Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:11 am  

I was watching the Wakefield vs Widnes game on Sky last night and there were 2/3 incidents where the shoulder charge was used. Hock, leuleui (sp) and i think it was Poore. Silverwood did not issue a card of any sort and I didn't see or hear him put the incidents on report, however a penalty was given in at least one of the cases (Hock - our best friend!!!)

What was the point in banning the shoulder charge internationally if domestically our referrees can't have a set and police the rule effectively? I have watched a few NRL games this year and they seem to be on it.

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:37 am  

It's a pointless rule change. If refs are ignoring it they have my support

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:17 pm  

Yet Gareth Ellis has been called before disciplinary panel for a "shoulder charge" tackle that was neither high or a shoulder charge...

The inconsistency in the game at current is unreal and needs to be addressed. In the Wigan v Wire game, Briers did a shoulder charge tackle and went unpunished (possibly because it was a half back doing it to a forward) whereas the other way round would result in a ban.

Think it was a stupid rule to outlaw shoulder charges and consequently now muppets like Eddie Hemmings are calling for shoulder charges every time a player makes a tackle with the shoulder - stupid rule and seems to change every week RE: punishments

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:35 pm  

wakey_saint wrote:

Yet Gareth Ellis has been called before disciplinary panel for a "shoulder charge" tackle that was neither high or a shoulder charge...

The inconsistency in the game at current is unreal and needs to be addressed. In the Wigan v Wire game, Briers did a shoulder charge tackle and went unpunished (possibly because it was a half back doing it to a forward) whereas the other way round would result in a ban.

Think it was a stupid rule to outlaw shoulder charges and consequently now muppets like Eddie Hemmings are calling for shoulder charges every time a player makes a tackle with the shoulder - stupid rule and seems to change every week RE: punishments

I agree. I think the banning of the shoulder charge was a daft decision. Not least because its clear that a shoulder charge has been interpreted in some instances as any form of collision in which the tackler does not manage to get his arms clasped around the ball-carrier.

RL is a collision sport. Shoulder charges (legal ones, on the ball-carrier) are big hits which the crowds love, and which have always been a part of our game. This is a bad experiment with an unnecessary rule..

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:10 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

Shoulder charges (legal ones, on the ball-carrier) are big hits which the crowds love, and which have always been a part of our game. This is a bad experiment with an unnecessary rule..

Nobody seems to care what we the fans want , the game is governed by idiots

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:31 pm  

Its a tough one for the refs to be honest. It takes a few replys on some "shoulder charge" tackles to determine if it was a shoulder charge but they have to make the call in a split second.

I can see why the RFL have out ruled it as if its miss timed it can be career ender but that could be said about any tackle.

IMO it should be legal but a heavy ban for a shoulder to the head.

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:35 pm  

St_Cunningham_no9 wrote:

I was watching the Wakefield vs Widnes game on Sky last night and there were 2/3 incidents where the shoulder charge was used. Hock, leuleui (sp) and i think it was Poore. Silverwood did not issue a card of any sort and I didn't see or hear him put the incidents on report, however a penalty was given in at least one of the cases (Hock - our best friend!!!)

#AsktheRef on Twitter clarified that the punishment for a shoulder charge is only a penalty (so wouldn't be put on report). However, if the shoulder charge is to the head of the opposition player then the incident could be put on report (and a player subsequently banned) or a player could be sent off.

I think Silverdud just didn't see a couple of shoulder charges but did see the one by Hock and since it wasn't to the head, then a penalty was the appropriate response.

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:38 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

I agree. I think the banning of the shoulder charge was a daft decision. Not least because its clear that a shoulder charge has been interpreted in some instances as any form of collision in which the tackler does not manage to get his arms clasped around the ball-carrier.

The official line is that because the medical profession specifically referred to the shoulder charge as a dangerous play there would be potential legal consequences for the sport if they continued to allow it. How accurate that is I don't know as I'm not a lawyer.

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:51 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

The official line is that because the medical profession specifically referred to the shoulder charge as a dangerous play there would be potential legal consequences for the sport if they continued to allow it. How accurate that is I don't know as I'm not a lawyer.

You'd have thought that all tackles that hit the head could lead to potential legal consequences as well. A bad tackle is a bad tackle.

I feel for the refs on this as its near impossible to make the call in a split second as most shoulder charges at the moment are when the balls gone.

I think the touch judges need to be more on the ball and give the ref more help.

[Sadfish]

Re: Shoulder Charges : Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

The official line is that because the medical profession specifically referred to the shoulder charge as a dangerous play there would be potential legal consequences for the sport if they continued to allow it. How accurate that is I don't know as I'm not a lawyer.

Well it's the same rule in Australia, so I really think there is some merit in this.

I do think some of the shoulder charges are dangerous, especially to a player kicking the ball who may not be set for a collision.

I think the rule in essence is a good one, but either the implementation has been poorly managed, or it is impossible to govern consistantly.

They seem less bothered by the rule in the NRL.