same with this, that was shoulder to shoulder and kidwell's head that caused the mouse under mason's eye.

just not enough. tommy's hit on the saint helens player was picture perfect and shows why a shoulder charge has a place in the game but not a lazzy one where they just turn and smash the shoulder anywhere. not only can it end a players career it also put the team at a disadvantage for the rest of the game as there a player down.

So it depends which club you play for now?



I find the hypocrisy on here remarkable, it's all 100% club based as well. There was nothing in the Puletua tackle at all, bar the badge on his shirt and you know it.

If we're ruling all shoulder charges which make contact with the head (Despite having no proof of that) as red cards, are all high tackles the same now then? There are four or five a game, every game which impact first on the head. Are we going to send all those players off as well? Or just the ones who play for Saints?

saddend stop being awkward for no reason. TP clearly hit mounis in the face with the shoulder and tommy leuluai smashed maurie in hes ribs. one being a good shoulder charge the other being an illegal one, if tp hit him a foot lower it would of been an a rib cruncher aswell but it wasn't and he rightly got red carded.

no why would you rule a shoulder charge and a lazzy high tackle the same?

So when somebody takes out a Saints player in this manner you're not going to squeal like a pig and insist the player is sent off. Get off your high horse, on this occasion Thaler got it spot on.

Hate to say this but I agree with Sadsack. An attack to someone's head is one thing, but someone essentially running into the defender's shoulder is something else.

Absolutely nothing in the Puletua tackle. If Mounis is stupid enough to run straight into someone's shoulder that's his daft fault. You run at gaps, not 6' 4" Pacific Islanders. That said, it's part of the game and it will always happen. I've done it, and I've done it to other people, it's a risk of the collision, and Puletua won that collision.

However, Inglis's attack is something else, he's advancing at speed towards the attacker and aims his upper body at the runner, resulting in the high collision. That's the sort of attack that needs punishing.

This sanitisation of RL is getting petty. Was it Meli who was penalised for a completely innocuous contact off the ball? Rubbish.

Oh come on, Puletua executed a forearm smash not a shoulder charge (dons tin hat)

And tbh, they usually spend their off-season having shoulder surgery. It's not just dangerous for the ones getting hit

jason hooper made a career out of doing nothing but shoulder charging kickers, he ended up retiring having fooked his shoulder up so bad.

People saying it was consistent with the Moa incident are correct that it was consistent, but it was the wrong decision.

Both shoulder charges were powerful hits, that jolted back the attacker in such a way that then propelled their head in to the defender, so this is where the ref says contact with the head, your off, which is utterly stupid!

I used to be a big fan of the "big hit" shoulder charge since I've seen it for many years. I even defended Moa earlier this season. However, my view has changed and I can see it being firmly outlawed going forward.

In March this year I read a newspaper article whilst in Australia which basically was full of interviews with various NRL medics and they collectively warned of the dangers of the shoulder charge. There were numerous stories of significant injuries and due to the technique being different from a normal tackle, the risk of serious injury is higher. Unfortunately I read the article whilst on an internal Qantas flight so cannot reproduce the article to share.

As a neutral watching Friday's match, all the replays indicated to me a clear contact with the head. (I don't care what any Saints fan says on here or otherwise). The tackle/charge looked awful and the decision probably the correct one. Now as for that disallowed Catalan try at the end..................

I agree.

The shoulder charge is horribly bordering on dangerous and reckless. It's one for the crowds though!

You must have watched a different game to me, he did not hit the guys head with his shoulder on initial contact.

To me, Puletua's was a great hit and to be sent off for it was absolutely ridiculous. Inglis wasnt really a shoulder charge, closer to an elbow and to me this is more of a red card. It seems like the in thing to pick up on shoulder charges, but for ones like Puletua's its stupid, they are a part of the game

Agreed - I thought the red card justified.

15 Misconduct (b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly. It's not a tackle. It should be banned. It's in the rules ^. IMO a crude way of trying to be the 'big man' and incapacitating an opponent. www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... misconduct

15 Misconduct (b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly. It's not a tackle. It should be banned. It's in the rules ^. IMO a crude way of trying to be the 'big man' and incapacitating an opponent. www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_ ... misconduct

IT IS FUCKING BANNED! The same as any other "type" of tackle that contacts the head. Why are people talking about banning a certain type of tackle even when it does NOT contact the head?

So we're agreed, a person cannot be knocked out unless the head is attacked/hit?

If this is directed at me, I know it's ing banned. Are we/you in the realm of condoning a tackle that renders an opponent unconscious even if it doesn't contact the head?

A shoulder charge is not a tackle whether it contacts the head or not.

It's purely about cock wagging and trying to injure an opponent.

If a player is in the position to hit somebody with their shoulder then he is in a position to effect a normal tackle.

It's about sitting an opponent his . It's as much a tackle as any other. Softcocks who want tackles that do NOT make contact with the head to be penalised need to go and watch soccer with the rest of the fairies.

Whilst there's some polarised opinions on here, I am very confident that the overwhelming majority would agree that "big hits", however you want to do them, are a great part of the game, and always draw a huge appreciative roar of approval.

Do some people not understand that "hitting" a player to sit him on his arrse, and maybe dislodge the ball, and slow him down for a while, is maybe the whole point, as opposed to the alternative (a simple tackle to bring him normally to ground)?

As in ANY form of tackle, if you end up impacting the head, even carelessly, then it is a penalty and yes if you give someone a full blooded mouthful of shoulder - even if you didn't aim there - you may well be sent off; players have an inescapable responsibility to avoid the opponent's head and so it should be.

But leave the legitimate big hits alone. We love them. If you don't, you're in a small minority that wants to change the nature of the game.

Are people seriously talking about banning shoulder charges/big shots? Seriously? Our game has been slowly sterilised over the last decade, and now you want only tackles with arms to be legal? FFS. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Big shots are a huge part of our game, part of our identity, part of what makes RL such a tough sport and such a great spectacle. You don't like it, go and watch RU. They're very precious about that sort of thing.

By the way, while attacking the head even with a well-aimed shoulder is illegal, no-one seems able to differentiate between that and someone stupidly running into a shoulder - because there is a difference, it's just that some officials and apparently many fans don't seem to understand it.

Where have I said tackles that do not make contact with the head should be banned Mr Waggler?

I said shoulder charges should be banned. The tackler/hitter has a far higher chance of hitting the head by a shoulder cherge through carelessness or recklessness.

At no point would I want a hard, fair tackle banned so stop your tiny mind twisting my words to suit your narrow argument.

FWIW, I've played League, Union and [isoccer[/i. I never had a bad injury playing Rugby of either code but due to playing football I ended up having 8 knee operations.

A shoulder charge is a tackle you union playing soccer fairy. Luckily RL is better than those other sports and the shoulder charge is one of the reasons why. Fortunately real rugby league people don't watch or play those other codes and the vast, vast majority of real RL people are dead against banning tackles, of any style, that don't make contact with the head.

The medical evidence is clear - hits to the head can cause serious long-term health issues. The reason the NRL and SL are getting tougher on any and all 'tackles' which hit the head is to prevent being sued down the track. Its all very well players being big and tough in their 20s, but if you don't think they'll sue the sport, their team, their opponents and anybody else if a large payout looms 20 years down the track then you're nuts.

My own view (and clearly not the 'minority' no matter what ECT et al say) is that people vastly overplay the importance of the shoulder charge. There aren't that many in a game and most fail to make any meaningful contact at all, and I have never understood why in the past contact with the head resulting from a shoulder charge was treated differently to a swinging arm. If anything the current focus on shoulder charges to the head is simply correcting a ridiculous past inconsistency.

When you add the facts that they can often injure the tackler, and the majority simply miss to the fact that they're now being - rightly - penalised for any contact with the head, its not hard to understand why a ban of shoulder charges needn't happen. Any sensible coach would tell their players not to do it - the risks generally far outweigh the rewards of a spectacular 'hit'.

And Cronus, the responsibility for how a tackle pans out is clearly ALWAYS with the tackler(s) not the player with the ball. You think someone would deliberately ('stupidly' as you put it) run into a shoulder face first? That's about as sensbile as suggesting Rob Burrow getting hit high is his fault because he's short.