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?

Out of curiosity, do 6 Nations matches atract the same level of controversy over reffing as the 3 Nations?

Many thanks.

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.

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
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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I note you didn’t respond on the Pocock question.

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.

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.