When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, neither player may charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
Just watched it again (which obviously is not a benefit I would have in an actual game) but I still see PK obstruction.Gosh this thread has expanded.
To me, the relevant part of the law is “when a player and an opponent are running for the ball”.
I simply don’t see maroon as running for the ball, to me he is running at the player, which makes it simple obstruction.
Well they'd have to be running next to each other for a shoulder to shoulder charger. Would they not? So the law , for me clearly allows a player to charge anothers shoulder with him.IMO, shoulder-to-shoulder means two opposing players are running next to each other. Could someone get bumped incidentally? Yes. But, that does not give a player the right to intentionally impede the opponent's pursuit.
yes, they need to be running next to each other shoulder to shoulder with the intent of gaining possession of the ball for contact to be legal. Otherwise a player could be bending over to pick up the ball and Magilla Gorilla pole-axes him with a shoulder charge.Well they'd have to be running next to each other for a shoulder to shoulder charger. Would they not? So the law , for me clearly allows a player to charge anothers shoulder with him.
This is covered in 9.1:yes, they need to be running next to each other shoulder to shoulder with the intent of gaining possession of the ball for contact to be legal. Otherwise a player could be bending over to pick up the ball and Magilla Gorilla pole-axes him with a shoulder charge.
Law 9.1: When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, neither player may charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
The law implies that you can charge or push if it's done shoulder to shoulder.
I have always allowed a shoulder to shoulder push when chasing a ball.
Play on all day long, but expect the players to moan about it as Law 9.1 is little known by most.
IMO, shoulder-to-shoulder means two opposing players are running next to each other. Could someone get bumped incidentally? Yes. But, that does not give a player the right to intentionally impede the opponent's pursuit.
Well they'd have to be running next to each other for a shoulder to shoulder charger. Would they not? So the law , for me clearly allows a player to charge anothers shoulder with him.
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.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
Clearly "shoulder to shoulder" indicates very definately the direction of the charge .My shoulder approaches your. Clearly the lawn makers believe that such a charge is legal as the law says so.Do you mean you can charge or push using your shoulder to make contact with the other player's shoulder, or you can charge or push the other player while running next to each other shoulder-to-shoulder?
Does "shoulder-to-shoulder" describe the contact points between 2 players, or describe the positioning of players as being side-by-side?
What is a charge? What is a push? For me, a charge is to move forward rapidly at someone/something, a charge is an approaching action... if already running alongside another player shoulder-to-shoulder, I can't think how you can then execute a charge at that player. In contrast, the OP video is a charge IMHO.
Different times and different laws. Clearly not covered by 9.1 (not two players running for the ball!)
Clearly "shoulder to shoulder" indicates very definately the direction of the charge .My shoulder approaches your. Clearly the lawn makers believe that such a charge is legal as the law says so.
Two players side-by-side running for the ball, and one player twists towards the other and pushes them over, leaving that player in a heap on the ground while he scoops up the ball uncontested... I can't imagine any high level ref saying this is OK.The law does says you can Charge OR push someone if running shoulder to shoulder! So you can charge or you can push!
If not, Can you tell me how you interpret a shoulder to shoulder charger ever being possible?
So why is Law 9.1 in the book then?
I don't think a shoulder charge is ever allowed if neither player is in possession of the ball. The only scenario that I can think of when it is allowed is a ball carrier taking the ball into contact (happy to hear the opinions of others here).
So why is Law 9.1 in the book then?
3. When two opponents are running for the ball what can they do?
Run shoulder to shoulder but they may not push or charge each other (Obstruction - Law 9.1 - PK)
You’ve won me over, at least partially, with 9.15. That law is very clear; I wish 9.1 was equally clear. I still feel 9.1 is carving out an exception of some kind. If it wasn’t, why wouldn’t the law be worded much more clearly? As an example, “When running for the ball, a player and an opponent may be in contact shoulder to shoulder but may not push or charge”. The use of the word “except” in 9.1 keeps bringing me back, ha.To permit for reasonable and incidental contact between two players running close together (side-by-side/shoulder-to-shoulder) when both are competing to get to the ball and play it first. Fair competition for the ball is a general principal in rugby, IMHO, and I don't see pushing someone over or charging them off the ball as being fair competition.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, I'm actually struggling to think of any example in rugby where you are allowed deliberate and meaningful contact (e.g. push, hold, impede, restrain, obstruct, charge) with an opposition player when neither has possession of the ball... am I wrong? If 9.1 does permit a player to push or charge another player when neither have the ball, then it would be in contrast to all other laws, and in direct contradiction to law 9.15... does this not strike you as odd?
But law 9.1 does allow it. So: "am I wrong?" carries no weight. The only law it is in "contradiction" wit his 9.15 an not "all othr laws." sorry... am I wrong? If 9.1 does permit a player to push or charge another player when neither have the ball, then it would be in contrast to all other laws, and in direct contradiction to law 9.15... does this not strike you as odd?
It is not in contradiction with "all other laws" it is in contradiction with one other law. And that other law is in contradiction with this one (It works both ways). Sorry the laws allow a shoulder to shoulder charge. in the circumstances set out in Law 9.1.To permit for reasonable and incidental contact between two players running close together (side-by-side/shoulder-to-shoulder) when both are competing to get to the ball and play it first. Fair competition for the ball is a general principal in rugby, IMHO, and I don't see pushing someone over or charging them off the ball as being fair competition.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, I'm actually struggling to think of any example in rugby where you are allowed deliberate and meaningful contact (e.g. push, hold, impede, restrain, obstruct, charge) with an opposition player when neither has possession of the ball... am I wrong? If 9.1 does permit a player to push or charge another player when neither have the ball, then it would be in contrast to all other laws, and in direct contradiction to law 9.15... does this not strike you as odd?