The second 'shoulder charge' I imagine being alluded to was a charge down attempt on Greene in the lead-up to Churchie's sole try. #10 Eason left the ground as Greene commenced his kick, at all times had his arms upward in the usual manner to affect a charge down. The players collided. Again, the referee immediately shouted to players (audible from touchlines) something like "play on, charge down!". Whether or not you agree with the interpretation (I do, at least), to say it wasn't dealt with is plainly wrong.
Wheather or not the tackle was legal or not, i think you have to look at the social aspect of the tackle. Greene is the flagship member and star player of Grammar's first XV rugby team. When the opposition, especially their captain and Greene's oposing flyhalf, makes a big hit that could be called illegal on Greene right infront of the Grammar cohort, at what could easily be taken as an attempt to send him off injured. You are asking for trouble. Bias come hugely into play here as everyone want's the game to go their way so I guess we should call it even?
In a lower grade schoolboy match on the weekend a referee from Nudgee failed to penalise a high tackle where the tackled player was knocked out and had to leave the playing field.
His explanation was that he "fell into the tackle".
I'm sorry, but this isn't Super Rugby, or Test Match Rugby. Anything, even on the fringe of foul play, or what can be reasonably interpreted at a higher level of Rugby as accidental must be treated much more severley at schoolboy level including first XVs.
I'm not for things like automatic red or yellow cards, or jumping to cards to punish even the most innocuous foul play ... But I am 100% for penalising any act by a player that contravenes the law on foul play regardless of it being an accident or not.
In this case, playing on from that "charge down", I think it's reasonable for a referee to look at that and from a certain angle make the judgement that the player did not mean to make contact like he did ... However, that's judgement is not a good look, especially when the boy goes off injured as he did. Just like saying "he fell into the tackle", it's a mitigating circumstance that might make it just a penalty, not a reason to not penalise it.
Of Course, the referee is the sole judge of fact and law, so what's done is done ... But I do wish more emphasis was placed on simply not tolerating this stuff at schoolboy level rather than tolerating it because it might have been accidental or at test level we'd be happy to let it go.
