Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:30 am  

bob bob bobin robin wrote:

And you're clearly just as blinkered as Jake. It was a clear penalty with initial contact being with the shoulder, his left hip also clearly comes forward into the tackle. FWIW Larroyer deserves a ban for his, not saying he doesn't, but Watts' was also a shoulder charge that at the least deserved a penalty, but agree no ban required.

You do realise you're allowed to hit shoulder first, don't you?

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:38 am  

*1865* wrote:

You do realise you're allowed to hit shoulder first, don't you?

Yes thanks, in the attempt of making a legitimate tackle, of which he had no intention, his arm doesn't move to attempt this. Goes to show how different interpretations can be made, but he knew exactly what he was doing in shoulder charging a player that was making a kick.

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:35 am  

bob bob bobin robin wrote:

Yes thanks, in the attempt of making a legitimate tackle, of which he had no intention, his arm doesn't move to attempt this. Goes to show how different interpretations can be made, but he knew exactly what he was doing in shoulder charging a player that was making a kick.

Hmmmm, no rotation of the hips and an attempt to raise the arm = no shoulder charge.

Not quite sure why it keeps getting mentioned. The tackle rightly wasn't penalised and there's rightly been nothing said since.

Time to move on.

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:46 am  

Here is the match review panel's view of the Watts tackle http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6709

Here is the match review panel's view of the Watts tackle http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?6709

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:38 pm  

I think the RFL are wrong, by their own definition it wasn't a shoulder charge. Not surprised though, typical RFL.

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:00 pm  

*1865* wrote:

I think the RFL are wrong, by their own definition it wasn't a shoulder charge. Not surprised though, typical RFL.

You said earlier that it wasn't a shoulder charge and thats why the rfl didnt site him,yet the rfl said it was a shoulder charge and it should have been a penalty,but because it wasn't to the head no charge.So as usual your right and every body else is wrong.No change there then.Typical you

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:12 pm  

*1865* wrote:

I think the RFL are wrong, by their own definition it wasn't a shoulder charge. Not surprised though, typical RFL.

You really are a clown aren't you,you start off this morning saying the rfl are correct,and this afternoon they are incorrect.
Which one is it ?

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:30 pm  

Now girls. Can you all play nicely please.

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:01 pm  

mary hinge11 wrote:

You really are a clown aren't you,you start off this morning saying the rfl are correct,and this afternoon they are incorrect.
Which one is it ?

Well, they were correct until they put that. Is comprehension not your strong suit?

Re: larroyer charged : Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:02 pm  

deslawson wrote:

You said earlier that it wasn't a shoulder charge and thats why the rfl didnt site him,yet the rfl said it was a shoulder charge and it should have been a penalty,but because it wasn't to the head no charge.So as usual your right and every body else is wrong.No change there then.Typical you

The RFL haven't cited him, but they have apparently changed their definition of a shoulder charge.