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.

Saw the Puletula one earlier today. The guy was marking the runner BUT when the runenr changes his angle, he set himself, crouched, prepared for impact and then lefted his shoulder as the hit went in. Contact with the head. Definite red.

You might want to [imake that easier to understand for the lesser educated[/i

What medical evidence? What evidence says shoulder charges that do NOT hit a player in the head need to be outlawed? And if you want them banned you ARE in the minority. The poll on LU has 87% against banning shoulder charges. That's because 87% of RL supporters know that to ban all shoulder charges because some hit players in the head is as stupid as banning ALL tackles because some hit players in the head. Not only that but the players themselves don't want them banned. And if you want to play the "they'll sue" card then every single injury ever caused by any event in any sport could be make sport just as liable. So this crap about litigation is utter nonsense.

Nice one. Generous 6 out of 10.

'Real rugby league people don't have an interest in anything other than Rugby League'!

There's me thinking it would be great for the sport to shed it's insular inward looking image to attract more fans. Of course, real rugby league people [idon't want no outsiders comin round these ere parts[/i!

Brilliant

.

Brilliant Post!

nice post well phrased