The curious case of Wycliff Palu’s yellow card
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 18 Nov 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Grand Slam rugby, Ireland Rugby, Jonathan Kaplan, Rob Kearney, Rocky Elsom, Rugby Union, wallabies, Wycliff Palu
219 Have your say
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.
Recommend this story.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:02am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:36am
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?
November 18th 2009 @ 8:18am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:00am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:07am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:12am
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
November 18th 2009 @ 2:38pm
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:21am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 7:44am
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!!
November 18th 2009 @ 8:16am
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!!!!
November 18th 2009 @ 8:49am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:53am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:20pm
Uncle Eric said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Possibly because the AB scrum caved in every time!
November 18th 2009 @ 2:52pm
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:52am
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.”
November 18th 2009 @ 2:29pm
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”.
November 18th 2009 @ 8:54am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:41pm
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:56pm
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 2:03pm
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”?
November 19th 2009 @ 3:22am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:16am
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].
November 18th 2009 @ 9:19am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:22am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:28am
Parisien said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
agree with you James and I love the Umaga quote.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:47am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 9:55am
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.
November 18th 2009 @ 10:10am
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Ok
November 18th 2009 @ 11:54am
Justin said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Pot – your colours are showing bigtime here.
November 18th 2009 @ 12:00pm
pothale said | November 18th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Do you think? Damn – thought I was being subtle.
November 18th 2009 @ 1:07pm
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!