The logical, and absurd, conclusion to that thinking is that a player could head butt a tackling players shoulder and get him sent off for contact with the head.

Scruton makes contact with the shoulder, slightly late I agree, but shoulder to shoulder contact is legal in the game. He doesn't raise arms, elbows or jump into the tackle so IMO it isn't deliberate or reckless. The question should be is it careless? If any contact with the head counts as careless then he'll be done, but the same argument and penalty would then apply if O'Brien fell over and hit his head on Scrutons knee, which is obviously accidental (unless your name is Leon).

Since the RFL has now decided to do what the NRL requires, and is to ban shoulder charges, the conspiracy theorists may well conclude that this incident has all fallen very opportune. And that the RFL may perhaps look to make an example, to "prove" why they "had no choice" but to comply with the NRL?

But since there are no precedents whatsoever for the RFL making an example of Bradford, (are there?), any such conspiracy theorists would surely be barking up the wrong tree...? Wouldn't they?

Seeing as the RLIF has now banned shoulder charges, and is implementing them during the WCC and the World Cup this October, i dont see how the RFL cannot ban them. My question is what do they deem a shoulder charge?

We can't afford for him to be banned, the squad is not large enough to have any more players missing. It seemed to me like it was shoulder to shoulder, then his shoulder moved up to O'Brien's head.

This also my take on the challenge. Where that leaves Scruton in the eyes of the panel is anyone's guess, but it has to be a big worry if the referees don't know what THEY should be penalising with the benefit of unlimited replays.

It's understandable for a ref to be unsure at full speed but for two of our most experienced refs to deem the challenge not worthy of a penalty for the panel to ban him.. Well you just couldn't make it up.

The simple fact to me, having watched it many times, is that the unfortunate O'Brien's head "whiplashes" into Scruton's shoulder, due to the impact.

The video images are not clear, and can't be clearer, but do seem to show a blurred motion of O'Brien's head, and that is to LEFT of centre, not to his right. I.e., for those who don't get the point, the OPPOSITE direction to where the first impact with head would have sent it.

Now, the question (given the charge) is whether Scruton made an illegal contact with the head. If you accept my analysis (as presumably the VR would agree) then Scruton is not guilty. The fact is that it was the head which made contact with Scruton, not the other way round. However it contacted him, he did not contact it. And that cannot be an offence on any reasonable view, in these circumstances.

I know some have said that ANY contact with the head is now an offence, but to illustrate both my point, and the falsity of that claim, with an extreme example, if O'Brien had launched himself headfirst at Scruton and dived into Scruton's shoulder, would that be an offence by Scruton? Clearly not.

If Scruton had first made contact with the shoulder and then the shoulder slid off and moved into contact with the head, I would agree that that should still be viewed as an illegal contact, but that's not how I see what happened here, the head snapped into contact with the shoulder by sheer bad luck due to the angles, point of impact etc., the shoulder did not move into contact with the head. Which is why I think that, unfortunate though it was, there really was nothing in it. As the match officials also felt.

And that would be my analysis regardless of which players were involved.

Far too much common sense in that post!

Shoulder charges now banned according to BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21502550 Let's hope they don't decide to 'send a message' by banning Scruton

Shoulder charges now banned according to BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21502550 Let's hope they don't decide to 'send a message' by banning Scruton

Scroll up about 7 posts...you are not the first to ponder on that.

Certainly taking their time to come to a decision it would seem.. All the other verdicts are in...

Escapes ban.

Great news

Bulls Prop Nick Scruton was tonight fined £300 after being found guilty of a reckless high tackle on Castleford's Gareth O’Brien.
Scruton, was accompanied by Head Coach Francis Cummins and Football Manager Stuart Duffy and the trio argued that the tackle was legal and to the shoulder of his opponent.
The Disciplinary panel listened to the argument and felt that tackle was not serious enough to warrant a Grade B charge and downgraded the offence to Grade A. They then imposed a fine of £300 but no suspension, pointing out that players making tackles had a duty of care to their opponent but acknowledging that the initial contact had been with the shoulder.
Scruton is therefore free to play against St Helens on Saturday.

Great news.


However it does mean that Ganson was right.....

Just a thought...what was he actually charged with then? The tackle did not make contact with the head so the offence was.....

Fair decision, and still means Ganson was wrong as he has been found guilty of a high tackle, but initial impact was on the shoulder.

They say the "initial" contact was with the shoulder.
Of course he hit O'Brien's head, that was after the shoulder.
Scruton could also have pulled out of the "tackle".

Maybe they felt they had to come up with something up to stop themselves looking wassocks for charging him?

Good news, nevertheless. No firing squad on the quarterdeck this time.

The collective apoplexy from the relative few who were after blood (Not Nottingham Tiger; he has argued his case fairly and objectively) will soon die down.

Although a regular poster on this thread, I was never "after blood". I started the thread believing that the tackle made contact with O'Brien's head. This has been proven by the disciplinary panel and accepted by Scruton and Cummings. He was right to be found guilty of making contact with the head, but due to his previous record I think a fine is a fair punishment.

Where does state all this....I just checked RFL disciplinary pages and Scruton's case hasn't been updated yet. Not that I'm bothered with the outcome!

It's up on the bulls twitter feeds

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ban-stands

www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ban-stands

And Sporting Life site.

What a complete joke the disciplinary is.
Ben Westwood plays the ball then walks five yard forward to have a go at Webb,gets one match, I'm no fan of Webbs, but what was he supposed to do, and he gets one game ban.leon drops his knees deliberately into someone's head and gets no ban cos he took early guilty plea
Of all four up before the beak this week Leon's was the worst and he ends up getting the least,he can't put in a guilty plea for 12 month,wow

For once I agree with you. Although, technically, this thread is about the Nick Scruton tackle. However, I appreciate that this is one of the few forums on this site you are not banned from.