The shoulder charge should never have been banned! As a rugby player myself it doesn't endanger you! I still don't understand how people moan about ahoulder charge but continue to turn a blind eye to cannonball tackles which are carried out with the intention to injure people

This is your opinion not mine ,you speak as if we should all listen as there is no other opinion other than yours.my opinion bring it back you were never allowed to shoulder charge the head any way so should never been banned,as i say let the players decide its there bodys giving or recieving it.if they keep it banned they have spoken, if they want it back they have spoken , ill respect any decison .
.

How were shoulder charges part of the game for less than a decade? They didn't start with Sonny Bill Williams, they've been around for as long as I've watched the game and been greatly appreciated from the terraces.

There was a real corker in the NRL this week but because it was delivered by the ball carrier it was completely ignored by the officials - there's a huge anomaly right there.

Agree. The pic of Burgess's jaw split in half was horrible. Don't want my lad playing a game where any fuc*wit with no sense of his own safety can hurl himself like a meat torpedo at another player rather than actually attempting a genuine tackle.
Shoulder charge is dangerous and frankly not rugby. There is plenty of physicality in the game, perhaps we should be asking for more skill?

You are told by coaches and when you learn the game that your shoulder should be the first point of contact in a tackle, I think the grey area is when that contact is big and it's hard to get arms involved . I don't see an issue with that, what had been banned is where the shoulder is the only intended point of contact. To me that's just an idiot trying to hurt someone.

Simple way to solve it, any shoulder charges that make contact with the head or hit a player who has released the ball results in a 10 game ban
This would mean that shoulder charges would start and end with collisions by a tackler on someone of equal or greater size, which the fans want to see and belong in the game imo

What is bizarre to me is that the game is so worried about shoulder charges contacting the head but do little about high tackles, compared to union players league players can get away with murder, even with direct contact to the head excuses are offered like 'he was changing direction' or 'it was a reaction' when the tackler should be getting a minimum of a sin bin

THe current interpretation on shoulder charges seems quite sensible. You can hit just with your shoulder as long as youre not side on with no attempt to wrap your arm around.

Union's interpretation of the shoulder charge is much more severe. If you don't wrap your arms around its considered a shoulder charge. I've given penalties away and been binned for making a big tackle where the guy has flown backwards and I've not been able to get my arms around.

On danger, its dangerous for both the tackled player and the tackler. I shattered my collarbone into 5 pieces trying on 5 years ago, and it took a 6inch plate and 6 months out of the game to recover. Big collisions are good but the mechanics of a shoulder charge make it more likely to cause injury to either party

The shoulder charge was a legitimate form of 'big hit' that has been ruled illegal and now gone from the game and the spectacle of league IMO is subsequently diminished.

There was always an issue where the shoulder occasionally contacted the head of an opponent (SBW on Bai, Bailey on Fa'asavalu) and the sport took too long to address but now the solution has harmed the show.

If someone wants to put in the shot and gets it wrong then throw the book at him at the disciplinary.

Agreed. The sport misses the big hit as you say. Of course it can be harmful if done incorrectly but so can any tackle.

"The solution has harmed the show"?

There are still plenty of big hits in RL. The difference is, these are done with significantly less risk of serious injury to the tackler or ball carrier than a barely controlled shoulder charge presents.

If anyone can give me a memorable, legal example of a shoulder charge that stuck in their memory and didn't result in injury to one party or the other, go ahead.

Completely agree. My mate played in the academy with Singleton, and he's talked about when they played Wigan and Fielded was coming back from injury. Fielden ran it in and Singo sent him flying with a shoulder charge. My mate talks about how it lifted the Leeds team and gave them a boost. Done in that scenario, it's a brilliant part of the game. The issue was/is when players use them on people after they've passed the ball. I've been on the end of those and time out because of whiplash. We still see those tackles and there should be a hefty ban attached. This is a tough sport, but it seems to have softened over the years

There are tons of examples Andy, Tube of You has plenty of quality compilations if you need evidence.

i agree with the ban. it crates needless danger to the player being tackled

Fully agree. It is an injury waiting to happen and is totally unnecessary. I fail to see why this particular sort of GBH appeals to some rugby fans as so often in the past it was not a fair contest as the big bully chose to target talented small slight backs to try and injure them out of the game with the result the quality of the "show" was diminished.

It's the athletes and their ability to do what others simply couldn't that made league a game apart and still does but somewhat less so these days.

I'd be happy to let them decide what they are prepared to accept as part of the ongoing physical contest.

When asked what have they said?

Nobody wants to see the return of hitting halfbacks after they have released the ball, but the reality is that some teams still do it and get away with it by wrapping their arms around
The spectacle of the two packs battling however is as much a part of the spectacle as the speed and skill, the shoulder charge used to be a big part of that

It is also an effective way for little men to stop bigger men running at full tilt without giving away a quick ptb

Quote ="Andy Gilder""The solution has harmed the show"? There are still plenty of big hits in RL. The difference is, these are done with significantly less risk of serious injury to the tackler or ball carrier than a barely controlled shoulder charge presents. If anyone can give me a memorable, legal example of a shoulder charge that stuck in their memory and didn't result in injury to one party or the other, go ahead.'" Here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFV6G0QKF3E Sam Burgess on Fui Fui Moi Moi, two big men coming together, totally legal, immediately cheered by the fans Your telling me that when you saw that live you thought that it shouldn't have been allowed? By the way, there is a logical reason that the defenders NEED to be able to shoulder charge, because the attacking player can essentially shoulder charge into defenders with the ball and by making shoulder charges illegal the defender can not properly defend himself and has to stand opened bodied with his arms by his side, as what occurred in the NRL last week, the shoulder of the attacking player can then make contact with the head of the defender and he had to go off with concussion In league the attacker gains benefit from running upright and leading with the shoulder, compared to in union where the attacker benefits from finding the floor quicker

Quote ="Andy Gilder""The solution has harmed the show"? There are still plenty of big hits in RL. The difference is, these are done with significantly less risk of serious injury to the tackler or ball carrier than a barely controlled shoulder charge presents. If anyone can give me a memorable, legal example of a shoulder charge that stuck in their memory and didn't result in injury to one party or the other, go ahead.'" Here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFV6G0QKF3E Sam Burgess on Fui Fui Moi Moi, two big men coming together, totally legal, immediately cheered by the fans Your telling me that when you saw that live you thought that it shouldn't have been allowed? By the way, there is a logical reason that the defenders NEED to be able to shoulder charge, because the attacking player can essentially shoulder charge into defenders with the ball and by making shoulder charges illegal the defender can not properly defend himself and has to stand opened bodied with his arms by his side, as what occurred in the NRL last week, the shoulder of the attacking player can then make contact with the head of the defender and he had to go off with concussion In league the attacker gains benefit from running upright and leading with the shoulder, compared to in union where the attacker benefits from finding the floor quicker

What do the players that have been smashed in the head by a shoulder or received lasting brain damage from RL said?

Well you can ask rob burrow who used to receive more shoulder charges to the head that anyone and who wishes it was brought back

The debate over contact with the head is irrelevant though, as if the rlf just imposed 10 game bans to anyone who shoulder charges to the head, no one would dare shoulder charge someone smaller than them as it would be too risky, and the halfbacks would be protected

BTW the contact by SOL on that wakefield player did more damage than any shoulder charge will, yet he was only given a one match ban, so where is the logic?

Personally never understood why it couldn't be treated like a normal table, ie penalised when it hits the head.

As for examples. Bailey on George Rose in the Wcc game comes to mind. As does the PNG 4 nations game against the Aussies.

Wow... GBH... Please... What a sanitised, namby pamby world we're living in nowadays with quotes like this....

But let's play your silly game - how do you then feel about ball carriers returning the ball shoulder first? A great example at the weekend in the NRL, when Sitaleki Akauola returned the ball at 100 miles an hour, shoulder first and knocked the defender clean out - there are many 'wrecking ball' type props out there who return the ball that way - Mark O'Meley made a career from it, I remember him burying Ben Ross with a sickener - so do we ban running in shoulder first? It's the same impact; but arguably now worse, as the defender cannot meet force with force, and if he wants to tackle the man had to put his head down near his hips/knees, or wait open armed for the collision - I'd say that's much more dangerous.

I have no problem with forwards going at each other with big hit rugby tackles but the shoulder charge is not a proper rugby tackle neither is leading with the forearm into the head or a spear tackle into the ground. That these sort of tackles use to happen does not make them a proper part of the already very tough game of rugby league. Those that are titillated by this sort of stuff should switch to cage fighting or similar.

A ball carrier running the ball back shoulder first is entirely different to a shoulder charge.

The players feet aren't off the ground, there's no rotation of the shoulder and the defender has more opportunity to move and position themselves to receive the ball carrier.

It is not the same thing at all.

Obviously it's not exactly the same, but I'd also argue not all shoulder charges are 'feet off the ground and no rotation of shoulder', but the force is equally as damaging - watch Mark O'Meley on Ben Ross and tell me that isn't exactly what you described above.... Arm tucked into his side, running at full speed on collision, and actually does have feet off the ground.

And for those saying 'if you want to see that, watch UFC' type comments - most of us started watching and playing the game when a legitimate (not head high) shoulder charge was an exciting part of our game.... So, how about we flip it and say, those who are too precious to want to witness a shoulder charge, go watch badminton (or rugby union)... And those who don't fancy playing a full blooded, dangerous at times, heavy contact, potential for the odd scuffle sport, choose something a little more delicate, like snooker, or rugby union.

I'd love an honest survey of all players on whether the legitimate shoulde charge should remain banned, professional and amatuer players - the result would be an absolute landslide. We signed up for the risks when we started playing and continued playing the sport.....

The world has gone kid gloves, PC, mock outrage crazy.....

Oh good. The "PC gone mad" brigade who have no understanding of what "PC" actually is have arrived.

I thought the debate was going too well.

I think good defensive technique is a thing worth watching. I happen to think we should be teaching kids good defensive technique. I don't think kids watching blokes trying to smash each other with shoulder charges (legal or not) teaches them that good tackling technique is rewarded over just smashing people.

It gets copied at junior and amateur level by people who have neither the athletic ability, sharp reflexes or technique to deliver it correctly, and as a result they end up injuring either an opponent or themselves. It's the rugby equivalent of football's "out of control" tackle, where the player dives in with one or both feet off the floor. Sometimes people will get hurt, sometimes seriously, and sometimes they won't. But the administrators want to take that level of risk out of the game.