With the news today that the NRL have BANNED a good old fashioned [ishoulder charge[/i, do you think RL is going soft?

It seems the news this morning hasn't been welcomed by most pro RL players both over here and in Aus.

Thoughts?

I wish the NRL had banned it a few years ago. Then we could tw£t em under international rules in the world cup.

A move to keep prized assets SBW and Sam Burgess on the field and out of the treatment room?

Reducing the number of interchanges seems to be a better option, and appears to be more popular with some of the players.

I smashed my collar bone by poorly executing a shoulder charge, and am as a result fully aware of the dangers they pose, both to the tackler and the attacker. However, I think they should very much remain part of the game. They provide a great collision, and can really gear a player, team or crowd up. No one has to use them, and I don't think they are any more dangerous to the ball carrier than a normal tackle. They do represent poor technique, and often result in a missed tackle, but I think they have a big part in a game.

I agree, I'd be tempted to ban them at amateur level though.

When you see the likes of L.Burgess get their faces caved in there's a big call to ban it but on the flip side when executed correctly some huge hits occur and can change the momentum of the game.
For me i'd keep it but with severe sanctions for ones that are mis-timed and hit high.

trying to fix a to a problem that isn't there imo. half the tackles in the nrl that got so much publicity last year weren't (out n out) shoulder charges anyway, they were just very bad tackles.

its also going to be a nightmare to ref; union has a clear ban on no arm tackles, this is asking the ref to judge a type of tackle & the intention of the tackle - the difference between a body check & a shoulder charge (in the terms of what they're trying to ban) are millimetres and are affected by the attacker himself & other defences involved.

sticking with big penalties for contact to the head is the easiest and best solution.

Yep, you get it wrong, even by accident, expect to be sent off.

I've never been a massive fan of the shoulder charge but I can see this being a nightmare to officiate

Sums it up for me. I don't like a certain version of it but what will be classed as a shoulder charge? A tackle without arms? That would rule out so many perfectly safe hits.
Prepare for meltdown at the disciplinary board and 15 "on reports" a game.

Awful decision. This is what makes Rugby League, Rugby League. Players will continue to do it regardless of the rules. Chris Ashton and Sonny Bill still do it in Union and i'm sure especially in the NRL players will continue to do it. All the best highlight videos show massive shoulder charges.

Aussie softcocks

...or NRL bosses seeking to avoid massive civil damages down the track when some 'hard nut' has permanent shoulder damage or the recipient of a shoulder charge suffers a permanent brain injury? That's what's behind the decision. Nothing to do with the potential for injury itself, but the financial costs to the game if they did nothing about them and got sued down the track.

I must be missing something if the shoulder charge is what 'makes' the sport. Odd that something so apparently important may occur once or twice a game, if that.

Good thing, the elite level sets the trend for the game, shoulder charges have no place in the amateur game especially at junior level where you are trying to teach correct tackling technique. A shoulder charge is no more effective than a correctly executed tackle. As we have seen a number of players being knocked unconscious with this approach surely for player safety will be improved, it is only a question of time before a player gets permanently injured.

Any evidence that the shoulder charge results in more frequent or more damaging shoulder injuries than standard tackling techniques? Because if it doesn't the NRL might want to look at reverting to touch and pass.

The risk of permanent brain injury argument appears to me to be more relevant. Again, I'm not sure how successful a civil damages claim would be, given that boxing is apparently bulletproof. But I don't find the argument that it's worth the risk of the odd player ending their days paralysed or worse because it generates more oohs and aahs from the crowd a particularly persuasive one.

Having said all that, the tackling side of the game is pretty sterile for large parts these days. But this is not down to the laws of the game, rather it's the approach of the players.

They can look spectacular, but it's cheap spectacle in my book. If players want to put a big hit on and claim all the glory that comes with it, get your technique right and do it properly. I've never been a big fan of shoulder charges, partly because they're dangerous but mostly because they're just sloppy, lazy technique. There's skill, commitment and technique involved in a big tackle, any mug can launch their shoulder at someone.

I don't see why it's hard to police, shoulder contact with no attempt to use the arms to make a proper tackle equals penalty. They manage it in RU quite well. Yes players like SBW still do it, but they also get penalised more often than not. I don't know any rules that result in the correct call 100% of the time, but this is no harder than any other.

The "this is what makes RL" line is over dramatic. They're a failry infrequent occurrence anyway, and to be honest, they're a fairly recent development in happening in large numbers anyway. I'm not saying they never happened in the 80s and 90s, but I certainly don't recall them happening anything like as often as the once or so a game you might see now.

I'd be very happy to see SL follow suit and do away with them here too.

I don't think it makes the game, but I think its certainly a selling point. I have shown non RL fans YouTube clip such as NRL big hits etc and people have been wowed at the physicality of the game, and wanted to see more. .

They may only happen once or twice a game, but when they do get the crowd off their feet. I'd be sad to see it go

Proper clinical evidence on the effect of certain aspects of sports technique on sports injury is virtually impossible to generate. It certainly seems intuitively likely that an impact solely concentrated on one point of the body is going to risk greater damage than a more dissipated impact, and there have been a few injuries seen to result form these sort of non-tackles (SBW certainly had a couple in his NRL days).

Boxing is in a rather different situation given that head shots are an intrinsic part of the sport which the participant consents to in applying for their professional license. Shoulder charges are not inherently necessary to RL in the same way, so I imagine it might (might, I'm no legal expert) be more feasible to construct an argument that RL has neglected its duty of care to the players in not policing tackle technique better.

Boxing actually does monitor these things, and glove weights and rules are constantly monitored and tweaked, with the aim being to minimise the risk, rather than eliminate it. Serious brain injuries from normal boxing practice are more rare than peole think. Gerald McLellan, for instance, was injured by a freak clash of heads when Nigel Benn lost his footing, not by a punch.

For me it's a question of risk and reward. The risks may not be enormous, but as you say, a few "ooh" and "ahh" noises from the crowd are not a big enough reward to justify them.

I'm more impressed by proper big hits, and that certainly applies to people I know round here (RU country as you know...) who are RU people, who are impressed by the collisions in general in RL, but also by the technique in defence. Most of them will simply see these tackles (like Kidwell's admittedly hilarious demolition of Willie Mason) as making RL look a bit dirty and careless.

A big, legal hit will still get the crowd off their feet.

So can you use the shoulder charge with ball in hand then? The use of the charge can be used both ways, but people only moan about it in defence. When people are skittled using it with ball in hand no-one bats an eyelid.

Nobody much expects you to use both arms in a tckle when you're holding the ball though do they?

Yes it is, but a better spectacle and much faster.
After having withdrawal symptoms following the GF, I've been watching some of my rugby DVDs including all the finals since 2007.
Among my DVDs is a copy of the 1965 CC final when Hunslet were [irobbed[/i by Wigan. Those were the days of real hard rugby league, with proper scrums and real hookers.If that game were to be played today, it would have probably ended up as a 7 a side match.
R.I.P. Bernard Prior and Fred Ward.

I would keep it, and heavily punish anyone not bending their back enough to hit below the shoulders. I think it set our game apart, and all the pros I've seen are coming out saying the want it to stay.

..those same pros being part of the problem. Those same guys who will jump up and down today about how the shoulder charge should stay will be the first to sue the sport if/when they suffer from permanent long-term injury. If there was no such threat - with a clear precedent being set in the NFL - then nobody would touch the shoulder charge, even if players were dying early from repeated head knocks.

Again, I fail to get the idea that the shoulder charge somehow differentiates the game from other sports - which basically means RU. I'd have thought the lack of lineouts, fat props and contested scrums already did that.