NRL claim officials are 'consistent' on shoulder charge actions to prevent tries

There have been tackles like that every week since the shoulder charge was banned in 2013 and no one batted an eyelid, but now out of nowhere people are crying foul because in this particular instance it suddenly deserves to be a penalty try? It wasn't even the only example this round!! Penalty try's are awarded in situations where a team deliberately cheats to deny a try, in my time watching league I've never seen a shoulder charge branded as cheating.

Stupid. Consistently wrong. That is ridiculous. Why did no one ask how it wasn't a penalty try? Foul play preventing a try. It is that simple isn't it? I mean the only explanation, and it is weak, is that because the player was there defending, the Ref could possibly argue that he/she was in a position to prevent the try with a legit tackle, so they would not say it would have been a try in all probability... That is it, but to have this ridiculous clip about being consistent so it's all OK...

I’m sorry that Annersleys application of the word doesn’t match the exact wording of the specific dictionary you’ve chosen. Other definitions include “striking obliquely and bouncing off at an angle” (dictionary.com) or “Striking someone or something at an angle rather than directly and with full force” (Oxford Dictionary). But given that the discusion directly revolved around collisions I tend to think that the use of the term within the aplication of physics should be accepted in which a glancing angle is any angle between 0° and 180° (≠ 90°) minus 90°. Yes, a glancing blow can come from a near parallel angle resulting in minimal energy transfer but it can also result in significantly larger collisions at higher angles amd still be a glancing hit. At any rate, I’m not sure why you’re hung up on him categorically saying shoulder charges are banned, what did he say to counteract this? He never once said that the tackle was legal or a non-shoulder charge under the current interpretations, just that it didn’t deserve to go to the judiciary for further punishment (which is in line with how similar tackles have been graded) and explained why it wasn’t graded as serverely as a traditional head on shoulder charge. He also said that the rule would be looked at over the offseason to see if further clarification was needed.

I think this is a complete misuse of the word "glancing", Emcie A dictionary interpretation of the word is: touching or hitting you quickly and lightly from the side rather than from the front, and usually not doing much damage: There's no way ANY of the shoulder charges Annersley used to makes his points, could be classed as "glancing", especially the Billy Slater hit. I have no issue with the action or non action taken by the judiciary, but to try and fob these off as non-shoulder charges because they're "glancing", when he's categorically said shoulder charges are banned, makes no sense

I'm not sure you understand what "glancing" means mate, it means to come in at an angle rather then head on - nothing to do with the amount of force applied. Annersley made a specific point about shoulder charges being banned specifically to stop head on tackles where the defender drops the shoulder into the collision, so yes, that would absolutely come into consideration around grading an incident. At no point did Annersley say the tackle(s) were legal, just that no further judicial action was required for this type of incident beyond on field decisions and that the NRL had been consistant on that regard. Not sure how that goes against the NRL's stance. I mean, high shots have been banned since forever but that doesn't mean every single incident gets charged. If you want to have a go at people confusing the issue perhaps you should turn your attention to media organisations looking for technicalities to drum up controversy for profit. The shoulder charge has been banned since 2013 and we see backs defending like that every week, but all of a sudden we're told to believe that should have been a penalty try and Dufty should have been charged (in the same game that the same comentators were blowing up because a defender was hard done by because a shot on a playmaker without the ball "wasn't that late") even though that's never been how it's been adjudicated? Yeah, I'm not sure it's the NRL with the issue in this instance...

Annersley's breathtakingly bad logic on this topic, sums up all that's wrong with the NRL decision making. On at least two occasions, he stated the shoulder charge had been banned, then produced 4 examples where officials decided there HAD been a shoulder charge but it was okay because the blows were "glancing", so no further action required. First of all, there was nothing "glancing" about any of these shoulder charges. They knocked players yards over the touch line on at least 2 occasions. Second, Annersley said shoulder charges were banned, NOT "some shoulder charges were okay while others were banned". In other words, under certain circumstances, it was okay to shoulder charge. I have no issue with the interpretation, but that does NOT reflect the NRLs stance on shoulder charges; namely, they're banned. If it's okay sometimes, change to rules to reflect that now and come out and tell everyone now. This type of action is totally unprofessional IMO because it leaves players and especially fans guessing and that's simply wrong.