or in Rangi's case, while the ball carrier is already wrapped up, with one player holding one leg off the ground, Rangi goes around the back of Ferres and deliberately attacks his only leg on the ground

The incident on Ferres is one of three with contact to the legs of a tackled player that the MRP looked at from Chase alone over the Easter weekend.

Seems he's been learning from his cousin Issac Luke after all.

Chase has had 36 reviews by the Disciplinery Committee in the last 6 years.
Taking out the games he's missed through suspension, injury and being dropped by his club for breaches of their own codes of conduct his record equates to approximately 1 visit for every 4 games played which is an horrendous record.

His offences are riddled with high shots to the head and face, undue pressure to various joints including the neck and shoulders and cannonball tackles to the standing leg of an opponent. The stand out incident is that of his elbow to the face of Tangi Ropati which caused terrible injuries requiring a number of steel plates and screws to the left side of Ropati's head and both joints of his jaw.

Will the RFL do nothing to stop this until someone is left invalided by him!

Rangi Chase is a grub of a player remember the attack on Tangi Ropati the Featherstone player who copped for a broken jaw Chase got a 3 game ban if that was outside a pub/club he would of been jailed

He did the same thing outside a pub in Australia and got found guilty of assault

7 match ban, no real surprise

So, between him and Hauraki they have copped 9 game bans between them and James Child deemed neither of them worthy of on field punishment ?? and we wonder why people are getting fed up of referee's in this sport.

Rangi's was sickening and 6,000 people in the stands saw what he did but not the one guy that mattered ??

7 games is nowhere near enough punishment for a blatant attempt to cause serious injury to a fellow player, horrible little grub who has a long history of trying to injure opponents.

What a pity he won't have the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hock in the cup.

He should have been hauled up for his tackle on Paddy Flynn against Widnes.

No player should be put in a dangerous position like that, shows total lack of respect from Rangi , and he deserves the ban.

I am surprised that despite 6000 people in the stands apparently seeing this incident clearly, there was no mention of it on either teams forum until it was announced that he had been charged. No mention in the match day threads etc. If it was so clear then I'm sure it would've been the main topic of post match discussion.

It was a deserved ban, but let's not go overboard.

Here you go.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HeUUDcBT6ILuke Burgess having his jaw broken by a shoulder charge (video)[/url

The result:

There's serious injuries and there's serious injuries. No one wants to be spending a few weeks on the sidelines with a broken jaw. However it's far preferable to spending a year out of the game having a knee reconstruction. That example is pretty minor in the grand scheme of injuries.

Both of which are serious injuries.

The shoulder barge was banned because it was clear (certainly in Australia, not so much here I think) that coaches were building in the "accidently late" shoulder charge into their defensive strategy to intimidate kickers and there was the suspicion that it was also used to "take players out".

Something like a broken jaw is pretty bad, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But when someone says serious injury, that to me means at least 6 months out.

Freak accidents happen, but it's unlikely that a shoulder charge will end a career. A cannonball tackle easily could.

Personally I don't have an issue with a shoulder charge. If a shoulder charge makes contact with the head then it should be treated as a high tackle, and a card issued if it's deemed appropriate, as with any high tackle. As long as it's shoulder to shoulder that's fine imo.

I've been hit with shoulder charges before, and as far as things that happen in a game of rugby league go, they are not all that painful.

I agree in general play, but I did read that there was a spate of late and high ones leading to some serious injuries and thats why it was banned, should those who go in heavy on a held players legs be in trouble too, damn right they should.

"Serious" is flexible enough that your "serious" might not be my "serious". If you find a medical professional who considers Burgess' injury not to be "serious", then great.



And a shoulder charge could also end a life, in ways that a cannonball tackle is much less likely to (e.g. [url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/subdural-haematoma/pages/introduction.aspxacute subdural haematoma[/url due to collision - from shoulder or head - at the temple). It comes down to splitting hairs over the risk (and hazard) of injury, and whether the challenge can be controlled well enough by either player to minimise that risk. My opinion is that shoulder charges are sufficiently difficult to control, and risky enough in terms of collisions at the highest level of the sport, that I'm fine with them no longer being permitted. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing, but I do think we have to accept that there is potential for serious injury from shoulder charges, and they aren't entirely benign.

(edited to fix link)

Shoulder charge to the head, dangerous and was always illegal (but not always punished)

Other shoulder charges, not so much

Agree with LeightonP, the problem is sustained head hits and the lasting damage that exists well after the player has finished playing, not a 6 month injury. Take a look at the NFL and the studies that have been done there. Their athletes are protected massively from head hits. You can say it's because the league is getting sued if you like but it's being done for a reason.

For what it's worth I agree entirely with the OP on this thread about the cannonball tackle. It's a disgusting thing to do to a fellow professional.

BUT some clubs in Super League are coached to do this from the juniors up. Without mentioning names (Wigan) some clubs do it from the ground up as part of their 'style' and are actively coached to attack the weight supporting leg. Rangi Chase's tackle was dangerous, but I'm at a loss to figure out why he got 7 games for it? Is it just because the injury was severe this time? Because if you review the Wigan v Saints game, you'll see probably 100 similar challenges, they do it on virtually every tackle because their pack is so small and always ends up standing the ball carrier up. So why does Chase get 7 games, yet other clubs are allowed to do this all the time? Chase gets the 7 game ban, yet Mental Mickey McIllorum, who does about 30 of these a game, is free to carry on? Where is the consistency?

Why does Chase get 7 games (Because the injury to his opponent is severe) yet Green from Hull KR gets 1 match for a pre meditated attack to the head with an illegal technique?

The RFL are just bizarre.

People die from head injuries. Repeated concussion is extremely dangerous and can lead to brain damage. I don't have a problem with shoulder charges that don't touch the head but it is extremely difficult to control a shoulder charge and even ones where contact is with the body result in whip lashing actions that make the ball carriers/passers head swing into the attacker or the floor when they land. I think it's a cowardly way to tackle cos it involves little skill, minimises risk of injury to the tackler, increases risk of injury to the player tackled but it looks good and gets the crowd excited

As for Rangi's ban. No complaints from me. It annoys me people say they 'know' what a player intended. Only one person knows and that's the offender. Everyone else is guessing. Could easily be interpreted as an attempt to wrap up his legs that went wrong but doesn't really matter. Was careless and/or malicious and deserves the ban.

Calls for bans to be as long as the injury are ridiculous, doesn't happen in any sport and would to have been a less serious foul if Feres was a quick healer and was back playing after 4 weeks or if Sau had pulled him rather than pushing him so he didn't go over on his knee? Should the ban then only be 4 weeks? Nonsense. It's the foul not the impact that is punished

Just to clear a couple of 'facts' up on earlier posts. No-one was holding Ferres' leg in the air, when Chase hit him both his feet were on the floor (one only lightly), on of the tacklers had pretty much let go. And Child did give a penalty for Hauraki's high shot that he has rightly been banned for (albeit only after touch judge told him about it). Good to see the lino's doing their job

You'll find that's because Green's wasn't a pre meditated attack to the head,
BTW Don't you think the St's players would have reacted to Green if it was?

Something wrong somewhere.
Are the players turning into thugs?
Are the coaches allowing/condoning these type of tackles?
Why aren't the coaches actually coaching tackling techniques or is it part of the previous question?
Why, if a player gets banned, do they not forfeit their salary for the period and the coach a proportion?
It is possible to eliminate "bad tackles" practically from the game, but that involves a lot of hard work, discipline and co-operation by all parties involved.