True, but the fact remains a swinging arm is not necessarily a sign of bad intentions. Hetherington cannot possibly claim he was attempting something legal with his shoulder.
.
Anyway the problem with analogies is they start to fall apart on scrutiny, so I have no further submissions your Honour. I think it’s a good tome to adjourn for a liquid lunch :silly:
Attempted murder is actually a law that exists though, attempted shoulder charge is not and the actual shoulder charge rule is entirely dependent on forceful contact actually being made.
You can rightfully argue that it should be the interpretation (and I don’t necessarily disagree with you) but as it stands it is not. And I doubt it would have been penalised if the ref was in a position to see no contact was made. Realistically you’d be hard pressed to find a three on one front on tackle that doesn’t involve someone only using their shoulder, the fact that he missed so badly is the only thing that brings attention to this instance
If there's no actual connection, swinging arm or swinging fist is a little less clear - swinging arm across the chest or swinging fist to dislodge the ball is not a problem.
Is there ever a legal connection point for a shoulder charge?
The Hetherington penalty was spot on – it was a dangerous and reckless shoulder charge, the game is trying to stamp out such plays. Not a good look for the game. Any mum, kid or other person watching this would be appalled to see such reckless behaviour regardless of whether it ‘connected”. It was reckless, it was intentional, it is against the spirit of the game and it was dangerous. If someone came in with a flying kung fu style kick to the head with INTENT but just scraps/misses should that be a penalty ? Heck YES. And Hetherington was only penalised on the play before for a crusher tackle on Murray, so the guy was off the charts.
As a Rabbitoh,, ditto for Walker – had a great game, but the elbow to Meaney deserves to get punished. Not defending this.
There's a difference between "he deserves it" and "it's never been punished before".
And to be fair on the ref, from his position it probably looked like it did connect
Big Daddy
Guest
The intent was there it's the execution that he stuffed up. Probably worth a fine but didn't he have another report which could bring a suspension.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The intention of the tackler should come into it. Yes there will be grey areas, but that shoulder charge was blatant.
Big Daddy
Guest
Emcie , correct amundo. If you have loaded gun and shoot at some one and you miss the charge is still the same.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Practice :silly: :laughing:
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
How come you always seem to forget your wallet??!! :angry: :laughing:
Emcie
Roar Guru
Your shout?
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
True, but the fact remains a swinging arm is not necessarily a sign of bad intentions. Hetherington cannot possibly claim he was attempting something legal with his shoulder. . Anyway the problem with analogies is they start to fall apart on scrutiny, so I have no further submissions your Honour. I think it’s a good tome to adjourn for a liquid lunch :silly:
Emcie
Roar Guru
A swinging arm doesn't usually miss low though
Emcie
Roar Guru
— COMMENT DELETED —
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
I'll go one better and say I'd be appalled!
Emcie
Roar Guru
I'd be surprised if he got off on review
Emcie
Roar Guru
Attempted murder is actually a law that exists though, attempted shoulder charge is not and the actual shoulder charge rule is entirely dependent on forceful contact actually being made. You can rightfully argue that it should be the interpretation (and I don’t necessarily disagree with you) but as it stands it is not. And I doubt it would have been penalised if the ref was in a position to see no contact was made. Realistically you’d be hard pressed to find a three on one front on tackle that doesn’t involve someone only using their shoulder, the fact that he missed so badly is the only thing that brings attention to this instance
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
Walker's was a shocker and he should be held to account.
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
If there's no actual connection, swinging arm or swinging fist is a little less clear - swinging arm across the chest or swinging fist to dislodge the ball is not a problem. Is there ever a legal connection point for a shoulder charge?
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
The Hetherington penalty was spot on – it was a dangerous and reckless shoulder charge, the game is trying to stamp out such plays. Not a good look for the game. Any mum, kid or other person watching this would be appalled to see such reckless behaviour regardless of whether it ‘connected”. It was reckless, it was intentional, it is against the spirit of the game and it was dangerous. If someone came in with a flying kung fu style kick to the head with INTENT but just scraps/misses should that be a penalty ? Heck YES. And Hetherington was only penalised on the play before for a crusher tackle on Murray, so the guy was off the charts. As a Rabbitoh,, ditto for Walker – had a great game, but the elbow to Meaney deserves to get punished. Not defending this.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I dont know why you are talking about deserved. To follow the law analogy intent without connection should still be a charge with less of a penalty.
Emcie
Roar Guru
There's a difference between "he deserves it" and "it's never been punished before". And to be fair on the ref, from his position it probably looked like it did connect
Rellum
Roar Guru
The intent is there so they should. If you try to shoot someone and miss it is still a felony.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Are we going to start penalising swinging arms that don't connect as well?
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
There was obvious intent. I don't see the problem in charging him. Punches don't have to connect to get charged.