NRL bans shoulder charges

[Anonymous person]

the funny thing is that now that the NRL have actually clarified the new shoulder charge definition, there is a clear loophole. as long as you dont tuck your elbow in against your hip/body, its not a shoulder charge. players like GI make half of their big shoulder charges by swinging their arm/shoulder, not tucking it in, so itll be interesting to see what happens in that case. i guess they let his one go in the all stars match, so that could be an indicator that theyre fine with it.

on the topic of the rules, the NRL released more of their "laws of the game" videos, and the grounding the ball for a try one stuck out:

"Grounding the Ball includes:
a. Placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands, wrist or forearm
b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground
c. Dropping on the ball and covering it with the front part of the body above the waist and below the neck."


oh goody, we still get torso tries and forearm groundings!

one good change is this though:

"A player who has had possession or touches/touched the ball and knocks the ball forward must regain possession (catch, hold or grip) prior to the ball hitting the ground, another player, goal post or cross bar."

they defined "regain possession", which they didnt do before, so now you actually have to gain control of the ball, not just touch it.

another interesting one is in how defenders are allowed to get up out of a tackle:

"f. Defenders ‘peeling off’ the player in possession^

^ In a three man tackle the movement shall either be 2 defenders then 1 defender or 1 defender then 2 defenders but not one at a time."

so defenders are not allowed to get up 1 at a time. seems like a good rule in theory, but now defenders will have to coordinate how they get OFF a tackled player? pull the other one.

 

[Coxy]

Well it's basically saying a shoulder charge is if you turn side on (or partly side on) and hit only with the shoulder/outside of the arm, not try and tackle. Which is always what I thought it would be.

So it's not a "loop hole". A front on shoulder tackle is perfectly legitimate and was always intended to be.

 

[Anonymous person]

and have your arm tucked in. if its not tucked in its not a shoulder charge according to those rules.

 

[Coxy]

and have your arm tucked in. if its not tucked in its not a shoulder charge according to those rules.

Well, every shoulder charge does involve having the arm tucked in like that, so yes. Otherwise it's not a shoulder charge.

 

[Anonymous person]

i disagree. you can shoulder charge with your arm swung out to the side or hanging down by your side. like i said, inglis does this a lot.

tell me this isnt a shoulder charge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL_e9xAZ6Cw&feature=player_detailpage#t=108s

 

[Coxy]

i disagree. you can shoulder charge with your arm swung out to the side or hanging down by your side. like i said, inglis does this a lot.

tell me this isnt a shoulder charge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL_e9xAZ6Cw&feature=player_detailpage#t=108s

Yes, it is. And it's also covered by this in the "indications" section of the rule:

1. Rotation of the defenders hips and shoulders

 

[Anonymous person]

wait, so youre saying that any tackle in which the defender rotates his hips and shoulders is a shoulder charge now?

the way i read it was that a shoulder charge is when you rotate your hips and shoulders AND tucked in arm against body.

if its one or the other, thats ridiculous, as half of the tackles in every game involve a defender rotating hips and shoulders.

 

[Viti]

Are we talking about the hit on Flannery here? there wasn't any rotating of the hips or shoulder there as far as i could see and that shouldnt be pulled up as a penalty under the new rules.

 

[Anonymous person]

yep, the flannery one.

he did very slightly rotate his shoulder and that side of body towards flannery at the last second, but like i said before, thats pretty much how any tackle is done.

the thing is, i dont think it would be pulled up by the new rules, but i have no doubt they would still penalise it. it IS a shoulder charge. the way theyve defined it is just far too simple. a shoulder charge doesnt have to have a tucked arm to be a shoulder charge.

 

[Coxy]

The wording is this:

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 using the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked into the side)

In that example, was Sonny Bill attempting to tackle, grab or hold the ball-carrier? No. Did he make direct physical contact using the shoulder? Yes. Upper arm is therefore irrelevant.

The indicator then goes into it, because he rotated hips and shoulder with intention to make first contact with the shoulder, and no attempt to hold him.

It's a clear shoulder charge and covered by the wording.

 

[Viti]

Exactly, it's 100% a shoulder charge and an awesome shot but going by these rules it wouldn't be classed as one.

 

[Coxy]

Exactly, it's 100% a shoulder charge and an awesome shot but going by these rules it wouldn't be classed as one.

Yes it would. It'd be a penalty for misconduct.

 

[Anonymous person]

he had his arm out, whos to say he wasnt trying to wrap him up? poor attempt maybe, but you cant say he didnt at least attempt to. why even mention "tucking of the arm" if its not actually a criteria for what a shoulder charge is?

 

[Coxy]

Oh FFS I'm not going to bother.

 

[Anonymous person]

you could make a case for him attempting to tackle, hence the arm outstretched, thats the thing.

 

[Nashy]

I'm giving out free thread bans today. This is the lucky thread. Go on with it, and you two are winners.

 

[Anonymous person]

what else are we supposed to talk about in a thread about the new shoulder charge laws though? srs question.

 

[Nashy]

Let the thread die if you have already voiced your opinon, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

Seriously. You just go on, and on. Give it a rest.