National Forum

BANNING SHOULDER TACKLES?

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


Replying To sligo joe:  "
Replying To AfricanGael:  ""The only legitimate charge" means one Joe.

And that's simply incorrect.

You even pointed to Flynn's goal which was perfectly legal but you are saying it wasn't legal because they were not moving in the same direction. That's nonsense.

The only time that shoulder wouldn't have been legal is if neither player were in possession and both contesting a ball."
Do you read b4 you reply, I never, please READ "NEVER" said Flynns goal was not legal because they were not moving in the same direction. I was replying to a Kildare poster who stated that a player in possession should have to go around an opponent and not through him. I gave an example of Flynn and Cooper. Flynn in possession was moving fwd at pace, Cooper was stationary. The two players were facing each other and Flynn simply ran straight into Cooper, chest into chest and blew Cooper away and finished superbly, but the contact with Cooper was a foul. If you come back and say the contact was shoulder to shoulder, well I'll give up, there was no shoulder contact, he just ran straight into him."
Even if you take your Flynn comment completely out of it , it still doesn't change the fact that what you said regarding the rules of shoulder tackling is incorrect :

"As the rules stand the only legitimate charge is shoulder to shoulder contact, both players in the same direction and at least one foot on the ground".

But separately, on the Flynn goal, if you look at it closely and freeze it, it was actually shoulder to shoulder, granted it was very marginal.

It was also telling though that there was no appeal from the Dublin players that it was a foul and should have been a free out.

AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1946 - 21/08/2021 17:28:15    2373636

Link

Replying To AfricanGael:  "
Replying To sligo joe:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  ""The only legitimate charge" means one Joe.

And that's simply incorrect.

You even pointed to Flynn's goal which was perfectly legal but you are saying it wasn't legal because they were not moving in the same direction. That's nonsense.

The only time that shoulder wouldn't have been legal is if neither player were in possession and both contesting a ball."
Do you read b4 you reply, I never, please READ "NEVER" said Flynns goal was not legal because they were not moving in the same direction. I was replying to a Kildare poster who stated that a player in possession should have to go around an opponent and not through him. I gave an example of Flynn and Cooper. Flynn in possession was moving fwd at pace, Cooper was stationary. The two players were facing each other and Flynn simply ran straight into Cooper, chest into chest and blew Cooper away and finished superbly, but the contact with Cooper was a foul. If you come back and say the contact was shoulder to shoulder, well I'll give up, there was no shoulder contact, he just ran straight into him."
Even if you take your Flynn comment completely out of it , it still doesn't change the fact that what you said regarding the rules of shoulder tackling is incorrect :

"As the rules stand the only legitimate charge is shoulder to shoulder contact, both players in the same direction and at least one foot on the ground".

But separately, on the Flynn goal, if you look at it closely and freeze it, it was actually shoulder to shoulder, granted it was very marginal.

It was also telling though that there was no appeal from the Dublin players that it was a foul and should have been a free out."]As I said if you think that was shoulder to shoulder, well goodnight tho' I do like your insertion of "marginal" LOL.

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 383 - 21/08/2021 17:44:35    2373638

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "
Replying To AfricanGael:  "[quote=sligo joe:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  ""The only legitimate charge" means one Joe.

And that's simply incorrect.

You even pointed to Flynn's goal which was perfectly legal but you are saying it wasn't legal because they were not moving in the same direction. That's nonsense.

The only time that shoulder wouldn't have been legal is if neither player were in possession and both contesting a ball."
Do you read b4 you reply, I never, please READ "NEVER" said Flynns goal was not legal because they were not moving in the same direction. I was replying to a Kildare poster who stated that a player in possession should have to go around an opponent and not through him. I gave an example of Flynn and Cooper. Flynn in possession was moving fwd at pace, Cooper was stationary. The two players were facing each other and Flynn simply ran straight into Cooper, chest into chest and blew Cooper away and finished superbly, but the contact with Cooper was a foul. If you come back and say the contact was shoulder to shoulder, well I'll give up, there was no shoulder contact, he just ran straight into him."
Even if you take your Flynn comment completely out of it , it still doesn't change the fact that what you said regarding the rules of shoulder tackling is incorrect :

"As the rules stand the only legitimate charge is shoulder to shoulder contact, both players in the same direction and at least one foot on the ground".

But separately, on the Flynn goal, if you look at it closely and freeze it, it was actually shoulder to shoulder, granted it was very marginal.

It was also telling though that there was no appeal from the Dublin players that it was a foul and should have been a free out."]As I said if you think that was shoulder to shoulder, well goodnight tho' I do like your insertion of "marginal" LOL."]There was absolutely nothing wrong with it Joe, marginal is fine.

If it was chest to chest as you are suggesting then both players would have gone to ground.

It never even slowed Flynn down.

You are the only one saying it was a foul, the ref didn't think it was, the Dublin players didn't think it was and the commentator didn't think it was.

So we are all wrong but you are right ?

I don't think so Joe.

AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1946 - 21/08/2021 18:01:44    2373643

Link

Replying To AfricanGael:  "
Replying To sligo joe:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  "[quote=sligo joe:  "[quote=AfricanGael:  ""The only legitimate charge" means one Joe.

And that's simply incorrect.

You even pointed to Flynn's goal which was perfectly legal but you are saying it wasn't legal because they were not moving in the same direction. That's nonsense.

The only time that shoulder wouldn't have been legal is if neither player were in possession and both contesting a ball."
Do you read b4 you reply, I never, please READ "NEVER" said Flynns goal was not legal because they were not moving in the same direction. I was replying to a Kildare poster who stated that a player in possession should have to go around an opponent and not through him. I gave an example of Flynn and Cooper. Flynn in possession was moving fwd at pace, Cooper was stationary. The two players were facing each other and Flynn simply ran straight into Cooper, chest into chest and blew Cooper away and finished superbly, but the contact with Cooper was a foul. If you come back and say the contact was shoulder to shoulder, well I'll give up, there was no shoulder contact, he just ran straight into him."
Even if you take your Flynn comment completely out of it , it still doesn't change the fact that what you said regarding the rules of shoulder tackling is incorrect :

"As the rules stand the only legitimate charge is shoulder to shoulder contact, both players in the same direction and at least one foot on the ground".

But separately, on the Flynn goal, if you look at it closely and freeze it, it was actually shoulder to shoulder, granted it was very marginal.

It was also telling though that there was no appeal from the Dublin players that it was a foul and should have been a free out."]As I said if you think that was shoulder to shoulder, well goodnight tho' I do like your insertion of "marginal" LOL."]There was absolutely nothing wrong with it Joe, marginal is fine.

If it was chest to chest as you are suggesting then both players would have gone to ground.

It never even slowed Flynn down.

You are the only one saying it was a foul, the ref didn't think it was, the Dublin players didn't think it was and the commentator didn't think it was.

So we are all wrong but you are right ?

I don't think so Joe."]Well the Lane didn't think John Small's hit was a foul, I'd say he does now, Deegan didn't indicate a foul I'd say he would now, Kevin McStay clearly stated it wasn't a foul, he knows he was wrong now, so my point decisions/perceptions at the time might not necessarily be right.

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 383 - 21/08/2021 20:03:14    2373679

Link