Looking at the state Tyrone McCarthy was in last night after Akouala tackle. With all the punishing of head contact tackles should this apply to attackers as well as defenders? So shoulder charges penalised for attackers as well as defenders. In the interest of player safety I would say so, as would bring consistency with the overall approach.

It definitely needs to be looked at. Whilst McCarthy's technique wasn't ideal, nor was Akuola's targeting of the head with the shoulder. If he sticks the shoulder either side of the head or into the chest, no one has an issue with it and that is what all the other players do.

I wouldn't ban driving with the shoulder first, like I wouldn't have banned the use of the shoulder in tackling. I'd just have a heavy ban where there is deliberate or very reckless contact with the head like there was last night. He drives AT McCarthy and aims for his head and impacts him. That is what I have an issue with, if the shoulder is either side of the head it's a great carry. Again, the tackling technique should be better, but there needs to be an onus on the ball carrier not to deliberately impact the head as well.

Defenders can tackle round the legs if they want to. Trying to plant your feet and stand tall to a 6ft5 16st man running at full speed isn't going to end well in most cases. Who offloads on the first tackle of a kick off? Just go for the waist and let the second man in wrap up the top half.

No.

Tyrone McCarthy's technique in that occasion was thrown out of the window, he just flung himself into it.

I do not buy into the single view that he targeted his head that's just talk from someone who probably boos when a player is injured and it's not convenient for their team!

No. The defenders choose where to target the attacker, not vice versa.

No he doesn't.

The game is getting softer and softer,no it doesn't need to be looked at.

Personally I don’t want to see people injured in the name of entertainment. There is no way RL is softer with the conditioning of players who are probably bigger and game speed faster than ever the danger of impacts are probably greater. People now retiring sooner due to continual head contact. When we are struggling for quality players we need to protect the ones we have.

He definitely does. What were you watching? The Warrington fans all out defending him blindly because he plays for Warrington. The minute someone does it to a Warrington player your reaction would change instantly. You see it so rarely in the game because other players just don't do it.

What are you watching, there's nothing to defend? He doesn't target McCarthy's head. You just want an excuse to raise your pitchfork and light your torch, just because he plays for Warrington. Had he played for any other club you wouldn't have bothered posting.

In short no, if the sport goes down that road then we may as well just ban it as a contact sport.

What next no more fending off a player incase you touch the head, no more tackling a players legs incase they fall and bang their head on the pitch?

It’s a physical contact sport and you can’t make it totally risk free.

Ridiculous comment. Absolute terrible tackle technique caused the injury not the attacking player.

Exactly this !!

There's only 1 single person trying to make out sita deliberately targeted his head with his shoulder only one person is trying to make that a fact !! Thankfully the majority have some common sense and reasoning about them to see that's not just the case. But what can you expect from fans who boo injured players who are down in pain because it's inconvenient for them yet harp on about player welfare the next minute !!

I can kind of see why some would call for this to be looked at but IMO there’s nowt wrong with the run. Poor tackling technique is the issue here.

No.

But also, how the hell would it be enforced? Loads of ball carriers go into a tackle slightly side-on, just not many with the ferocity* of Akauola.

*for one carry per game.

The only thing I would want clearing up from a ball carriers POV is the leading with the forearms/elbows and the lowering of the head into the tackle. When the 'bumpers' get put up and the ball carrier squats down to avoid getting tackled this does put the would be tackler at greater risk of head contact, a Cumberland throw is likely the best/most effective way to bring the ball carrier down and stop the contact to the tacklers head
Getting flat handed to the face with force isn't pleasant, but that's what you should expect when you decide to go for an up top tackle, handing off for me was one of the things I loved, it penalised what I considered to be lazy tackling and was/is a great mode of avoiding getting tackled.

That said, two of the other issues I see that's occured in RL and union for that matter, is the penalising of tacklers for direct contact to the head when the initial movement and tackle point was clearly in a legitimate area height wise and the ball carrier has slipped, tripped or ducked a split second before contact, sometimes the head/upper body has lowered by over a foot.

What is the tackler supposed to do, magically overcome the laws of physics and stop that kinetic energy in its tracks and redirect it, even IF they had the time for that change to register quick enough to begin the biomechanic action of changing your arm or shoulder position to a point that isn't near the head/neck even though that is still changing right up until the point of contact?
Using slow motion replay is a frankly unscrupulous way to make out that a player can simply avoid this contact and has been careless or reckless.

You'd need to remove full contact rugby to eradicate this type of head contact!

I agree with all that. I thought McCarthy was guilty of awful technique and that's what caused the problem in this case.

Tackle lower and this doesn't happen. That said I think referees should allow more time for defenders to roll off if they've executed a legs tackle.

Yes, you'd like to think refs do that but it's such a lottery, I lso hate players having to be told when to get off, human psychology tells us that putting onus on the person doing the act to judge under the threat of penalty is significantly more effective. If they don't comply/play within the rules then just keep pinging them until they do, at first its messy but you soon get better outcomes that are better flowing and safer, because players and coaches will get penalised out of games for not playing within the laws, far better than the micromanaging nonsense we have posing as officiating these days.

The up top grab and pull down does have a bit of merit the way the laws of the game are enforced (or rather not enforced) but it allows players to make yards after contact and indeed it's easier to offload from an upright position as we've seen since the uptop tackle has been favoured.
The notion that wrapping up with multiple players enables defences to get set as being the most efective way to defend is IMO false. If you've committed 3 or 4 tacklers grabbing and dragging an attacker to the ground then you're wasting effort and asking those additional tacklers to get back the 10m (well mostly 8m in reality). If you had effected a legs/lower down tackle you're more likely to half forward progress than an up top tackle and this destablises the ability to offload in the tackle in a controlled manner.

Passing out the tackle whilst falling is high risk, compare that to passing out the tackle whilst stood and you get an arm loose or just let go of the ball and claim the ball was stripped because there was a hand on the ball, which wouldn't happen in a legs/waist tackle.
I don't see there is an increased chance of a head clash from a 'legs' tackle unless you got it wrong, we've seen many a smaller player in either code demolish some very big individuals, and these tackles are far more efficient and effective at stopping the opposition, they can also bolster a team.

Oh, neck tackling, that's another thing that needs stopping as this does damage to the brain as well as neck, and lastly the levering up of tacklers using a tackled players head, I hate that with a passion and it should get a yellow every single time until players stop doing it!

You're just blindly defending it because it's your player. It was totally deliberate and there is only that one player that does it. The game would have a huge problem if more players did it. The question everyone is answering is whether players should be banned from running with their shoulder, which I don't think anyone wants banning. Deliberately attacking the head is what should be banned, but as he plays for Warrington you just won't see that. If he sticks the shoulder either side of the head he still sits him down, but there's far less chance of seriously injuring him. It's poor technique from McCarthy, granted, but that doesn't legitimise the head contact, it wasn't necessary.

Are you sure you're not blindly attacking it because it's a Warrington player? It really was completely down to poor tackling technique.

Yeah, I have no beef with Warrington any more than any other club and I'd say the same thing if a Saints player did it. The chance for it to happen was created by the tackling technique, but I don't mind being on my own with this opinion, the nature of the contact was deliberate and didn't need to happen. No one on here will even enter into a debate about it, they just see my name and oppose whatever I put. It was brought up on the Warrington forum by a Warrington fan and there have been a few on Twitter saying the same. The technique of the tackle is the get out clause, I get that. But there are always situations in games where the tackler isn't in an ideal position, the ball carrier doesn't have to take advantage of those to injure the tackler, the onus is on the ball carrier as much as the tackler to ensure safe contact. He definitely promotes the shoulder into the head, whether you consider it intentional or not, McCarthy is just stood there, it's not like he's put his head into a dangerous position as you often see with hip level tackles where the head is on the wrong side.

Forgetting that specific incident itself for a moment, it's ridiculous that the sport has rules that allow a player to deliberately strike an opponent in the head with his shoulder when he has the ball but not when he doesn't. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a sport in real danger from dementia claims from former players could do without contact like that. All I'm saying is it should still be a penalty if the contact with the head is reckless and by the ball carrier. Nothing massively controversial, but it's just laughed off because I posted it. It might take a serious injury from an incident like that to bring change, but it's definitely needed.

The need to protect the ball also comes into play for the attacking player especially when multiple tacklers are allowed to drop off & enable a one man ball strip. That could prevent any other type of fend off being used. That ball strip rule is ridiculous.

I haven't seen the actual tackle, where can I see it?
I've had a bad bang from a ball carrier who lowered their head as I was about to tackle them, broke two teeth at the root and a buzzing head for a few seconds, this was 2019 in a masters game.
I was pretty annoyed tbh, he ended up with a massive egg under his eye socket pretty much straight away, I couldn't understand why he would do that, pretty big lad as well (we were both wearing black shorts so decent contact level was acceptable) I went to waist tackle and he just lowered his head ffs! He didn't target me but it was bloody reckless IMO

You've said this four times in one thread, never mind the others, but he didn't deliberately target the head.

Ooooh you little fibber! You’re obsessed and the fact that you’re still pursuing this agenda is proof of it.