How in the f... can you be penalised for a shoulder charge that doesn't connect ?

[Nano]

Typical for us, the NRL will feel it badly if they let our club to die like this slowly

 

[DinkumDog]

We should have captain challenged that. Never touched him.

Ref must think it's like charging someone for attempted murder.

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t connect.
You can’t lead with anything but the arms/hands:

 

[Magilla]

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t connect.
You can’t lead with anything but the arms/hands:

View attachment 22714

It does matter if it doesn't connect. If you miss there is no contact therefore no tackle.

 

[GDR]

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t connect.
You can’t lead with anything but the arms/hands:

View attachment 22714

It literally says in the last sentence of that quote.. if any player "affects" a tackle in the manner as defined.

No tackle was affected..

 

[DinkumDog]

It literally says in the last sentence of that quote.. if any player "affects" a tackle in the manner as defined.

No tackle was affected..

I think you’re thinking effected.
Affected is by design or influence.
Effected is brought into being ie: executed.

 

[DinkumDog]

It does matter if it doesn't connect. If you miss there is no contact therefore no tackle.

See above: affected vs effected.

 

[GDR]

Fair point .. but affect doesn't make sense it the context of the definition.. Is it possible its a typo by the NRL..

 

[DinkumDog]

Fair point .. but affect doesn't make sense it the context of the definition.. Is it possible its a typo by the NRL..

OK, NRL typo .
I’m done arguing tonight.
Catch you on the flip side.

 

[GDR]

OK, NRL typo .
I’m done arguing tonight.
Catch you on the flip side.

I'm not arguing I asked the question but left out the question mark.. I was being sincere in asking the question.. I even said fair point..... how they've worded that sentence doesn't make sense...

No need to create fake drama... Stop thinking fight, in the first instance mate... I'm not petty enough to hold grudges over a forum discussion....... Unlike some others on here..

 

[Nate DAWG]

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t connect.
You can’t lead with anything but the arms/hands:

View attachment 22714

Cmon bro. I have been watching the game for 40 years and I have never heard of someone being penalised for a missed shoulder charge. Same as you dont get penalised for a high tackle if you miss the player. There is a reason that Brandy, Mal and Ennis all made comment on at half time

 

[DinkumDog]

Cmon bro. I have been watching the game for 40 years and I have never heard of someone being penalised for a missed shoulder charge. Same as you dont can't penalised for a high tackle if you miss the player. There is a reason that Brandy, Mal and Ennis all made comment on at half time

Same re: watching the game. A good mate of mine is a former A-Grade (not NRL) referee and is still close to the game (knows many refs, is a life member etc). Talking to him after the game he says refs are making more and more calls by the book now, especially in less common infractions such as shoulder charges. I asked why and he said because there’s so much scrutiny and different interpretations that during their match reviews any 50/50 calls can be referred back to the rule book. I was at the game and didn’t hear the commentators view so can’t comment on that.

 

[Kempsey Dog]

I'm not arguing I asked the question but left out the question mark.. I was being sincere in asking the question.. I even said fair point..... how they've worded that sentence doesn't make sense...

No need to create fake drama... Stop thinking fight, in the first instance mate... I'm not petty enough to hold grudges over a forum discussion....... Unlike some others on here..

NRL would take some bullshit stance that he effected the tackle because attacker deviated his line as he saw shoulder charge incoming... Really miss the good old shoulder charge

 

[Como Dog]

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t connect.
You can’t lead with anything but the arms/hands:

View attachment 22714

I interpret that as forceful contact is necessary for it to be defined as a shoulder charge. Not sure how the 'affected' part can be determined without the actual forceful contact otherwise we'd just be guessing, which is a criticism of the wording of the rule.

 

[CanterburybankstownBD]

We really should have got Benji for 1 year

I've got a feeling he wouldn't play for us the way he's playing for souths..

 

[CanterburybankstownBD]

I was going to like your post until I read they should of challenged it should of been play on. Elliot shouldn't of challenged either 5 seconds to go is stupid.

challenge with 8 seconds before half time was a really poor decision

 

[DinkumDog]

I interpret that as forceful contact is necessary for it to be defined as a shoulder charge. Not sure how the 'affected' part can be determined without the actual forceful contact otherwise we'd just be guessing, which is a criticism of the wording of the rule.

Fair enough, but given the rule is spelt with an a not e (assume no typo ) it suggests intent not execution. Don’t get me wrong, I think the ruling in this instance was harsh (at least with my blue and white blinkers on), but going by the letter of the law, it is what it is.

 

[Nate DAWG]

Same re: watching the game. A good mate of mine is a former A-Grade (not NRL) referee and is still close to the game (knows many refs, is a life member etc). Talking to him after the game he says refs are making more and more calls by the book now, especially in less common infractions such as shoulder charges. I asked why and he said because there’s so much scrutiny and different interpretations that during their match reviews any 50/50 calls can be referred back to the rule book. I was at the game and didn’t hear the commentators view so can’t comment on that.

All good bro. I have a feeling that I won't see another penalty for the same offence in the next forty years

 

[DinkumDog]

All good bro. I have a feeling that I won't see another penalty for the same offence in the next forty years

Possibly mate. Even taking the rule book out of the equation you might call it a 50/50 call that we were in the wrong side of - happens all the time and always has. It certainly doesn’t suggest an anti-Bulldog agenda and wasn’t a decision that cost us the game. Jack could also be in strife for the other tackle under the posts. It’s been called as a crusher, even though we’ve all seen far worse by that definition. We’ll see.

 

[DinkumDog]

No need to create fake drama... Stop thinking fight, in the first instance mate... I'm not petty enough to hold grudges over a forum discussion....... Unlike some others on here..

There’s no fake drama OK mate.
There were a couple of strange leaps though, from me being always right to an NRL typo to grudge holding - not sure where any of those came from but I’m not interested in an argument so let’s just leave it there OK? (with question mark .) Move onto Round 5 and hopefully with some troops coming back we can put up some fight to Melbourne who carved up last night.

 

[KLil]

It’s the agenda that I keep talking about
our player today was told to stop being aggressive.... let that sink in

It was similiar to when Kasiano dropped onto Cronk Legally and was penalized for dangerous contact...