I see the same actions, except I see those actions being expressly permitted in law 9.1, quoted by chbg above.To me, I see a maroon player using a shoulder to try and bump off the blue player. PK all day, don't think a YC is warranted based on there being another maroon defender to chase.
I see the same actions, except I see those actions being expressly permitted in law 9.1, quoted by chbg above.
Which law makes it illegal/foul play?
That is not as clear cut as the OP... this looks more like a shoulder to should jostle IMHO... I can't see a clear push, but that might be the angle.Found a similar scenario in one of my matches from the spring:
Link to match vid - kick was at ~34:57 match time/40:47 video time
I suppose we just see if differently. 9.1 says players may “charge” and “push” while running for the ball, as long as it’s shoulder to shoulder, and I don’t see anything in the original clip that is outside of that.
When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, neither player may charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
I’m always worried about my tone coming across as hostile when communicating by text only. I have no sarcasm or disrespect in my thoughts when I say that I don’t know any other way to interpret the end of the sentence, “except for shoulder to shoulder” to mean that the players may charge and push if they are shoulder to shoulder, and not otherwise.You should re-read the law...
I’ve just seen this response. I see your point but I do not interpret the sentence that way.I disagree...
I interpret this as meaning you can lean shoulders into each other when shoulder-to-shoulder... not that you can shove someone over legally when you are positioned shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sorry, I re-read my post, it wasn't a good reply and I deleted it, then started again.I’m always worried about my tone coming across as hostile when communicating by text only. I have no sarcasm or disrespect in my thoughts when I say that I don’t know any other way to interpret the end of the sentence, “except for shoulder to shoulder” to mean that the players may charge and push if they are shoulder to shoulder, and not otherwise.
That is not as clear cut as the OP... this looks more like a shoulder to should jostle IMHO... I can't see a clear push, but that might be the angle.
Just before that, though, I'm not convinced the ball left the scrum-half's hand at the penalty restart, and then it looked like a knock on from the first pass... what happened there?
I’ve just seen this response. I see your point but I do not interpret the sentence that way.
I came up with an example sentence to show how I am reading the law:
“When an employee wants to enter the manager’s office, he may not do so, except to return the manager’s key.”
To me, the clear reading of the example sentence is that, if the employee is returning the manager’s key, he may enter the manager’s office. I am reading the law the same way.
I am enjoying this debate and discussion of ideas, for what it’s worth. I intend no personal insult or disrespect.
This is arguably another law that could be phrased better!
Like I said, I think shoulder-to-shoulder is an action, not a position, circumstance or condition, and therefore is not giving permission to shove or push with hands or arms.
What do others think?