I don’t think that people can criticise Chase’s attempt, it was his execution of it.

As you say it is a big risk play, but that is also how it is refereed. There is nothing wrong with a shoulder charge and if you execute one you will be fine, you have the responsibility however to ensure there is no contact with the head. Chase didn’t do that, there was contact with the head. If he had a better disciplinary record, he may have gotten away with it. But he doesn’t, so a 2 match ban pretty much fits.

As for the Bailey tackle, I think that would be one of the most difficult. Fa’asavalu lead with his head and just ran straight into Bailey. Bailey had his hands by his hands low didn’t jump into it and pretty much stood still whilst Fa’asavalu ran at him. But under the current climate Bailey, it would seem, would be held responsible for that contact and would probably have received at least a penalty, possibly a ban.

Quote ="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.'" Thanks TVOC, I think your point about the new norm since 2012 might well explain why there appear to be anomalies in the way these challenges have been viewed by the disciplinary board during recent seasons. On balance I'm with you regarding its retention. I might have to review my stance were it to become a more frequently-used tactic. So long as it remains largely opportunistic, as opposed to a coached and rehed technique, I think the current level of risk is acceptable and the sanctions for getting it wrong are about right.

Quote ="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.'" Thanks TVOC, I think your point about the new norm since 2012 might well explain why there appear to be anomalies in the way these challenges have been viewed by the disciplinary board during recent seasons. On balance I'm with you regarding its retention. I might have to review my stance were it to become a more frequently-used tactic. So long as it remains largely opportunistic, as opposed to a coached and rehed technique, I think the current level of risk is acceptable and the sanctions for getting it wrong are about right.

I agree, Leuluai's first contact wasn't with Hodgson's head as I think it clearly snapped forwards towards Leuluai before snapping backwards. The point about whether Leuluai was making a more coventional attempt is a good one as driving into tackles making contact with shoulder first with the arms wrapping or attempting to wrap around second is the definition of a big hit to me and will remain whether the shoulder barge is eventually outlawed or not.



That's a fair point. In Chase's defence (as was often the case with Thomas Leuluai) he has to do something extra to generate a big impact as he doesn't have the raw materials otherwise.

More than dirty G1. After what has been apparently said about Hull FC and St. George if he had gone then it would have been a shame for us but not the end of the world.

Think it's time someone took Chase to one side and re-educated his technique. Form is building.

Just like TMFMISL then ?

Hardly an excuse though. Rob Burrow is on the whole an extremely effective defender based on a solid tackling technique, but he doesn't go around trying to be physically dominant by putting in "big hits" that potentially cause serious injury, as his size dictates that he'd generally fail if he tried.

But his defending can still be deflating for the opposition when repeated attempts to 'run over the little guy' fail miserably.

Maybe Chase should concentrate on influencing games based on his attributes, rather than a belief that he ought to be an enforcer, as well as a creative half back. Or maybe he just doesn't have the temperament.

I remember watching Rob Burrow bring down Jamie Thackaray in a cracking tackle which shows that he might be small but get the technique right size doesn't matter.

Tommy Lueluai as well just seemed to have a great technique rather than regularly going for the shoulder charge.

Another small player who could deck the biggest with his technique. Sometimes players, no matter who, do stupid things.

A very fair stance and totally agree.

I think the main thing is no matter about the tackle that Hardaker is fine and well.

The full text of the decision should be up on the RFL website either today or tomorrow, including the reasoning for the length of ban and any mitigation offered by the player.

On a point of semantics a reckless challenge is a reckless challenge, irrespective of where it makes contact.

Whether Hardaker or Anderson "slipped" into anything only determined whether or not it was a foul challenge, not the motivation behind it.

I agree with Paragraph 2 totally and I don't think Hardaker slipped though.

Mr Daly what gives you the wright to question a persons gramme or spelling, some people have a reasonable excuse for not knowing where a full stop go,s or they mis o letter from a word.

All the banter started when ( HIM ) was rubbishing my club for lack of funds, but thats all it is banter.

And just for you with your perfect English knowledge i will tell you why i agree with you that my spelling a times is not funny.

3 years ago i was involved in a building accident where a roof purling fell from it's housing and crushed the front of my skull, splitting my brain lining and damaging my frontal lobe of the brain i spent most of my time in a hospital bead in LGI laying flat on my back. i am now at home after recovering from meningitis, but i am still laying in bead as it is impossible for my wife to cope whilst i am un well.

i spend my time either watching TV or having a bit of banter with fans from various forums in a few months time i will be retuning to my second home to have a bone reconstruction to my scull, all my typing is done whilst i am flat on my back, so have more to worry about than a few spelling mistakes or wrong gamer.

If the forum is only for people who now the Queens English perfectly i will happily stop using the forum, but if others dont mind my un funny spelling just press the block button.

If others think i should stop posting because my spelling is not 100% accurate, then just tell me and i will stop and continue to watch the RL DVDs and TV.

At the end of April i will be visiting Leeds for a month or two so you will no longer have to put up with my dry wit, but remember some folk are not as lucky as you are and spelling comes secondary.

If you think this is all lies just give Cas a ring, or come and give me a visit in the neuro ward at Leeds General Hospital,
but give me a week or two to come around and you can teach me how spelling should be done.

Julian Bousquet has appealed his ban! Wow

Good to hear he has so he can have it increased to 8 matches on the sidelines.

That is terrible and you have my sympathies and well wishes.

And people would do well to pay heed your tale when defending the Rangi Chase incident (or other where players receive a blow to the head). The Brain is very precious and very fragile. I like to see a big hit but there is a price not worth paying and players have a duty of care to avoid the opponent's head at all costs.

The RFL need to be very careful. In the NFL the league is very concerned about law suits they're receiving from ex players who suffered multiple concussions. Concussions can have serious effects for players, not just now but later in life. The league have a duty of care to protect it's players and I don't think a two match ban (or a 4 match ban for the Catalan player) send out the correct message.

If you took Chase's hit on Zak in isolation and put it down to an untimely shoulder barge to the chin then maybe you could say he was unlucky to get banned but that's a big MAYBE. However when you consider it was just minutes after he caused a massive brawl and was still in self destruct mode then you could quite easily put it down to an act of pre meditated thuggery.
He's an excellent player when his mind is firmly on the game but he has a violent side which has been demonstrated both on and off the pitch

I take it Hardaker will miss the next 2 weeks as he should if he was "out cold"??

Hmmmm let's see hey!!!!

Why would he have to miss 2 weeks?

G1's explanation is the precise reason the NRL have banned the shoulder charge, despite the moans of many fans and ex- and current players. Put simply the NRL cannot afford to face a class action from players with brain injuries.

They would massively increase the risk of a loss in such an action if they were aware of an activity which is not a core requirement of the game (regardless of some fans' view the shoulder charge is not, unlike say getting punched in the head being a fairly core part of boxing) that could lead to brain injury, and yet took no steps to remove it from the game.

I'm sure the shoulder charge will be banned now that Leeds Rhinos and their irate fans suddenly don't like it.

Have fun getting beat by Bradford