NEITHER OF WHOM IS IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL BUT WHO ARE BOTH RUNNING FOR THE BALL from “charg[ing] or push[ing]” one another “except shoulder-to-shoulder”. If Elsom and Kearney were both chasing a kick then Kearney could jostle with Elsom “shoulder to shoulder” and that would be perfectly lawful. But two things are important to note here: (1) Neither player can be in possession of the ball (Elsom clearly was) and (2) (assuming neither player is in possession) BOTH players have to be going for the ball. If the winger has kicked ahead and is sprinting down field to attempt to ground a ball sitting in-goal, the opposing full back can’t come across field and take out the winger shoulder to shoulder. In this case the opposing full back quite clearly would not be going for the ball. (he’s not running in the direction of the ball but is attempting to cut the opposing player off!). The “shoulder to shoulder” exception is not an invitation to put in a cheap shot on an opponent and take him out of the play. You have to legitimately be chasing the ball to come under this exception.
Bob McGregor said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Great post – your contributions on the Laws of the game are much appreciated. I hope it may minimise some of the ill informed statements on law coming from some quarters on the “ROAR”.
Keep up the great contributions.
Joh4Canberra said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:43am | Report comment
Thanks Bob. I should just say that I slightly mangled the explanation of the “shoulder to shoulder” thing in trying to quote from the laws and not doing so correctly. The sentence where I actually attempted to quote from the law is actually non-sensical but the subsequent explanation is fine. The problem is that the law is expressed in a negative form (a player is forbidden from doing X unless Y) and I originally wrote my sentence like this but then for the sake of clarity changed it to a positive statement (a player may do Y unless it amounts to X) but then didn’t change it fully to reflect this. The sentence as it stands half reflects my old wording and half my new wording. And then when I noticed this I was outside the 10 minute window for amending my comment. Oh well.
Anyway, hopefully my subsequent explanation was still clear. It’s quite simple really. “Shoulder-to-shoulder” applies if and only if (1) neither player is in possession of the ball AND (2) both players are going for the ball (it’s not a licence for one player to go “for the man” rather than “for the ball” as my fullback running *across* field to take out the opposing winger running *down* field example was meant to illustrate; both have to be going for the ball).
Better yet, just read the laws for yourselves at http://www.irblaws.com/ . With the internet they are accessible to everyone and they are also written in a way that is quite accessible to the average person. You don’t need to be a referee or a lawyer to understand them.
Dublin Dave said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:26am | Report comment
Joh4Canberra said: “You’re right that law 7 permits a player to “push” the ball carrier.”
Thank you
Joh4Canberra said “Now if as you suggested Kearney had “pushed” Elsom with his hand then, yes, that is permissible conduct under Law 7.”
Thank you. That is not what I “suggested”, it’s what I said.
Joh4Canberra said:
“I would respectfully suggest that the natural meaning of the word “push” involves the use of the hands or forearm.”
That would be by understanding as well, with the proviso that the pusher is using an open hand. A few seasons ago my son, then aged about 12, got taken aside by a referee and spoken to about robust play. “But I only pushed him!” he protested innocently.
“Well next time, don’t push him with your fist!” he was told.
I did not say, nor did I wish to imply, that a shoulder to shoulder contact by Kearney on Elsom constitutes a push in itself. What I meant was that if in attempting to push Elsom with his hand, which he clearly does as shown on the video, his shoulder came into contact with Elsom’s then that is not an offence.
I made that point because previous posters here seem to be terribly hung up on the notion of a shoulder charge. Actually, the more I look at the clip, the less it seems that Kearney used his shoulder at all, so perhaps the whole shoulder thing is a red herring.
However I disagree with your interpretation of the law on dangerous charging. You seem to be saying that any form of contact which does not involve making an attempt to grasp the player in possession is a charge. Whether it is shoulder to shoulder, chest to chest or bum to bum. You seem furthermore to be saying that all such contact is by definition dangerous because the word dangerous appears in the heading of law 10.4G and not in the text.
I disagree with this on two grounds.
First, interpreting any contact which does not involve an attempt to grasp the ball carrier as dangerous play is nonsensical in a game like rugby. It is impractical, given the nature of the game and it flatly contradicts the law which permits the player in possession to be pushed. By any definition of the term, a push is incompatible with grasping the subject. This would not be a case of one law “qualifying” the meaning of another, which would be fair enough; it would be plain contradiction.
Secondly, and here I am stepping impudently into the realm of interpreting legal intent armed only with a native grasp of the English language honed by a former career in journalism, I don’t think the position of the word “dangerous” in the heading implies what you said. On the contrary, the fact that a reference to “dangerous charging” is made implies that there is such a thing as “non dangerous charging”. After all, elsewhere in the general section on “Dangerous play and Misconduct” there are subsections on “punching or striking”, “Stamping or trampling” and “Kicking”. None of these are qualifed by the word dangerous, in each case it is implied.
Anyway this is all high falutin legal argument. Us lesser mortals, such as referees, would be better advised to follow the advice of the former president of the US Andrew Jackson who in his previous career as a lawyer would urge juries in his summing up to “Do what is RIGHT between these parties, that is what the law MEANS”
Palu hit Kearney high and didn’t get his arms around him in time. The effect it had on Kearney –stopping him dead and knocking him backwards to the ground–was precisely the effect the law on “Dangerous Charging” was crafted to eradicate.
Kearney attempted to push Elsom into touch, not to knock him down or stop him dead in his tracks. If he made contact with a part of his body other than his hand it was still to push Elsom across the line of his run and out over the touchline, not back in his tracks and on to the ground. If it was any sort of “charge”, it was was, dare I say it, a non-dangerous one.
Kaplan was right. IMHO.
Both times.
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:30am | Report comment
“Actually, the more I look at the clip, the less it seems that Kearney used his shoulder at all, so perhaps the whole shoulder thing is a red herring.”
Ok, I think I’m just gonna have to chalk the whole thing down to …well, denial I’m afraid, cause you’re obviously not looking at the same clip I am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhS1kgZMyzo
Look at the 10 second mark and after. Kearney is essentially side on to Elsom with his left shoulder leading. Essentially you’re saying that the right arm, which is reaching across his body, is more in play than the left shoulder which is in contact with Elsom?
Joh4Canberra said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Dublin Dave,
thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply.
Yes obviously the use of a clenched fist is not a legal “push”, but is clearly a punch. You don’t need to be a legal expert to know that. We all know what words mean in their natural sense. Everyone has a basic grasp of what words mean and my point was simply that unless the subject matter and context indicate a contrary intention we need to read the words in the rugby laws in their natural sense. A “punch” quite clearly is not a “push”. And my point was simply that a “charge” is not a “push” either. I think we’re agreed on that point so I shall move on to the main points of disagreement.
You stated of my last post:
“You seem to be saying that any form of contact which does not involve making an attempt to grasp the player in possession is a charge. Whether it is shoulder to shoulder, chest to chest or bum to bum. You seem furthermore to be saying that all such contact is by definition dangerous because the word dangerous appears in the heading of law 10.4G and not in the text.”
That was not my intention. Players regularly come into contact with one another with no attempt to grasp the opponent and that in itself is not illegal under Law 10.4(g). My point was simply to say that asking whether there is a form of “charging” that is legal because it is not “dangerous” is to ask the wrong question. The question is not “which forms of charging are dangerous and therefore illegal and which forms of charging are non-dangerous and therefore legal?” but rather “which forms of contact constitute a “charge without an attempt to grasp the player” (and are therefore constitute the offence of “dangerous charging” and thereby illegal under Law 10.4(g)) and “which forms of contact don’t constitute a “charge without an attempt to grasp the player” (and are therefore not illegal under Law 10.4(g)). Two players rubbing shoulders, chests or bums together is not illegal under Law 10.4(g). But the all important question is WHY? The reason why such conduct in not illegal under Law 10.4(g) is NOT that it constitutes “a non-dangerous charge” but because it does not constitute “a charge”. All “charging” without an attempt to grasp the player is illegal and by definition dangerous. But not all forms of contact between players constitute “charging”. The word “charge” is not actually defined by the laws. So we have to use the word in its ordinary sense. Not all forms of contact amount to “charging” or “knocking down”.
I realise you’re not a lawyer and I am, so let me take a minute to explain to you some of the basics of legal interpretation. I can certainly see why you would want to suggest that the presence of the word “dangerous” would be superfluous if there isn’t also some form of non-dangerous charging but I can’t agree with you. I know this is a sports blog rather than a class in legal interpretation so I ask others to bear with me as I digress into the arcane art of legal interpretation.
Part of the problem is the brevity and modern drafting style of the laws. If I redraft Law 10.4(g) in classic 19th Century legalese (like a good old fashioned statute creating a criminal offence) for you then the point should hopefully be clearer:
==DANGEROUS CHARGING==
Whosoever charges or knocks down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player shall be guilty of the offence of dangerous charging and liable to conceding a penalty kick.
This reflects the classic practice in criminal law of having the name of the offence (“dangerous charging”), the “elements” of the offence (1. charging or knocking down, 2. an opponent, 3. who is carrying the ball, and 4. no attempt to grasp that player) and the “sanction” (penalty kick).
You could call the offence anything you liked and it would make no difference at all. “Dangerous charging” is just a name. You could call it “Qwertyuiop” and the offence would be exactly the same for the simple reason that the offence is defined by its “elements” (the four constituent parts I listed above) and not its name.
Saying “whosoever charges or knocks down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player shall be guilty of the offence of Qwertyuiop” HAS EXACTLY THE SAME LEGAL EFFECT AS SAYING “whosoever charges or knocks down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player shall be guilty of the offence of dangerous charging”. Do you see this? Whether we call it “dangerous charging” or “Qwertyuiop” makes no difference to what conduct is illegal under the law. If the law makers had called it “Qwertyuiop” and drafted the laws in classic 19th century legalese rather than calling it “dangerous charging” and adopting modern drafting practices I suspect we wouldn’t even be having this debate. But they didn’t so we are.
Translated into trendy modern legal drafting my classic 19th century legalese becomes the current form of Law 10.4(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
“Dangerous charging” is just the name of the offence. You can call it what you like and it still wouldn’t make any difference. “Dangerous” forms part of the name of the offence but “dangerousness” is NOT one of the elements of the offence. To repeat, the four elements of the offence of “dangerous charging” are:
1. charging or knocking down, 2. an opponent, 3. who is not carrying the ball, and 4. no attempt to grasp that player.
If you have all of those 4 things in any given situation you have an instance of the offence of “dangerous charging”. If not, then you don’t.
Here endeth the lesson in legal interpretation
Best wishes,
Joh4Canberra
Joh4Canberra said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
sorry for the typo on my reiteration of the elements of the offence. No. 3 is “who is carrying the ball”. “Not” should not be there.
Dublin Dave said | November 20th 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Right this is going to be my last statement on this matter because I think I’ve said all I want to and heard the most cogent arguments to the contrary that I’m likely to hear.
Jerry
I looked at a different clip of the Kearney Elsom incident taken from the front which gives a clearer picture of what Kearney’s right hand is doing.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QroApDIBeGc)
But even the one that you reference taken from the other side seems to show him pushing with his left forearm. That, according to what Joh4Canberra said above could reasonably be described as a push and that, we are agreed, is perfectly legal.
Joh4Canberra
Well, you’ve certainly hurt my brain with all that legal forensics but haven’t said whether you consider what Kearney did as a charge or a push. I think it’s the latter. Clearly most Australians here consider it was the former. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I don’t think there was anything at all wrong with Kearney’s actions and there is certainly no comparison with what Palu did. Kearney didn’t knock Elsom to the ground–Elsom was heading that way under his own steam as he wanted to ground the ball over the line. Kearney was trying to push him over the touch line.
To summarise my feeling on the Palu incident. I think it was a marginal call. He did make an attempt to wrap his arms (all he is required to do under the laws) but failed and he was high. His legs were hardly bent. He might have got away with it from a ref in a different position who would have seen the attempted “wrap” or “grasp” but he did seem to hit Kearney on the chin and that IS specifically an offence regardless of where he connected first. So Kaplan was well within his rights to award as he did.
And so, my learned and not so learned friends, I am resting my case on that note.
Justin said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
DD – dont kid yourself, the arms were up it was perfectly legal. The ref got it wrong, they do that sometimes you know… The ref clearly had no problem with the height of the tackle, if he did it would have been a high shoulder charge which I think would have been a red card. His body actions clearly showed he was saying that he thought Palu did not use his arms, there was no indication he thought it was a high shot.
Even the TV pundits admit it was just a massive hit and they were Irish (well once they saw the replay).
As for Kearney on Elsom – I will say at best it was very poor technique on RKs part and something you see in league (which is allowed) but there was one arm in that tackle but the main shoulder had his arm down.
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Well, it’s obvious there’s not gonna be any agreement on this Dave.
I’m just not seeing the same thing as you are when watching that clip of the Kearney tackle on Elsom. If you look at the 1:04 mark of the clip you posted, and watch how Elsom’s head rocks back from the impact (I’m not saying his head was hit, but it snaps back in a whiplash effect). That impact is not caused by Kearney’s left forearm, nor by his right hand doing any pushing. It’s almost entirely caused by his left shoulder. His right arm and hand only make incidental contact with Elsom, and I don’t think he’s putting any real effort into pushing with his right.
I honestly see that as a textbook no arms shoulder charge.
But again, there’s obviously gonna be no consensus, so I’ll bow out and look forward to the AB’s next fixture against what is probably the heaviest international rugby team in history.
Bob McGregor said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Brilliant legal interpretation of the various Laws being discussed and nicely explained for us lay people. You must be the only legal man I like besides my Barrister brother-in-law.
Keep up the good work/analysis to educate those of us you tend to engage our mouth/pen before engaging our brain.
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
That takes me back to Laws 101 there John. I think it’s safe to assume the Actus Reus has been satisfied for that charge.
Joh4Canberra said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
@ Dublin Dave
No I didn’t say in my subsequent posts whether I thought what Kearney did was a charge or a push because I didn’t think it was that important. I’m flattered that anyone would care what I think. I’ve never complained about either decision. Sure in my very first post in this thread (which was not a reply to your comment) I expressed my opinion that I thought Palu’s hit was legal and Kearney’s illegal and that Kaplan got both decisions wrong but I wasn’t complaining about that. Just expressing my opinion and more interested in discussing a few issues arising from these incidents such as the use of yellow cards under the laws.
Then I responded to a post of yours as I thought you had misunderstood the law of “dangerous” charging. I wasn’t particularly interested in getting into a debate about the facts of either case (the game is done and dusted and nothing’s going to change as a result of anything said here) but was more interested in clarifying what the law said about “dangerous charging”. In short, while we as spectators might legitimately be interested in the question “was that dangerous?”, the point is that that that is not an independent question for the referee to ask in deciding whether to give a penalty. The relevant questions under Law 10.4(g) are whether there was:
1. charging or knocking down, 2.of an opponent, 3. who was carrying the ball, and 4. no attempt to grasp that player.
If we answer yes to all four questions then the player is guilty of “dangerous charging” and a penalty along with either an admonition, a yellow card or potentially even a red card are in order. If we answer no to one or more of these questions then there has been no offence of “dangerous charging” under the law even if we happen to think what happened was “dangerous”.
For what my opinions are worth here they are in relation to the four elements of the offence of dangerous charging:
(a) Palu on Kearney:
1. yes, 2. yes, 3. yes, 4. NO. Verdict: Not guilty on account of the fact that Paul “attempted to grasp the player”. No penalty and no yellow card.
I made my initial comments only having seen the incident live. Having now seen it replayed on the internet my opinion hasn’t changed. The crucial test with the Palu incident is (4) — i.e. whether or not he attempted to grasp the player. I accept that some people may take the view that there was no attempt to grasp Kearney and that the play was therefore illegal. If that’s your view I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I readily accept that he didn’t *in fact* grasp Kearney, but on what I’ve seen I think there’s sufficient evidence of Palu’s *attempt* to grasp (which is the question on which the whole matter turns).
(b) Kearney on Elsom
1. Hard to give a definitive answer but I would still go with yes, 2. yes, 3. yes, 4. yes. Verdict: guilty, play advantage and award the try but given the circumstance I feel that this is a border line case between admonition and caution/yellow card and I would err on the side of leniency and admonish him.
Seeing it live I thought it was a “charge” and not a “push”. Having now seen it replayed on the internet from a few different angles I will happily admit it is not as clear cut as I first thought. 2-4 are clearly answered in the affirmative. The question on which this turns, therefore, is whether it was a “charge” or not (eg because it was a “push”). Kearney DOES extend his arms against Elsom which might suggest it was a “push”. However he does so AFTER he has already made contact with his torso and Elsom has bounced off him. At no point did Kearney attempt to grasp Elsom and at the point of contact he hits Elsom with his arms completely unextended. I would therefore conclude that he “charged” Elsom and therefore guilty of an offence under Law 10.4(g). But on reflection no yellow card.
In the first incident (Palu on Kearney) the relevant question is whether Palu *attempted* to grasp the player. “Did Palu *attempt* to grasp Kearney: yea or nay?” If this was a jury trial *that* would be the disputed question on which the jury would be deliberating since it is the question on which Palu’s guilt or innocence turns. The crucial issue is whether he “attempted” to grasp Kearney. Kaplan says “clearly dangerous, no arms”. Now I realise that in the heat of the moment on the field refs don’t always speak in the precise language of the law (and I don’t expect them to either). But the words Kaplan used are ambiguous and a question arises as to whether Kaplan really understands that an *attempt* to grasp a player is sufficient to be innocent in the eyes of the law. Kaplan may have asked the wrong question and therefore found Palu guilty of an offence unknown to the laws of rugby. If Kaplan had said something like “no attempt to grab the player” then I would be satisfied that Kaplan had turned his mind to the relevant question of law. While I still might disagree with his answer to that question it’s imperative that we have referees basing their decisions on what the law *actually* says and not on what they think it says (or ought to say) but doesn’t actually say.
In the second incident (Kearney on Elsom) the relevant question is whether Kearney actually “charged” Elsom. If this was a jury trial then *that* is the disputed question on which the jury would be deliberating. Unlike the Palu case the question here is not over anything *attempted* by Kearney. I’m not suggesting this is your position but just to point out by way of explantion: To argue that Kearney *attempted* to push Elsom is beside the point. Unlike in Palu’s case where the question was what Palu “attempted” to do, the relevant question here is what Kearney *actually* did. Did Kearney actually “charge” Elsom? Yea or nay?
mcxd said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
a little off the topic but refering to the picture Palu and Ben Alexander seem to be pretty happy with each other. Hmm and what are they actually in training for ?
mick h said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
I jumped into this article to read of some secret wallaby hi jinx too.
Maybe if every one here who is a little hot under the collar should take a look at the picture and smile.
Maybe Knives Out can imagine himself in that picture with a cuddly little kiwi.
PS. Sorry knives just having some fun.
Knives Out said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:32pm | Report comment
Maybe a Kiwi, but never a Wallaby.
Campbell Watts said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Ah so you do have discerning tastes KO!
Unappealing those aussie brutes aren’t they?
Knives Out said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
I take my rugby seriously and only the best will do.
brad said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
When i was a lad we were told to run hard if we had the ball in hand. Drop your shoulder and try to knock the guy out of your way, If Kearney did try to shoulder charge Palu good on him! Palu definately tried to make a tackle and the ref got it horribly wrong.
sledgeandhammer said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
What did people think of the Irish booing Palu when he was sent off for 10 minutes for his legal tackle? That would never happen at Twickers, they only boo their own!
mcxd said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
yeah i wouldnt blame Kearney for trying to shoulder when he had possession, don’t most players do that. Palu ? like Carter ban him, give him a week to take a long hard look at himself and his actions.
Actually one thing that happened during the game made me think. Firstly let me say i love my rugby, always have, but im starting to question things regarding laws. For example, Kearney puts a kick up, he runs through tries to tap it back to one of his players but i think Genia also gets a hand in as well. The ball comes off Genia and goes forward accidentally and literally lands in Pococks lap. Instinct ? catch the damn ball. Result ? Penalty to Ireland. Now this was just or close enough after Australia try and admittidly that was a pretty soft try but really is this “infringement” worth 3 points as O’Gara converted the penalty ????!!!
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:46am | Report comment
On your first point, mcxd, your running with the bunnies. A week for Palu…shouldn’t have even been a penalty. Whatever it is your on, pass it round so we can all enjoy the experience! Perhaps it was ‘tongue in cheek’??!!
On your next point, you’ve obviously cleaned your system out and are seeing things clearly once again. Should never have been a penalty. Scrum yes, but once again, you have an international referee who’s very existence is determined week in and week out by referee coaches who in the main, have a less understanding of what’s going on, but weild a pen big enough to cruel careers. You were right in all aspects of what you said. The law is quite clear on this one. Unfortunately, referees do not understand ‘intent’. They could do with some training in understanding this important aspect of the game. In this case, it was unclear in a split second who actually got their hand to it. There was no ‘intent’ by Pocock to play the ball illegally in this case. You could argue at the kick off that the player running to the front of where the ball is landing in the hope the receiving team knocks it down to him, is ‘intentionally’ placing himself in a position to receive the ball illegally if his own player gets a hand to it and knocks it forward. However, in these cases, the player is given the benefit of the doubt, which is probably fair and just. Most supporters prefer scrums to penalties, and it’s positive play, which should be rewarded.
mcxd said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:18am | Report comment
yeah sorry Cattledog, it was my attempt at sarcasm (obviously failed). Ill clarify and say it was farcical in my opinion. The ref should have shook his hand instead of given him a yellow. cheers
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:29am | Report comment
You must be OS as well, or just a night owl??
mcxd said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
yeah im in sunny Scotland, but sydney born and bred. My scottish wife told me the weather was much better in Glasgow ! yeah, given most on here are from the SH i kind of miss the meat of most of the debates or get in when the article is first posted. Im either the first to comment or 168th ….unless your a 24/7 rugby machine like KO and Pothale.
By the way im off to the game on saturday, nervously keeping an eye on the weather for Edinburgh. i dont like my chances. cheers
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
Good stuff, mcxd. I’m in sunny Afghanistan, luckily we get a SA cable chanel with more rugby than I get back in Oz! Enjoy the game Sat…I’ll be watching!
mcxd said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
Afganistan ?!! flamin hell.. take care out there. I hope you enjoy the game, ill be the wet looking one with a beer in my hand and hopefully a smile on my face ! Cheers MD
James said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:07am | Report comment
Stop complaining about poor reffing! All games consist of decisions refs make instantaneously in the heat of the moment. Palu has charged before and Kaplan felt he did it again. Palu prides himself on big hits. Well, okay, but he will pay the price for it, as he did at Croke Park. Unlike Dickinson screwing it up for 10 minutes in Milan, Kaplan had to call it immediately. He is a good ref and is without side, unlike some of his brethen (eg. Andre Watson).
Cattledog said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:35am | Report comment
James, whilst decision making, understanding and interpretation of laws are part and parcel of professional referee’s training, the total lack of implimentation of most of these areas would suggest there is not nearly enough training in these aspects. No doubt referees have to make decisions on the spot, however, unless they fully understand the decision making or appreciation process, you will continue to see the sub-standard performances that we are witnessing.
Regardless of what you think Palu prides himself on, that’s no excuse for a professional referee to botch the number of incidents Kaplan did, including that one. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Tim O'Connor said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Meh. Spiro never reads the laws of the game. We all knew that long since.
By the way; a tackle requires a player to be brought to the ground while held. If you’re not held, you don’t have to release. Not held = not a tackle.
Jerry said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Unless someone on their feet is playing the ball when you’re still on the ground.
Jameswm said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Kaplan “without side”?
Pull the other one.
MarkR said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
OK – watched both the ‘hits’ on Youtube. Palu was a no arms tackle, if his reactions are that slow that he can’t grab a guy he’s just lined up & toasted then he’d struggle to catch a ball ! Intent is rubbish, there were no arms in teh tackle hence penalty, not sure about the yellow though but as it was a no arms tackle it’s legit to card Palu.
Second incident was penalty & probable 10 mins. The ONLY way it wasn’t a should er charge is if he was using his left arm underneath which in fact would’ve driven Elson head first into the ground as it would’ve lifted his hips past his head.
Ben C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Can we all agree the most troubling issue is not who should have given a yellow card for what but really why we have to see a photograph of Palu and Elsom spooning during training. This is not what I want to see when I log on in the morning.
pothale said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
LOL Ben.
I’ve just spluttered my coffee on the keyboard.
You’re right – when I first saw the picture, I was wondering what the curiousity was. Unfortunately, it turned out to be another wind-up.
Spooning – perfect description.
Ben C said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Pothale
It’s our new breakdown technique. Rucking has been banned so ‘boots’n'all’ is out. Trying aggression and counter-rucking (like the All Blacks) hasn’t worked for us.
The new tactic is a bit of a cuddle and soon being caught in an Australian ruck will be a feared place to be. No team will be able to challenge the Australian breakdown. At least until Bakkes Botha adopts the same strategy.
Jacks Dad said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Kaplan is a joke, every match he officiates on it seems he wants to control the outcome of the game, why don’t the ARU or the Aussie coach launch an official protest against his blatant anti-aussie (&waratah) refereeing? It’s like these characters are a protected species, I mean players & coaching staff are all accountable so why not this little toad?
mcxd said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
Did anyone see the article ( i think it was SMH ) about the IRB referes boss Paddy O’Brien critisising Dickinson for his control of the NZ scrum ? Right Paddy now thats a start i hope you dont stop there. Next on the list Kaplans yellow card ?? Unfortunately i highly doubt it.
rob said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
sour grapes. poor tackle. cop it.
jim_bar said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
oof, I’ve just seen it from this angle?
http://www.scrum.com/australiatour/rugby/image/105791.html
pothale said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:38am | Report comment
Spot on – Jim.
Perfect angle which totally dismisses this claim that Kearney smashed into Palu with his shoulder or that Kearney smashed into Palu’s chest.
Palu’s arm is high, and he leads with his left shoulder. And the angle of the two bodies shows that Kearney was looking to go past him, not into him. Palu’s body is angled to his left with his arm and shoulder up high.
Illegal tackle in my view. Ref was right.
Pete said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Palu’s arm is high because it has bounced up over the ball.
Can’t quite work out how he has lead with his left shoulder in that still shot.
His arms are around the player. He was penalised for not using his arms… The perfect tackle. Kaplan’s desision was wrong.
Anyway who cares. Its happened. Bring on Scotland
Justin said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Illegal how? Kearney is on the way down when this shot is taken, of course Palus arm is going to be looking high. Dear me, Kearney got smashed by a beauty of a tackle, the ref got it wrong. He wasnt done for high, he was done for no arms which this photo clearly shows is rubbish as both arms are up!
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:19am | Report comment
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/markphoto/Palulow.jpg
http://forum.planet-rugby.com/index.php?t=getfile&id=16864&private=0
http://i48.tinypic.com/1t6bd2.jpg
It’s not so simple as a still photo, especially given that photo is obviously after the contact.
Have a look at these – The first shows that Palu was not really aiming high, and that Kearney is ducking into contact somewhat (though you could argue Palu should realise this will happen).
The second two, which are taken at essentially the same time as the photo you linked to, are pretty much a lesson in camera angles. Once appears to show Palu about to hit Kearney with a high swinging arm, the second shows that the arm and shoulder are actually a fair way from Kearney’s face and make it clear that the photo is taken after the contact when Kearney is falling back.
Having reviewed the clip a few times, I don’t think it was that bad to penalise it (though Kaplan obviously didn’t see it properly and shouldn’t really be calling things he didn’t see). It was marginally high. But not even close to being a yellow card.
But given that a yellow was issued, and a precedent set, I don’t see how Kearney isn’t then deserving of one also. I’m baffled by Pothale and Dave’s attempts to try and claim his was a legal tackle.
pothale said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Stay baffled – it hurts your brain less.
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
If you’d argued Palu deserved a yellow card for that awful Movember lip warmer, I’d have agreed wholeheartedly. Why can’t any of the Wallabies seemingly grow a decent moustache? Drew Mitchell’s looks like it’s a bumfluff moustache he’s been cultivating since he was 16.
sledgeandhammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Sour grapes yes, just like Henri’s hand of God. If you are good enough you can win against the odds, hence Australia has only itself to blame for not defeating Ireland, who in turn has only itself to blame for being knocked out of the soccer world cup. They both had chances to win but didn’t take them = that’s sport. Did Henri handle the ball? Yes. Was Palu incorrectly penalised? Yes. Unfortunately sport is not fair, and the best team does not always win.
Dublin Dave said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:44am | Report comment
Loth though I am to agree with you, I think you’re right on this. I won’t pretend not to be seriously dissapointed by the result of last night’s match but I thought that the Irish players, who would admit to not being as good man for man as their more expensive French opponents, played them off the park last night and performed heroically as a team. Our one goal was better than their two over the two legs (one a scabby deflection, the other blatantly illegal) combined. But sadly it’s quantity not quality of scores that count.
There is as you might imagine, much anguish and recrimination about the place today. But I’ve noticed a curious thing: as the day wears on the tone has changed from things like “Ah, gwan ou’ dat ref, you blind gobshite. And as for you, Henri, you’re only a cheatin’ bollix” to phrases more like “Strewth, mate that’s jut not fair dinkum. If I ever get my hands on that drongo Henry, he’s cactus”
Which only goes to show that the language of opera may be Italian, the language of rock ‘n roll is American but for prolonged whinges on the unjust nature of unwelcome sports results, the only appropriate language is pure Strine.
So let me take this opportunity in my most dulcet D4 tones to congratulate the French team, acknowledge their good fortune in qualifying while playing badly and hope that they grace next year’s finals in a manner more in keeping with their performances of 1998 and 2006 than their performances this week.
Knives Out said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:13am | Report comment
‘Clarity and accuracy…I’ll work on it. There’s lies, damn lies and statistics. You appear to have a preponderance of all three, KO.’
That is such a worthless comment. Unless you can bother to actually specify what I have said that is incorrect or innacurate I’m going to have to conclude that such silly little boy talk masks the fact that you have nothing of note or value to add, Cattledog. So try this one. There’s lies, damn lies (and shockingly misinformed rugby fans) and statistics and you appear to have a preponderance of all three.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:32am | Report comment
I’ll try it 2moro. It’s late. Nite KO.
Knives Out said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:48am | Report comment
Make sure you bring some numbers.
Knives Out said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:55am | Report comment
And Cooper is younger, Pete.
ThelmaWrites said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Hi KO!
Out of curiosity, do 6 Nations matches atract the same level of controversy over reffing as the 3 Nations?
Many thanks.
Knives Out said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Only if the reffing is controversial, TW. I don’t recall any recent incidents to be honest.