Fri 3rd Mar: SL: St Helens v Leeds Rhinos KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

50 minutes ago, V02 said:

He's 120kg playing rugby league

You've answered your own question there pal...he shouldn't be 120kg even at his height playing league....impact prop or not 

Always amazes me how clueless people can be about the need for proper conditioning in league forwards. Equally amazes me how apologetic people can be of lazy trainers 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[bobbruce]

36 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

You can see here that he does wrap his left arm in the tackle, as said not sure what that means in terms of legality but it does show its not the clear cut shoulder charge that people are saying it is.

The fact is Kendall had warned saints that they shouldn’t be running in trying to ref the game. Welsby did just that.

 

Surely the point is you have to wrap the arm you are tackling with. 

[Futtocks]

The shoulder charge that wasn't - it really looked like one to me at first, and I can understand why Welsby may have thought so too. No, he shouldn't have run in, but you can see why he lost his rag.

Turning this into about 15 pages of black/white one-eyed absolutist ravings* is one of the reasons why it is hard to recruit referees.

*multiplied by several match threads every weekend.

[bobbruce]

17 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

The more I watched it the less convinced I am its a shoulder charge, two players coming at the front of a charging player, you can't both put your arms around to wrap him up, one of you stands the chance of getting an elbow hyper extended (which we've seen in recent years).  He's pulled his right arm in the brace while attempting to tackle with his left and his torso, as opposed to what hurrell did and trying to put a hit on.

.I reckon he won't even get a grade A 

It will be interesting to see what the disciplinary make of it if anything but not getting a grade A charge doesn’t mean that on the night he shouldn’t have give a penalty. 

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Surely the point is you have to wrap the arm you are tackling with. 

I can't really see how he would be able to wrap his right arm if he has a teammate literally alongside him. They have both made contact front on with their shoulders below the head and their opposite arms have come round the back of the tackled player.  There is no evidence of rotation to take a player side on which is a shoulder charge.

[Vambo]

Gotta say.... 3 rounds in and this is the most positive I've felt about the start of a Rugby League season for a long time.

I have nothing but praise for the skill levels and physicality of the players. Absolutely superb. 

Hardly anyone gave Leeds a chance last night and yet as far as I'm concerned they were worthy winners.

As a neutral (Lol... of the anyone but saints kind) I was royally entertained on my sofa by last night's game.

Congrats to Leeds who not only rode their luck last night but also made their own luck with their determined attitude and willingness to take risks. Great result for them. 

Saints will learn ( or should do) from last night and I fully expect them to bounce back from this and I'm sure normal service will be resumed going forward.

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I can't really see how he would be able to wrap his right arm if he has a teammate literally alongside him. They have both made contact front on with their shoulders below the head and their opposite arms have come round the back of the tackled player.  There is no evidence of rotation to take a player side on which is a shoulder charge.

I don't think that should be an excuse, if 2 tacklers went in and one ended up with an arm in the attackers face because of the other defender that absolutely will be given as a high tackle every time.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

I don't think that should be an excuse, if 2 tacklers went in and one ended up with an arm in the attackers face because of the other defender that absolutely will be given as a high tackle every time.

I just see a penalty here.  A tackle with the shoulder front on is not a shoulder charge. 

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Surely the point is you have to wrap the arm you are tackling with. 

I'm not sure that is clearly defined tbh. It'll be interesting know if there is clear, published definition of an illegal shoulder charge. 

We should remember, tackling with the shoulder is still absolutely legal, and in fact forms part of almost every tackle. What was outlawed was the reckless turning side on, tucking the arm and making no attempt to complete a legitimate tackle. This tackle didn't really have any of those features. 

I know RU are far stricter on attempts to wrap your arms, but I'm not sure we have ever gone down the route of being quite so strict.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

46 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This was the screen grab I had that I couldn't share last night. I think this shows it wasn't an out and out shoulder charge. Like you, I'm not 100% sure on the technicalities, but I can absolutely see that could be legal. 

Use this app in your phone to make the jpeg smaller....works great. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

18 minutes ago, Vambo said:

Gotta say.... 3 rounds in and this is the most positive I've felt about the start of a Rugby League season for a long time.

I have nothing but praise for the skill levels and physicality of the players. Absolutely superb. 

Hardly anyone gave Leeds a chance last night and yet as far as I'm concerned they were worthy winners.

As a neutral (Lol... of the anyone but saints kind) I was royally entertained on my sofa by last night's game.

Congrats to Leeds who not only rode their luck last night but also made their own luck with their determined attitude and willingness to take risks. Great result for them. 

Saints will learn ( or should do) from last night and I fully expect them to bounce back from this and I'm sure normal service will be resumed going forward.

Erm....you just made a positive and balanced view of the game. You haven't disagreed with any of the decisions or sl****ed off Kendall. You end with a reasoned statement too 

Are you lost pal?

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Use this app in your phone to make the jpeg smaller....works great. 

Yeah, I'm not sure if there was a glitch last night, as I did that and it wouldn't even take a 40kb file

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Just now, Dave T said:

it wouldn't even take a 40kb file

Dial up territory 

[Dave T]

Definition from international laws:

SHOULDER CHARGE

is where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grab or hold the ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact with the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked 
into the side).

 

[dkw]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Definition from international laws:

SHOULDER CHARGE

is where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grab or hold the ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact with the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked 
into the side).

 

No mention on where it hits the attacker? So I see a few people mention it was front in so ok. For me that was a definite shoulder charge by that definition as he made no attempt to tackle, grab or hold.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Definition from international laws:

SHOULDER CHARGE

is where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grab or hold the ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact with the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked 
into the side).

 

No mention of front or side on?

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

No mention on where it hits the attacker? So I see a few people mention it was front in so ok. For me that was a definite shoulder charge by that definition as he made no attempt to tackle, grab or hold.

He ended up wrapped.on one side so he did make an attempt 

[doc]

4 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:

Its dead hard being a saints fan in the sl era, you dont know

You're right of course. It's been such a long time since Widnes won owt, that I'd forgotten.

[Padge]

15 minutes ago, dkw said:

No mention on where it hits the attacker? So I see a few people mention it was front in so ok. For me that was a definite shoulder charge by that definition as he made no attempt to tackle, grab or hold.

The international laws are only a starting point, there are all sorts of directives protocols and notes around these laws that the referees work to. These add ons are what are used to tweak the laws rather than re-writing and publishing new international laws every season, which would be impossible because the Aussies would be wanting to add somethig ridiculous that nobody else would agree to.

[Tommygilf]

I'm still celebrating

[Dave T]

22 minutes ago, dkw said:

No mention on where it hits the attacker? So I see a few people mention it was front in so ok. For me that was a definite shoulder charge by that definition as he made no attempt to tackle, grab or hold.

I think the left arm does wrap (see the screen grab above), which you couldn't see on most replays. I'm not sure whether there is an expectation or wrapping with the specific arm or not. 

[Tommygilf]

Couldn't hear the post match stuff last night so just watching it now.

Absolutely no class there at all. Spoilt brats on and off the pitch...

[Dave T]

24 minutes ago, dkw said:

No mention on where it hits the attacker? So I see a few people mention it was front in so ok. For me that was a definite shoulder charge by that definition as he made no attempt to tackle, grab or hold.

 

22 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

No mention of front or side on?

 

6 minutes ago, Padge said:

The international laws are only a starting point, there are all sorts of directives protocols and notes around these laws that the referees work to. These add ons are what are used to tweak the laws rather than re-writing and publishing new international laws every season, which would be impossible because the Aussies would be wanting to add somethig ridiculous that nobody else would agree to.

My understanding is that where the contact lands wouldn't specify whether it is a shoulder charge or not. It could be illegal round the waist, in the back, or on the head. It us the tackle'rs action, which I would say is broadly covered by the arm being tucked and no attempt to tackle properly. 

I expect the rotation point is a feature that they look for in these tackles locally. 

Again, we should remember that shoulder charges are not that big an offence, it is the contact to the head which is serious. Hurrell was not sent off for the shoulder charge, he was sent off for direct contact with the head. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

. Hurrell was not sent off for the shoulder charge, he was sent off for direct contact with the head. 

Totally agree

Saints fans and the club (Wellens)are doing a good job of trying to confuse that particular issue

[Tommygilf]

Can you imagine if Bentley had been playing