They just keep chipping away and chipping a little bit more.

Will attacking players still be able to lead with the shoulder?

It is effectively the same movement and (now that the defender has to wrap his arms) will increase the risk of seriously hurting the defender.

Wow the mock outrage over this is quite remarkable, even by RL standards. Rarely see a shoulder charge in games these days anyway.

Spot on. I got the abacus out earlier, and worked out that in the NRL last year there was a total of 72 shoulder tackles, meaning an average of 0.3 per game. Presuming we interpret the law in the same way they did in the All Stars game, it will be perfectly permissible to make contact purely with the shoulder, providing an attempt is made to put the arms in a tackling position, as per Inglis.

At the end of the day an independent report recommended the practice was banned. Had the governing bodies ignored this advice and a player became seriously injured it would without doubt lead to litigation on the grounds of negligence, duty of care etc.

Absolute joke. As a supporter i love seeing a big hit. It gets the fans going and the players love it, it can change the momentum of a game. For examle on Sunday, Pickersgill gave Mika a hit, next time Pickersgill got the ball Mika shoulder charged him and absolutely skittled him forcing a knock on. Every single player ran in to pat him on the head all geed up, the fans loved it, nothing dangerous about it.. so ffs RFL why why why get rid of it. As already stated its the bans for contact with the head that need sorting and would have been the logical decision. On twitter the players are pretty upset about it and as Cory Patterson put it 'for someone who has never played the game to make this decision is disappointing'. Another player said 'the players know the risk every time we go on the pitch'. The ironic and infuriating thing is that when trying to enforce this new ruling the bans for committing a shoulder charge 'offence' will probably be similar to the recent ones given for contact with the head. The definition of incompetent decision making, no bottle or common sense.

To be fair to the RFL it sounds like they tried to keep it in. Looks like it's gone down well with the players. Only way they could have created more of an outrage is by not paying them anymore.

Even with the players being bigger, running faster and harder, even playing on plastic pitches

As Nobby says bend you back and get your timing right and you can smash someone just make sure you get your arms round them instead of tackling with you back half turned like a house.

Poor decision, gimme a refund on my tickets if you are going to change the rules of the game after I buy them

There's rarely a kick-off or a goal-line drop-out in an average game. Shall we get rid of them because they rarely happen? What a stupid thing to say.

The problem with that of course is that the figures are blatantly untrue.

To accept this disney land claim of 0.3 shoulder charges a game is to let-on that you've never seen a game of league before, or don't understand what a shoulder charge is. It's profoundly untrue. Watch a Roosters game, Jared Waerea-Hargreaves makes a couple of shoulder cahrges a game. Watch a Warriors game, Ben Matulino would make a few a game.

I don't think I've ever in my life seen a full game of rugby league that was void of a shoulder charge. And yet, going off the figures the NRL wheeled out, the majority of rugby league games do not include a single shoulder charge. And this is why I claim the figures were sexed up, that whoever was responsible for the study has blundered intentionally or out of serious stupidity.

0.3 shoulder charges a game. I ask you all to think on that figure for a moment. That means that 63% + of rugby league games have not one single shoulder charge. NOT ONE



I'm repeating myself but anyone who has watched the game will know why, because their study is void, it's wrong, it's bullshine. The sport of rugby league has banned shoulder charges on the back of a bunk study!

I can prove to you that their study is out by miles. That their figures are a fantasy. That there are hundreds of shoulder charges each year. That they occur several times a game and are far from the freak occurrence that's being hinted at. In fact, they're an integral element of the game. The issue seems to be that people only count shoulder charges as shoulder charges if its a 1-on-1 challenge.

For anyone who wants to dispute my claim that their figures are nonsense, search "16 Minutes SAVAGE Rugby League tackles" on a popular video website. Now I've just watched that through and of the 2012 NRL tackles in the video, [u84 of them were shoulder charges[/u, either 1-on-1 challenges or a 2nd or 3rd man in the tackle put his shoulder in.

Now, keep in mind that's a YT video and what gets in videos like those is only the biggest and the best. A good hundred more shoulder charges, minimum, were omitted. And that's indisputable, because I made that video, so I know.

Therefore, the independent report ought to have been dismissed by the NRL and every other organisation, and it should be dismissed by League fans, because the figures are bogus. That's the bottom line. 0.3 shoulder charges a game is a made-up stat that doesn't reflect reality in anyway.

And I'm still, after all this time, waiting on the "It's litigation!" crowd to explain to me how rugby union is getting away with keeping scrums. I must have asked a million times and no explanation has been offered. Why is union allowed to persist with scrums, they're more of a concussion risk than shoulder charges and players being paralysed and having their necks broken happens relatively frequently in the union scrum. Where is the litigation there.

I can sum the position up for you. It is accepted by all that the front row of a contested RU scrum is a highly dangerous environment and therefore if nobody screws up then you have no case even if injured.

And if you can show that somebody screwed up, and that this caused or contributed to your injury, then you are entitled to damages.

You think the example is a good one, but actually, it's not. There are millions of contested scrums where no significant injury is caused. There are ZERO shoulder tackles to the head where no injury is caused.

And since when are all shoulder charges to the head?

They are not. So your example is rubbish too.

The problem is that whilst not all shoulder charges are to the head. Those that are very dangerous, and the RFL have a duty to make sure that it is sufficiently policed and punished as to sure that there is sufficient disincentive so that not only would a player not attempt a shoulder charge which does hit the head, but doesn’t attempt one which reasonably could hit the head.

To be honest, banning it really as become the only sensible option. I used to agree, and can still see the logic in, allowing the shoulder charge as was legal, and having higher punishments on those that go wrong, it makes sense. It meets the RFL’s duties of protection but allows the charge to stay when executed properly.

The problem with that though is, that whatever punishment the RFL handed out to make the shoulder charge to the head a thing of the past, whatever punishment the RFL needed to hand down so that players either got it right or didn’t attempt it would need to be so high and the risk of a draconian suspension so high, that no player would have to be stupid to attempt one anyway. What we had wasn’t working, we cant reasonably argue that the disciplinary system was adequately dealing with that safety issue, when we were banning 2 or 3 players every week. The 1/2/3 match bans players were seeing clearly wasn’t enough of a disincentive, they were still trying it, so then the bans would need to be increased, to 4/5/6 match bans, and if that didn’t stop it, 7/8/9/10 match bans. Can you imagine the outcry we would have seen from the Cas fans if Chase had been banned for 10 games, when the line between not even a penalty and a 10 game ban was so small?

Banning it had become the only sensible option. Stopping people even bothering to risk it. The big issue is how we define it because there are plenty of tackles which don’t include the arms wrapping round, which aren’t dangerous and shouldn’t be offences.

I see the point and understand it now, but with that understood my response to that would still be that a shoulder charge to the head is an illegal act of play. Shoulder charges that don't make contact with the head, and most don't, are harmless too. Significant injuries from shoulder charges are as rare as hens teeth.

I don't see see how banning the shoulder charge will avert said injuries or risk of litigation. People will still flirt with the law and dangerous tackles to the head will continue, if not increase. By banning the shoulder charge you don't side-step the risk of litigation, do you? Players will still screw up. And whether you decrease it(risk of litigation) at all is highly debatable as the study on shoulder charges is alarmingly wrong in its figures(is anyone up for trying to dispute this?), and therefore its conclusions.

I don't know the law so concede my rugby comparison was daft now you've informed me of the difference

, but I still don't get the ban in a general sense. I can't see it reducing high shot or brain trauma and therefore I don't see how it protects any body from litigation.

The RFL seem incapable of making decisions and offer no leadership. Going back on a ruling they made two months ago is clear and sad evidence of this. Why not just let the ARL make our laws and cut out the middle men. The ruling itself is a bad one, most of the dangerous tackles that happen are illegal anyway. If a player makes a challenge with a shoulder or head and it makes contact with the opponents head it is a high tackle. Having a clamp down on this would have been much better. “A player that goes recklessly into a tackle and makes contact with the opponents head with any part of his body will be sent off” would have been a much clearer line to draw. Now fans, players and especially commentators will be confused to what is deemed a shoulder charge for the rest of the season.

It's hardly difficult to determine what is a shoulder charge and what isn't.

If you make no attempt to use your arms in the tackle, it's a shoulder charge. If you at least make the effort with your arms to try and wrap up the ball carrier, it's a legitimate tackle.

If this teaches players that they can't just recklessly fly in with the shoulder in an attempt to clean out the ball carrier, not caring where they make contact, then all well and good.

What do you call making an effort with your arms? If a player hits someone with their shoulder and their arms come up, but make no contact with the player, is that a shoulder charge or a good tackle?

There's the crux though, a player can say he went in to make an attempt to use his arms into the tackle (why does it have to be "around"???) but it can easily be seen by a ref that he didn't, angle of bodies, speed of play, ref unsighted, physical position of players (attacker side steps into another player whose shoulder makes contact first effecting the tackle meaning the arms don't look like being used or didn't make contact...or did they? Video ref at every other tackle now, that might be the case no?

An example; An attacker is still making forward progress with one or two defenders hanging on, I lower my shoulder to make an orthodox tackle attempting from my point of view to use my arms but he ducks/falls at that split second and my shoulder contacts him first and my arms don't how is that going to be adjudged? I have still struck the player without use of my arms(or even an attempt) it would seem on the face of it to the ref in that split second, I could even have contacted the head yet I have made a legitimate and clearly not reckless challenge, under the new law I could possibly be sent off and banned even without striking the head.

I go into a tackle same as above, the attacking player turns and puts his shoulder right into my face (because my head is forward of my shoulder in an orthodox tackle) I get knocked out/neck injury, does the attacking player get sent off...no yet I would have as much if not more damage. I then make a claim against the RFL for not protecting me by telling the nasty attacker not to use his shoulder in the tackle. Just because the rule/RFL Law is no shoulder tackle from the defender doesn't make it right that the attacker should also be allowed to use the shoulder when in a case of law the point would be made that the shoulder charge rule was brought in to reduce injuries, so why didn't they ban all shoulder to shoulder contact from both attacker and defender?

Too much grey area and situations that will be fair tackles being pulled up and still not reducing the injuries to an extent that warrants the ban.

Er . . . who on earth claimed they are?



The governing bodies' issue here is that a shoulder charge creates the RISK of a shoulder-head contact, and thus injury.

I cant understand the RFL now saying we need to follow what the RLIF say when a few weeks ago they changed various rules, on little more than a whim, without the RLIF approving that. This has been the case every season with the RFL and NRL for as long as I can remember so its a bit rich to be hiding behind that now.

I agree that the RLIF should set the rules so that we have a standardised game the world over and all domestic leagues follow these rulings but that is a long way from what has happened here and what has happened in previous seasons.