The curious case of Wycliff Palu's yellow card

Only if the reffing is controversial, TW. I don't recall any recent incidents to be honest.

@ 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?

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.

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.

Hi KO! Out of curiosity, do 6 Nations matches atract the same level of controversy over reffing as the 3 Nations? Many thanks.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stay baffled - it hurts your brain less. :)

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

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

And Cooper is younger, Pete.

KO, Barnes is 24.

Make sure you bring some numbers.

I'll try it 2moro. It's late. Nite KO.

"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?

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.