I can believe that there's a discussion here suggesting that the technicality (not a shoulder charge) is used to get him off cleaning out another player. He's clearly guilty of an attack to the head of Robinson, are we suggesting it's Striking with the shoulder and, I don't know a grade C offence there rather than a C for SC?

Banned for 1 match. The charge was downgraded from a shoulder charge to a careless high tackle.

I did say in the opening post that it wasn't a shoulder charge. "Saints Fan" take note.

Just goes to show you should not buy into the SKY goons when they make rash calls.

I was dubious about the shoulder charge. But did not want to negate the fact it was a late tackle.

I did say in the opening post that it wasn't a shoulder charge. "Saints Fan" take note. A fair result , saintsfan aka Jamie's boots aka wanderer is still refusing to accept the truth on redvee

A single reply and anyone who actually knows what a shoulder charge is could see it wasn't one. Those sky clowns just like something to harp on about that isn't the game it's self

Jamie's Boots
Learning All The Songs

Join Date
Apr 2011
Posts
2,472
Rep Power
7

Originally Posted by southernsaint7
<snip>
Why don't you lecture someone else? A whole host of people thought and still think it was a shoulder charge. As I do.

Incidentally, I did manage to get only a Level 1 coaching badge but I've made tackles and been tackled so I do know what it's all about. And I am still of the view - and I'm not the only one - that Walmsley made a shoulder charge. I think we have been favoured by the closeness of the play offs.

However, that's my last word on it.

If you think that's a shoulder charge, then that means that EVERY tackle is a shoulder charge. How the flip are you meant to tackle without your shoulder?!

Bizarre if you genuinely think it was.

In my opinion in no way was it a shoulder charge but it was reckless and high and worth at least 2 and probably 3 matches , certainly worse than Sinfields head butt

Don't think so. Sinfields was violent conduct walmsleys was clumsy

Well a change in the laws are needed then because no way was Sinfield going to cause injury but Walmsley was and did

Very fortunate just one match, still thought two was fair, they just seem in a complete mess with disciplinary, the appeal by Batley and returning the points has opened an hornets nest, can anyone appeal on a past precedence now however long ago it was??

Walmsley was guilty of poor technique for the tackle, deservedly a sending off but wasnt a shoulder charge just a high tackle...look at past suspensions for high tackles and it is pretty consistent with that. In your logic, Jermaine McGillvray made contact with Matty Dawson and knocked him clean out, forcing him to be stretchered off the field. Does that mean he should be banned for more than 2 games??

Sinfield made a deliberate and conscious decision to headbutt another player...now I'm no expert in nutting people but I am pretty confident nobody has ever headbutted another person without aiming to hurt them. I'm pretty sure he could have caused numerous injuries to Dorn from doing that so a pretty pointless & pathetic argument on both parts really dont you think??

I think sometimes people compare matches missed without looking at the initial punishment.

Some of the two match bans for high tackles, did not get a Red.

A headbutt couldnt cause injury .. really ?

fractured cheekbone
broken nose
broken jaw
consusion

To name a few , 3 of those 4 carry the possibility of needing surgury to fix the other could means weeks out of the game.