Indeed, spot on.

Bit concerned about Childs missing a couple of bannable offences resulting in serious injury the last few weeks - are refs held to account for missing serious foul play in the games they officiate or dot hey just say "I didn't see it sir", then get another game to ref the next week?

and he gets "rewarded" by having huddersfield-st helens!
absolute joke! 9 matches between them and Child didn't see either offence...


as for the case for the defence-laughable, so it wasn't Rangi's fault it was ferres' for falling the wrong way?

How you drew that from what's been posted, about the defence, on the RFL site I have no idea.

Nope, that's how I read it as well. Seem to think chase is blameless

The ref in the Leeds v Wakey game missed a blatant high tackle by Scruton. The ref was adamant it was below the head, indicating the shoulder.

Scruton just got a 1 match ban for it.

There are 2 issues with these "missed" incidents. Firstly the referees themselves.

Why are they missing so many incidents? Is the game too fast for 1 ref or are the refs not trained well enough, not experienced enough and not led well enough to see them? Or are they seeing them but scared/nervous/unwilling to make a big call ie a sending off?


The second issue is that the teams who have to suffer/withstand the offence aren't getting any benefit from the punishment.
Leeds are getting the benefit from Chase's punishment, not Huddersfield.
Obviously I'd prefer these issues to be dealt with at the time but should punishments be served against the team the offence was perpetrated upon? So say Chase is banned for 7 games should maybe 1 or 2 of those games be deferred until Chase plays Huddersfield again?
I'd also say that suspensions should take account of which competition they're committed in. ie Cup or League.


Don't forget it was the ref's fault for not calling held! Poor little Rangi keeps getting picked on! He's not a bad lad, he's a lovable rogue!

The Chase tackle brilliantly summed-up here by YEP's Dave Craven :- www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7204537

The Chase tackle brilliantly summed-up here by YEP's Dave Craven :- www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7204537

can't argue with anything on that piece, it wasn't a challenge it was an attack, it wasn't a dangerous throw it was a cynical attempt to injure an opponent.

The fact ferres knows chase very well and was reluctant to accept his apology says a lot.

That's a good summary by Craven - and much like the Ropati attack, Chase will be back on the field long before his latest victim; that might be within the rules, but doesn't feel like natural justice.

The way he circled his old mate Brett in search of an opportunity to damage him was... sinister. He's occasionally a brilliant talent, but he's also a horrible little turd.

The ref and VR are connected via headsets are they not? Is the solution not simple? Is it not starring us in the face?

VR "Ooh, that was high"
Ref "Thanks" blows whistle!

We got rid of that after Tanseygate in '07.

Plus of course there's at least 3 games per week that aren't on TV plus the Championship/L1 games.

One thing that does annoy me is at TV games when the ref gives a penalty but puts it on report or says he's not sure of the contact/severity etc. The ref has already stopped the game so why not let the VR view it and make a decision? Then we at least get some on-field justice. Any suspensions can still be decided by the disciplinary.

The Burns incident in the Hull KR v Saints is a good example of where that could've provided some justice for Saints. Green would've been at the very least sin binned and probably sent off following a VR review.

Funnily enough, Childs did refer the Burns incident to the video referee as he admitted on #asktheref...."I took the VR's report which was that they were uncertain as to the point of contact." Whether he is able to do so under the rules can be debated, but if he has referred it to the video ref then there is no excuse for getting it wrong.

Sheer incompetence from all involved.

i loved the shoulder charge... i was gutted when it was outlawed.

if i remember correctly, quite a few players were as well (on twitter)

i think it was the Inglis one that was the nail in its coffin.... loads of great memories of shoulder charges.... Morley on Hansen will live long in the memory

I agree, when done right it's great to watch.

Unfortunately the players and coaches are ultimately to blame for its demise. They couldn't control themselves.

Sweet Jesus of Nazareth.

I hope that's not true. Immediately it happened my instinct was to say it's a high shoulder charge so he's got to go, but I gave the ref the benefit of the doubt as he only gets one look and has a lot more to think about than I do sat in my armchair, moving only to go to the fridge and back.

But I can't excuse the VR. It was obvious on the replays where contact was.

Be careful what you wish for. In the NRL we're increasingly seeing players stay down after being hit high, knowing that this gives time for the VR to review the tackle and let the ref know if its worth a penalty.

As for the shoulder charge, I was never a fan, and seeing hits like SBW's on Marcus Bai hailed as 'great' is sickening. For all the hysteria about its demise and now nostalgia, it's loss hasn't affected the game at all. As well as stopping injuries to those hit, it has probably also lengthened the careers of some who used to do it regularly, and suffered shoulder injuries as a result (SBW and Sam Burgess to name but two).

Just to clarify yet again BTW, the NRL didn't ban it because of Inglis or any other individual challenge. It was purely to do with the legal precedents being set in the US and the potential for some kind of massive action against the sport in the future, quite possibly by current players. Claimants' exhibit A would be a compilation of such great 'hits' accompanied by baying commentators screaming about how great they are when players are clearly being hit in the head and sometimes knocked senseless.

It should also be remembered that shoulder charges barely existed 20 years ago. Its not some great historical part of the game. It was a fad, a dangerous one that occasionally looked spectacular but had the possibility to cause permanent injury. Good riddance.

Agree with all that.

Re players staying down, I'd have it so that the ref has to stop the game before the VR can look at it. Otherwise what's the point of an on-field ref.
So the on-field ref would have to make a decision first. In the Burns example for instance, Child would have to either give a penalty or wave play on. Then once the penalty is given he can use the VR to check the severity of it.

I agree with Brisbane Rhino about the shoulder charge (although think it was more like 30 than 20 years but was rare before 10-15 years ago I think)
In terms of the VR involvement I think it has already started here. I'd have yo check but I'm sure the ref wasn't giving a penalty when Hock knelt on Masoe until the saints man stayed down and it was replayed on the big screen. Not sure if the ref watched the replay, it gave the linesman time to get involved or it was a discussion with the VR but sure it was playing on to start with. There was another in a game at the start of the season tout forget which game now annoyingly

It's why in union coaches and players have talked about refs penalising the outcome and the propensity for players to now stay down/feign a worse injury after contact as there's likely more of a chance of a penalty or even a player getting binned. When a player gets up quickly (a la Penny in the WCC) refs aren't taking the seriousness of what happened seriously enough.
The Penny one was fortunate not to result in serious injury..it's evidence enough that refs have and still do adjudicate on the basis of outcome rather than actually what happened..sad but true.

I've always thought that anyone attempting a shoulder charge is a coward. If they were so tough they'd actually attempt a tackle but they're too scared to really put their body on the line. I remember when Morley did one on Mcgilvary. A forward on a winger, it just makes the forward look like a chicken. What was even funnier is when McGilvary came back on after getting his head bandaged Morley stayed well clear.

NURSE! He's out of bed again!

You're welcome

The Penny was in the WCC wasn't a shoulder charge. It was a classic WWE clothesline and technically not a penalty in RL because it wasn't high enough. It was directly across the top of his chest, only the daft spin in the air and mard reaction got a penalty for it.

I never mentioned shoulder charge but an arm swung in the direction of the upper torso is reckless and the outcome we see time and again with players having their heads knocked back from supposed 'tackles' (including Swinging or stiff arms) but it's all OK because it started on the upper arm/chest.
The prime reason why so many NFL players have committed suicide, the prime reason contact sports have higher numbers of early onset dementia is because of repeated head trauma's but it's all fine because that one time the swinging arm hit the chest/calvicle area instead.

Brain rotation injuries are caused where the skull rotates but the brain remains static, this happens in clashes in rugby all the time and not just from direct contact to the head, it's an excellent reason why the shoulder charge was outlawed aside from the fact it takes little skill to perform. Brain rotation injury or diffuse axonal injury is one of the main causes of PVS (permanent vegetative State), reducing strikes to the head or contact that are likely to strike the head through recklessness should be cracked down on more than they are currently. And if you think Penny's "mard reaction" was faked as you are clearly intimating you're a complete and utter know-nowt fool..

I'm surprised you haven't found that out from his previous postings.