Shoulder Charges in the Judiciary

[Anonymous person]

probably the weakest excuse for a send off youll ever see.

 

[Nashy]

Yeah, that's not a send off offence, it's part of the fucking contact sport these princess' play.

 

[Morkel]

I agree with Bennett how the system is unfair in regards to getting extra time off for fighting the charge

I know what he's saying, but it's not correct. Due to Snowden's record and the seriousness of it, it's a 9 week penalty. If he doesn't waste the judiciary's time (not saying it's a waste, but that's why the discount is there), he gets 2 less weeks. It's not a penalty for fighting it. It's not a 7 week ban that can become 9 of they fight it & lose. He should be happy he gets a 2 week discount.

Dex nailed it.

Here's footage of it again...

[video=youtube_share;-0sSlHSC4cQ]http://youtu.be/-0sSlHSC4cQ[/video]

That's a shoulder charge, which is an illegal form of tackling and he hit Thompson high and hard enough to break his jaw.

If you take out that last element, would it be worthy of a send off? No. However, when you perform an illegal hit like that you're rolling the dice.

For Snowden, it came up snake eyes.

Even after that clip, I still haven't seen it properly. My eyes keep following the bloody football and miss the shot ;)

 

[Coxy]

Yeah, that's not a send off offence, it's part of the ****ing contact sport these princess' play.

I 100% agree with the shoulder charge ban. I 100% agree that deserved a penalty and a citing on review.

I 100% agree the send off is an absolute joke. I 100% agree the grade 4 charge was ridiculous.

It wasn't a full on shoulder charge, it was a bloke bracing for impact. Strictly speaking he dropped his shoulder hence a penalty and charge deserved, but the penalty is an absolute overreaction because of the injury suffered by Thompson. It's a disgrace.

 

[Anonymous person]

the way some people on here are acting youd think he charged out of the line teo style and did a big old classic sonny bill shoulder charge directly into thompsons melon lol. in reality, he stood his ground and thompson fell into his shoulder with his head back so he hit him flush on the chin. no malice, no intent, not deliberate.

if he doesnt get hurt its probably not even a penalty. that alone means it should not have been a send off.

if theyre going to keep the no shoulder charge rule then im all for stamping it out completely - but not like this. to think he got 7 weeks suspension for *tha* when others have gotten 1 or 2, if that..... ridiculous.

 

[subsbligh]

I 100% agree with the shoulder charge ban. I 100% agree that deserved a penalty and a citing on review.

I 100% agree the send off is an absolute joke. I 100% agree the grade 4 charge was ridiculous.

It wasn't a full on shoulder charge, it was a bloke bracing for impact. Strictly speaking he dropped his shoulder hence a penalty and charge deserved, but the penalty is an absolute overreaction because of the injury suffered by Thompson. It's a disgrace.

The true shoulder charge (the classic SBW on Joel Clinton) is reckless and can easily lead to serious injuries. It rightfully should be outlawed, just like flying elbows, spear tackles and coathangers.

If Snowden makes an effort to throw his arms in the air it's all of a sudden legal and Snowden plays on.

Effectively saying any contact with head with the shoulder is a "shoulder charge" is just ludicrous. You tackle with your shoulders. Mistakes are bound to happen.

 

[Dexter]

I'm very surprised the Knights didn't fight it they had a fair case for a downgrade.

 

[Coxy]

I'm very surprised the Knights didn't fight it they had a fair case for a downgrade.

I think it was purely a fear of the NRL making an example of him and thus getting the full 9 weeks.

 

[Dexter]

Yeah, no doubt but did he have much to lose? An extra 2 weeks isn't that much IMO. At least 3 more games this year plus whatever games he would miss in Italys world Cup campaign plus official trials next year, even at 9 weeks he misses maybe 2 weeks of next season.
Unless they have been told privately not to fight it I would have had a crack.

 

[Harry Sack]

It's injury dictating the penalty. If that jaw doesn't break, he's looking at 2 weeks.

As has been discussed on another forum I frequent, I'd prefer to see the shoulder charge allowed with a "disclaimer" saying "if you make contact with the head, you're fucked"

 

[Dexter]

Then you are agreeing with what happened to Snowden?

I'm not following the logic of everyone who says the injury shouldn't come into it.

If you go in with an intentional swinging arm and miss as has happened then you don't get sent in fact not much happens. If you just graze someone then you get put on report and penalised. If you make contact and injure someone then you get sent because it makes what you did much worse.

Of course the amount of damage you cause comes into it unless it's totally accidental or unavoidable, like a head clash which I don't think Snowdens shoulder charge was.

 

[Anonymous person]

nope, intentional swinging arm with no injury should be punished as severely as intentional swinging arm with an injury. the extent of the injury should play no part in the punishment.

 

[Harry Sack]

Then you are agreeing with what happened to Snowden?

I'm not following the logic of everyone who says the injury shouldn't come into it.

If you go in with an intentional swinging arm and miss as has happened then you don't get sent in fact not much happens. If you just graze someone then you get put on report and penalised. If you make contact and injure someone then you get sent because it makes what you did much worse.

Of course the amount of damage you cause comes into it unless it's totally accidental or unavoidable, like a head clash which I don't think Snowdens shoulder charge was.

No, I'm not saying I agree with what happened to Snowden. What I'm saying is, if that jaw doesn't break so spectacularly (blood) then he sits out less time. Pretty sure SBW pulled off a very similar shot on Mason and missed 2 weeks. Injury dictating the punishment is shaky ground IMO. To me, it didn't look blatant and I think 9 weeks is harsh....but saying "blatant" moves us into the realms of intent which is another grey area.

 

[Coxy]

nope, intentional swinging arm with no injury should be punished as severely as intentional swinging arm with an injury. the extent of the injury should play no part in the punishment.

Exactly. Each tackle should be weighed up on the likelihood of the danger it presents to the "victim". In this case, the injury to Thompson was actually pretty unlikely and unlucky. A swinging arm with clenched fist, well, very likely that's going to cause injury. Flipping a player 360 in the air? Very likely to cause injury and potentially paralysis.

Actual injury is very much a matter of luck - good or bad.

 

[Dexter]

No, I'm not saying I agree with what happened to Snowden. What I'm saying is, if that jaw doesn't break so spectacularly (blood) then he sits out less time. Pretty sure SBW pulled off a very similar shot on Mason and missed 2 weeks. Injury dictating the punishment is shaky ground IMO. To me, it didn't look blatant and I think 9 weeks is harsh....but saying "blatant" moves us into the realms of intent which is another grey area.

But didn't you say you'd prefer a disclaimer and if you make contact you're fucked, well, he made contact and got fucked, so you agree.

 

[Dexter]

Exactly. Each tackle should be weighed up on the likelihood of the danger it presents to the "victim". In this case, the injury to Thompson was actually pretty unlikely and unlucky. A swinging arm with clenched fist, well, very likely that's going to cause injury. Flipping a player 360 in the air? Very likely to cause injury and potentially paralysis.

Actual injury is very much a matter of luck - good or bad.

So you guys want to penalise blokes on what didn't happen or could have happened?

Pretty sure that would get messy real quick.

 

[Coxy]

Pretty much rule on each action as it's viewed. That's what they've always done. Injury that is or isn't caused simply shouldn't be a factor. At least not a significant one.

It's like that case with the cement truck driver who ran over a cyclist. The jury was told they had to be certain the truck caused the cyclist to fall, not that the cyclist just fell over. They couldn't. Cement truck driver got off scot free.

Could you 100% say that Snowden's actions were the reason Thompson got his face rearranged? Or was the fact he was tackled low, had released the ball and Snowden was more watching the unfolding play a contributor?

You get into murky water when you start assuming injuries are caused by the infringement alone.

 

[Porthoz]

Exactly. Each tackle should be weighed up on the likelihood of the danger it presents to the "victim". In this case, the injury to Thompson was actually pretty unlikely and unlucky. A swinging arm with clenched fist, well, very likely that's going to cause injury. Flipping a player 360 in the air? Very likely to cause injury and potentially paralysis.

Actual injury is very much a matter of luck - good or bad.

The punishment fits the crime the same way attempted murder is not the same as actual murder.

If you're going to go with this, then any arm swing, up-ending, leading with feet, cocked elbow or shoulder charge, should carry the same penalty hit or miss. So, where does the grading come in? And what should be the punishment?