Jake Shorrocks

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
old hooker
Posts: 1980
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by old hooker »

That is an interesting point, the majority of players opinion is that the shoulder charge should be legal.Injuries like this of course cause concern so I am unsure myself.One thing that does baffle me is it is legal to lead with shoulder if in possession of the ball.Seems strange to me.
Alshep101
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:11 pm

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by Alshep101 »

I hope he recovers well its a tough sport yes it wasnt a great tackle but to call it a disgrace is just stupid. You are all lording it up about Tommys tackle on Walsmley, even posting a video on here.... well have another watch and tell me he didn't shoulder charge him.
AndyNick
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by AndyNick »

No ban for Peyroux

According to the MRP
"Player makes a low, reasonable approach into contact on
opponent, demonstrating a wrapping motion. Opponent spins
away from contact. Player’s back and shoulder make contact
with the shoulder of player, resulting in potential whiplash
motion to opponent. Footage does not demonstrate direct or
secondary contact to the head of opponent.
Player goes to complete tackle on opponent on the ground"

Not sure what footage they were watching.....
morley pie eater
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by morley pie eater »

old hooker wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:37 am That is an interesting point, the majority of players opinion is that the shoulder charge should be legal.Injuries like this of course cause concern so I am unsure myself.One thing that does baffle me is it is legal to lead with shoulder if in possession of the ball.Seems strange to me.
To me too, OH.

You can add to the list hand-offs which make contact with opponent's head (like Fifita, for example). Contact with head is a penalty, but not if it's by the ball carrier, apparently. Is it any less dangerous?
. . . . . . ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by fozzieskem »

AndyNick wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:37 pm No ban for Peyroux

According to the MRP
"Player makes a low, reasonable approach into contact on
opponent, demonstrating a wrapping motion. Opponent spins
away from contact. Player’s back and shoulder make contact
with the shoulder of player, resulting in potential whiplash
motion to opponent. Footage does not demonstrate direct or
secondary contact to the head of opponent.
Player goes to complete tackle on opponent on the ground"

Not sure what footage they were watching.....
He did not hit his head though,his neck went into whiplash type motion,it was a petulant tackle,one if peyroux had done to say Tommy then tommy would have just got up and doubtless exacted his revenge later on..

Just unlucky on Jake sadly still thankfully it’s nowhere near as serious as it looked and he can get on with his career
User avatar
jaws1
Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by jaws1 »

There was no need to flop on him when he knew he was injured could have made the injury worse.
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Jake Shorrocks

Post by fozzieskem »

jaws1 wrote: Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:36 pm There was no need to flop on him when he knew he was injured could have made the injury worse.
I agree there was no need for the charge either the game was well won,just petulance on his part then to dive on him what was he thinking really
Post Reply