I think the RFL are wrong, by their own definition it wasn't a shoulder charge. Not surprised though, typical RFL.

You said earlier that it wasn't a shoulder charge and thats why the rfl didnt site him,yet the rfl said it was a shoulder charge and it should have been a penalty,but because it wasn't to the head no charge.So as usual your right and every body else is wrong.No change there then.Typical you

You really are a clown aren't you,you start off this morning saying the rfl are correct,and this afternoon they are incorrect.
Which one is it ?

Now girls. Can you all play nicely please.

Well, they were correct until they put that. Is comprehension not your strong suit?

The RFL haven't cited him, but they have apparently changed their definition of a shoulder charge.

Maybe they have... You were mentioning something about hip rotation, which doesn't seem to be in the rule.

Shoulder Charge - is where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grab or hold the ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact with the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked into the side). (Refer Section 15)

From the photo that was posted earlier in the thread it appears his upper arm is "tucked into the side" and hence a shoulder charge - unless in the milliseconds after the photo is taken his arms wrap around the player. Either way no contact with the head, no further action!

Maybe they changed there opinion after reading your post,and they realised your always right.Did you have a word?

RFL in "talking bollox" shocker

Whatever it was, was a moment of filthy play and he has what he deserves.

We have a winner of the "kettle calling pot" competition!

I hear the RFL are looking for a new PR man. You should apply. When they ask you the question - "what attracts you to this position?", you can repeat your ready prepared answer above.