Shoulder Charges in the Judiciary

if they CONNECT they should carry the same penalty, yes. doesnt matter if one guy breaks his neck and the other just gets his fringe parted on the other side of his face - they should both be treated the same because the action was the same.

why do you think we want CONSISTENCY from the review committee and judiciary? we dont want it to be "well player As shoulder charge was much worse than player Bs, but the guy player B hit stayed down on the ground for longer so player B gets suspended for 7 weeks while player As guy got straight up so he only gets 1" - we want "player A and player B hit a shoulder charge, both get 3 weeks".
 
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, ****ed 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?

The gradings are based on the type of tackle compared to similar tackles observed, and based on "key indicators" the review panel look at. Whether injury inflicted is part of those "key indicators" I don't know, but it would seem foolish to do so. Each grading then has a points value assigned to it. Then there's loading etc.

You know full well that's how it works.
 
The gradings are based on the type of tackle compared to similar tackles observed, and based on "key indicators" the review panel look at. Whether injury inflicted is part of those "key indicators" I don't know, but it would seem foolish to do so. Each grading then has a points value assigned to it. Then there's loading etc.

You know full well that's how it works.
I know how it works. I'm asking how you want it to work?
 
I know how it works. I'm asking how you want it to work?

I want it to work the way it works, where injury inflicted has little to do with it, it's about the actual tackle in question.

There's no doubt in my mind the NRL, referees and review panel have been waiting for someone to make an example of, and they've used this one despite it being probably the most minor example of a shoulder charge we've seen this year.

It was grade 1 at worst, and because of injury they made it grade 4...that's ridiculous.
 
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.

I don't think the argument is that injury shouldn't come into it, rather just that injury shouldn't play such a significant role in the decision. Injury obviously plays a part here, I mean, if we didn't consider injuries then there probably wouldn't even be a NRL judiciary and we'd let people run around spear tackling and grappling.

the issue here is that it is so obvious that injury is basically the only reason that Snowden has copped such a lengthy ban, since by every other measure, the hit was incredibly innocuous.

I don't want to speak for other people like Coxy and AP (since I'm sure they don't all agree with me entirely) but i think the real issue is that injury should play a far smaller role in supplementary discipline, while more emphasis should actually be placed on whether the action and the intent was dangerous. Because it is sad to see a player getting such a massive suspension as a result of bad lack.
 
Last edited:
I agree the suspension was over the top but the Knights could have fought it and as I posted above I can't see a good reason why they didn't.
I know Snowden found himself in that position through circumstance rather than intent but he made no attempt to pull out or avoid collision, he chose to present his shoulder to protect himself. He had time to wrap his arms but chose not to, admittedly more from reflex but that's just bad luck.

I think send off plus a grade 1 would have been about right. I can't see how in that situation the Cowboys should lose a player from illegal contact and be at a disadvantage but the Knights lose nothing.
 
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.

If that was the rule.....but it isn't.

Hypothetically speaking.....Rather than banning the shoulder charge completely, the NRL decided to stiffen penalties for shoulder charges that resulted in contact with the head. You can still perform shoulder charges to the body etc, but if you make contact with the head, prepare to sit out for a long period of time.
 
What was Snowdon supposed to do, disappear? He was moving to tackle Thompson, saw the ball get flicked to another opponent so stopped and braced himself for what was essentially a reasonably LIGHT hit FROM Thompson, so he could still stay mobile and defend the other attacking player now with the ball. Thompson fell into his awkwardly. The penalty is manifestly unjust.

SBW meanwhile puts a (admittedly soft) shoulder charge onto Beau Ryan and only a penalty is blown. Now, I'm the first to say I love it when Beau Knows How To Get Fucking Belted - but a shoulder charge is a shoulder charge, right? Oh, only when the player gets hurt...right. Rubbish.
 
My opinion on the shoulder charge ban has not changed. It is a disgrace and a suckup to the naysayers and soccer mums of the world.
 
The interesting point of this whole incident is that it's raised the question on whether injuries should influence referees and the judiciary. The way I see it, the current interpretation reflects our own laws where assaults are classified based on the damage inflicted and I'm okay with this.

In regards to this particular matter, Snowden didn't have to turn and lead with his shoulder to brace for Thompson.

Where both sides of the argument can agree is that it creates another grey area in the judiciary system which is already murky at best. I believe the penalty handed out to Snowden is a touch high, apart of that was due to prior history but I believe the suspension is 3 weeks too high.

I wasn't a fan of prior decisions. Pritchard's suspension in particular was a joke - he's got priors and should have been sidelined for at least 3 weeks.
 
If Snowdon turned his back and Thompson came down on his shoulderblade and did the same damage...would there have been a penalty? A send-off? A suspension? Or if Snowdon turned front on, crossed his arms in front of him and Thompson came down on his arm and did the same damage - would the charges be for 'striking'??

I get the intent, I do. But there is NO consistency. That's the joke, Snowdon has clearly been made an example out of and Newcastle are rightly dirty about it. I feel for Thompson, I really do, but Snowdon cannot just disappear, and if he took other options to brace himself the outcome may have been exactly the same. It's rubbish IMO.
 
Totally inconsistent law, earlier in the year Buderus broke Fergusons cheekbone with a blatant shoulder charge yet not even a penalty let alone a suspension
 
Totally inconsistent law, earlier in the year Buderus broke Fergusons cheekbone with a blatant shoulder charge yet not even a penalty let alone a suspension

Buderus got extra Dally M points for breaking Ferguson's face.
 

Active Now

  • Xarr
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.