Shoulder Charge

[CeeEss]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but I'd be interested on everyone's opinion regarding the Sandow shoulder charge that led to the Blair try.

Morris should've held onto the ball BUT surely the new rule means that it should've been awarded no try and a penalty shouldve been awarded to us??

Discuss

 

[Pom_81]

Of course it was a shoulder charge.

They banned the shoulder charge because they didn't want massive units like Inglis, Burgess, SBW, Pritchard etc hitting people with their shoulders. Because a little guy like Sandow did it, the video ref seemingly ignored the rulebook and concluded it was ok. The rules are the rules and he made no effort to wrap up, simply jumping in with his shoulder.


(They should, of course, not have banned the shoulder charge in the first place but they did. Oh well...)

 

[likeadoggy]

Of course it was a shoulder charge.

They banned the shoulder charge because they didn't want massive units like Inglis, Burgess, SBW, Pritchard etc hitting people with their shoulders. Because a little guy like Sandow did it, the video ref seemingly ignored the rulebook and concluded it was ok. The rules are the rules and he made no effort to wrap up, simply jumping in with his shoulder.


(They should, of course, not have banned the shoulder charge in the first place but they did. Oh well...)

anything other than this would be incorrect

 

[Harby]

Lol, and Josh Massoud wrote an article slamming Harrigan for calling it a shoulder charge. retard/10

 

[Book]

What I found annoying was the lead up to that shoulder charge and try. When the Eels knocked-on in centre field about 10 metres out, the ball came to Drury Low on his goal-line, he gets tackled about 1 metre out from his own goal-line and the referee keeps the play going, which implies that we received sufficient advantage after that knock on.

I don't see how that is in any way an advantage over bringing the ball out 10 metres and having a scrum.

 

[Izzy Forreal]

Of course it was a shoulder charge.

They banned the shoulder charge because they didn't want massive units like Inglis, Burgess, SBW, Pritchard etc hitting people with their shoulders. Because a little guy like Sandow did it, the video ref seemingly ignored the rulebookand concluded it was ok. The rules are the rules and he made no effort to wrap up, simply jumping in with his shoulder.


(They should, of course, not have banned the shoulder charge in the first place but they did. Oh well...)

I think you're dead right with your "little guy" explanation. It should have been a penalty to the Bulldogs and with our tails up the final result could have a lot more favourable.

 

[Snowmann]

anything other than this would be incorrect

X2 well said Pom.

 

[TheBarba]

If Bradd fittler sticks up for the dogs and says it a shoulder charge!! It's a shoulder charge!!!

It seemed to be 2 sets of rules out there last night?

 

[Q-Tip]

Of course it was a shoulder charge.

They banned the shoulder charge because they didn't want massive units like Inglis, Burgess, SBW, Pritchard etc hitting people with their shoulders. Because a little guy like Sandow did it, the video ref seemingly ignored the rulebook and concluded it was ok. The rules are the rules and he made no effort to wrap up, simply jumping in with his shoulder.


(They should, of course, not have banned the shoulder charge in the first place but they did. Oh well...)

tbh

 

[Bitemarks]

Personally I saw nothing in it, as long as the refereeing stays consistent. the hit had nothing to do with dislodging the ball, Morris's knee did that.

 

[Scorpio]

It was a shoulder charge.

Sandow even admitted it in an NRL.com article.

http://m.nrl.com/Touch/NRL_NewsArticle.aspx?nid=115847&rid=

 

[VAI]

Personally I saw nothing in it, as long as the refereeing stays consistent. the hit had nothing to do with dislodging the ball, Morris's knee did that.

He never said it dislodged the ball, the fact is, we should have been awarded a penalty, regardless of whatever happened after that. Instead of starting our set of six from maybe halfway, or 10m inside our own half from the kick for touch, we were defending and they scored a try. It was a bull**** call.

 

[w00t]

Again if that wasn't a try the NRL is bloody soft and rewarding Morris for his f*ck up wasn't warranted, i'll be happy if a call like that is consistent throughout the entire season.

 

[CroydonDog]

Again if that wasn't a try the NRL is bloody soft and rewarding Morris for his f*ck up wasn't warranted, i'll be happy if a call like that is consistent throughout the entire season.

I was at the game, and Morris choked. No need for any further discussion.

 

[vietorious]

Morris still should have held onto the ball regardless.

But no one tackles the way sandow did in that tackle. Made little effort to wrap his hands around.

 

[Pom_81]

Again if that wasn't a try the NRL is bloody soft and rewarding Morris for his f*ck up wasn't warranted, i'll be happy if a call like that is consistent throughout the entire season.

You're half right. It was soft from Morris and the rulebook ideally shouldn't award a penalty to him for something like that. Unfortunately, they changed the rules to make any shoulder charge a penalty and the video ref decided to ignore the new rule completely. I didn't like seeing George Rose penalised for a perfect shoulder charge in the All Stars game, but that was the rule and correctly he did give away a penalty. Likewise, Sandow pulled off a very good shoulder charge. I don't like the fact that it's now a penalty, but it is. Officials can't pick and choose from the rulebook based on which rules they like to enforce.

On the consistency argument, if that were Fuifui with the same challenge, I'm positive it would have been a Dogs penalty. If they start picking and choosing, it'll wind up like Disneyland: "you must be at least 1.80m to be penalised for a shoulder charge".

 

[Sharpy]

It was a shoulder charge but Morris ***ed up, it was shot ball carry

 

[Trendsetter]

Pretty sure it was Sandows knee that came up and knocked the ball out of his hand..?

Not easy being hit with a shoulder and trying to maintain a grip on the ball while a leg is coming up and pretty much kicking it out of your arm.. Easy to critisize, but the reality is, not many people could hold onto the ball in that scenario.

 

[Stoofy]

They need to bring back the shoulder charge. Its part of the NRL game otherwise it will soon become touch footy or even union.

Players safety is an issue but damage can only occur to the head or neck (serious stuff).

The players need to be protected for this. Make the players where head gear and a back protector so head & neck injury is avoided!

 

[Lov_Dog]

What I found annoying was the lead up to that shoulder charge and try. When the Eels knocked-on in centre field about 10 metres out, the ball came to Drury Low on his goal-line, he gets tackled about 1 metre out from his own goal-line and the referee keeps the play going, which implies that we received sufficient advantage after that knock on.

I don't see how that is in any way an advantage over bringing the ball out 10 metres and having a scrum.

Think I heard Ennis disputing whether it should have been called play-on and ref intimated something like "yes, you're right, but we can decide wether to play advantage".

Terrible.

There is a standard. How was there any advantage given to the defending team, coming off their own line when the ball doesn't make it back to the initial error in two plays? The second play ends with a try to the team responsible for the initial error.....add in the shoulder charge and we were very poorly served in terms of referee decisions. That 10-20 seconds of play could have really sway the ultimate outcome of the game.

Did anyone see the Bronco's no try, ruled to be dead ball by Soward that wasn't taken dead?