winchesterref
Referees in England
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,014
- Post Likes
- 197
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Bit of a rib tickler.
Personally, I reckon the first one is OK - just.
There was some (but not a lot) attempt at grasping, but to me it failed the "clear and obvious" test ie it wasn't a clear and obvious shoulder charge.
I think with one look on a Saturday afternoon we'd potentially miss that, but with the TMO i'd be looking for it. I think it's one that is missed too often!
Or, plausibly close enough to be shoulder to shoulder?
Not allowed to shoulder charge a ball carrier.
10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the
ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Another instance of the governing body knowing what they want to say and then not being able to adequately put that into words that don't conflict with other parts of the Laws or offer an inadequate description.
Pegleg has found the part of the Law that, for all intents and purposes, covers the "shoulder charge". However, the requirement to attempt to grasp the ball carrier is contradicted in the very next clause,
(g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
(h) A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player
and also part of Law 7.1
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
Regarding the OP, it is not a shoulder charge, although it is not far off, but the defender has made no attempt to grasp the ball carrier either and is therefore not an attempt to tackle. So we are left with Law 7.1. Greg Garner and the TMO must have both believed that the defender used the arms sufficiently to "push" the ball carrier into touch.
Pushing (with the hands) and barging are very different. A shouldder to should as two players are running and the "JPR special" are very different. I think the law makers understood what that were aiming for (for once).