So the charge is basically because of the respective sizes of he players? Had O'Brien been taller it would not be an issue? Weird.

The size of the players has never been taken into consideration, it is the responsibility of the tackler to ensure they do not make contact with the head. I think it is why Rob Burrow is so effective.

Does he not have a head?

Oh well; if nothing else I was right about everything except scruton not being cited.
The irony if being called a chump and accused of playing the victim card by bulls fans is not lost on me at all at this point.

I believe he does, but the surface area below it is much smaller than most and players really have to bend their back to get to it.

Thats alright then. The initial impact is very much shoulder to shoulder.

A direct shoulder>head impact would have seen the head moving away from the shoulder. Instead there was a whiplash type effect where O'briens head moves towards Scrutons shoulder.

Unfortunately, it is not only the initial impact that is looked at. If they decide contact with the head is made it doesn't really matter if the initial contact was elsewhere.

He's tweeted that he is going to fight his case. No early plea. His disciplinary record is good (mitigating) - hopefully not needed.

The disturbing thing about shoulder charges over the last 3 rounds is that they have all been subject to trial by media. Stevo, Eddie & Phil have all judged the severity of each tackle first and pronounced the verdict to the tv audience.

Conspiracy theorists might argue that this is all part of trying to introduce a ban on shoulder charges in SL, to mimic the NRL, without the RFL having to lose face and admit they are playing poodle to the NRL?

If they were right, then you might expect the disciplinary to be totally un-moved by any plea in mitigation.

The mute point here is whether the RFL disciplinary will decide that the officials and the video referee were all right on the day or they were all wrong.

That's a good point.

If the beak decides Scrutes is guilty, its a kick in the nuts for Mr Ganson And Mr Silverwood, as well as the touchies.

Ho hum.

For me, the clincher was that we did not see half the Cas pack pile in to bray hell out of Scrutes. Indeed, we saw no hint of the usual (and understandable) response when one of your mates has just been decked unreasonably. Deacs used to get clattered like that regularly during games. We never saw a procession of big opposition fellas beating a trail to Rot Hall the following Tuesday then, and nor IMO should we on this occasion. It was NOT a deliberate off-the-ball clattering. Had it been, we could have had no complaints.

But if minds are already made up...?

The NRL ruling I reckon will be rescinded, the ruling reworked or the Refs modify the way they look at it, there were two incidents in the NRL All Stars match, Inglis wasn't pinged cause he was static and Rose was cause he was moving! It will be interesting to see if the NRL Refs heed the call to speed up the PTB by various Coachs! One noticable positive during that match and I hope it continues was the lack of referral to the Video Ref! So we shall see if having an ex Coach in charge of the Refs has the good outcome everyone wants. I hope so as it could mean bye bye Cummings! Well Maybe not!! www.nrl.com/rlif-bans-shoulder-c ... fault.aspx Union will be the only real contact sport left (won't inc NFL to much padding!)

The NRL ruling I reckon will be rescinded, the ruling reworked or the Refs modify the way they look at it, there were two incidents in the NRL All Stars match, Inglis wasn't pinged cause he was static and Rose was cause he was moving! It will be interesting to see if the NRL Refs heed the call to speed up the PTB by various Coachs! One noticable positive during that match and I hope it continues was the lack of referral to the Video Ref! So we shall see if having an ex Coach in charge of the Refs has the good outcome everyone wants. I hope so as it could mean bye bye Cummings! Well Maybe not!! www.nrl.com/rlif-bans-shoulder-c ... fault.aspx Union will be the only real contact sport left (won't inc NFL to much padding!)

The charge is strike to the head, they AFAIK haven't stated whether they considered it late or not. Perhaps when the judgement is made they will comment. Most seem now to graciously accept it was late, IMO it was deliberately late because when I saw the replays you can see Scruton lining O'Brien up to hit him with the upper part of his chest/shoulder. After the impact Scruton spins round with the force of the impact. A classic textbook big hit but delivered late.

It was. Called by John Kear on first replay, backed up by Clarke, then the 2 muppets.

The movement of the head is from O'Brien towards Scruton, so Scruton hit shoulder to shoulder and then O'Brien tries to head butt his shoulder.

A bit like the disciplinary panel ignoring the ruling of Tim Roby who was stood 3 yards and lookng directly at the Chase on Hardaker tackle and ruled a knock on.



Again, a bit like the Leeds pack who didn't "pile in" when Chase hit Hardaker. Surely the reaction of the players on the field as well as the match officials who've seen it live should lend weight to what the "punishment" should be?

Hmm if the shoulder charge is banned does that mean if Billy Slater tries to stop Ryan Hall the way he did at Wembley (when he broke his collarbone) then her would get charged now a days?

The Leeds players did go straight to chase,nobody went to Scruton

I agree with this. It does seem that if SKY show the incident enough times then the review panel ban them. I'm fairly confident that if we won't on tele on Saturday, Scruton wouldn't be banned. I watched SL full time for first time last night and one of the worst challenges I saw from the weekend was Meli clearing out Holdsworth during Hulls first try. Yet he wasn't even called up!?

Having had another look I think that the initial contact was shoulder to shoulder and then O'Brien's head hit Scruton's shoulder as opposed to Scruton's shoulder hitting the head (if that makes any sense!).

FWIW, I called you a chump because you are another one of these who feels the need to bring football into a discussion on RL. They are two completely different games but for some reason so many RL fans seem to think that belittling football makes their game all the better. It doesn't. It just makes you look envious.

Players usually only react to a bad tackle if play stops straight away. They dont normally react if play continues, unless it is exceptionally bad.

When video refs get involved in these types of incidents its usually on the basis of "have a quick look". They don't usually replay the incident several times. Clearly there was plenty of time for the video ref to study this incident in detail whilst the player was being treated. But I suspect that he told Ganson it was ok after a quick look. As a general principle I dont think that the mere fact that a video ref has had a look at an incident should prevent it from being referred to Red Hall.

You showed yourself as a chump for your jaundiced and nutty claim that


This is simply untrue. I actually think that there is some bloody good debate on these forums, and on RAB, and indeed on this very thread. We have a number of posters able to offer intelligent views and the fact that they disagree often is really what a debate is about. Your claim that honest debate is dead is really insulting, and if I'm honest, in my opinion stupid. Many people can and regularly do "see past their own colours", and the 'football path' closing remark is as bewildering as it is irrelevant.

Which ever way you put it Scruton's shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player!!!

Are your eyes painted on

? The Leeds players initial reaction was to go to drop on the loose ball. Not until Chase checked on Hardaker did a Leeds player even remotely approach Chase.