Another straw on the camel's back. Pathetic.

But where do you draw the line? Before long they'll be outlawing hits like the one TL put on Fasavalu. Blanket bans like this are stifling. What's wrong with simply penalising foul play?

As i said, mixed feeling. As for your example, not many people tackle as hard as TL in relation to his size. At 16 in 1974 i was 6' 2" with only two boys in the school taller. Average heights are much greater, in fact i'm the f'ing smallest male adult in the family!

They should raise the net for tennis too, and the basketball hoop.

Current medical evidence coming out of America suggests that hits to the head is leading to brain damage and premature death in NFL players. They've started to look at the issue by outlawing hits with and to the head so this ban, if it didn't happen today would happen tomorrow. Given the amount of times a shoulder charge occurs in play I don't think it's a great loss. If somebody shoulder charges and its hits the head then that's probably as lethal, maybe more so, than a stray arm but, until this ban, I don't think it carried any sort of penalty i.e. usually when a player is hit in the head by a shoulder charge it's because he's fallen into it. We can argue all we want about it but when medical evidence identifies head shots as a problem the sport has to address that or risk a law suit when some player does suffer serious avoidable damage i.e. there is a risk playing RL which players accept but hits to the head we have a responsibility to minimise.

It's not like players can't do big hits anymore, but what it will mean is that those that want to do that will just have to learn how to tackle properly to do it.

My feelings too...

I refer you to my original question. Hits to the head can be penalised, why ban a technique that in most cases doesn't cause any injury? If there's a concern make them all wear headgear. I know I'll get shouted down but this health and safety nonsense is going too far in all walks of life, not just the sporting arena.

will still be down to the ref in charge interpret it though. Let's say tackler A runs towards ball carrier and goes low for the legs. Tackler B is running in at full speed and dips to grab ball carrier around chest and smother ball, he has his arms out in a pincer position like a crab. The ball carrier falls forward and slightly to the side as Tackler A grabs him below the waist and his head now comes into contact with tackler B's shoulder.........over to you ref......

or on a kick return the prop forward carrying the ball turns to the side to offload but now he is leading with the shoulder when coming into contact with the onrushing defenders.

Will be a few aggreived coaches if some are penalised and others not......

Scrum halves and general play kickers will absoulutely love this, anyone who attempts to charge a kick down, just run straight at them, hit the deck and claim a penalty for a "shoulder charge"

You'd have to speak to the players union and the RFL to find that out. I can only speculate that it's because a shoulder charge to the head is probably significantly more dangerous than a sloppy head high tackle because of the relative force applied. Perhaps Sonny Bill Williams and Sam Burgess have an opinion on this because they have used it in the past to effect which has also led to them developing shoulder injuries. It's not like shoulder charges are that common in the sport.



They wear helmets in the NFL, helmets, and yet players developed brain damage and premature death with them. It's not health and safety gone mad, it's about protecting players as people and as valuable assets for the sport, in the same way that getting rid of two footed tackles, tackling from behind etc has been used in football. We want to see the best players play don't we, not in hospital?

That's a lot to think about when you consider most scrum halves over here can just about manage a kick on its own without the additional comprehension of then deliberately finding a player leading with his shoulder to run into.

How exactly? A shoulder change involved the tackler not using their arms and bracing the shoulder - none of which is done in a charge down or just running into a player.

I'm puzzled by this one, removing the shoulder charge removes a tackle targeted at the body for best impact as it allows the defender to better drive the shoulder into the attacker. I can't think of many, if any, shoulder charges that end up around the head.

Also, hits to the head and premature death. This has been the case for years in may sports, including football where heading the ball has been linked to brain damage. In a sport where there are regular traumatic impacts to the body and head that result in scenarios where the brain could suffer damage I suspect that the shoulder charge is very low in the number of these. Yes it's high impact, but to the body. High tackles, punches, head hitting floor others are all higher up in the priority here.

It's the head high tackles that are the problem.
Time after time players going in with the shoulder charge hit their opponents head. It should be treated as such, a head high tackle and dealt with as that.
TL was the best shoulder charger that I've seen for years but he never hit anyone's head.
Sanctions for head high tackles are not nearly enough.
The French guy who hit Fages only got four games, that's just not dealing with the problem. Scruton should have got 8 games for the damage to O'Brien whether hit it the shoulder first or not. Scruton could have pulled out of the tackle if he'd wanted to.
Shoulder charge now gone but the head high shots will continue.

That's true but when you sign on to play certain sports you expect a degree of physicality that is specific to that sport e.g. heading the ball in football. If I was a player and it was my living, I'd want protecting from illegal hits designed to incapacitate. It's not boxing where you know when you sign on that you have to receive punches to the head to win. When you sign on for RL it is not on the proviso that you have to take shots to the head nor should it be. That it happens is why we have penalties etc. (didn't mean that to sound patronising btw).



Frequency of occurrence should have little bearing on whether something should be made illegal to do in the game. Those dangerous actions you've mentioned are banned because they can cause serious injury. I think when this first surfaced on RedPanic I mentioned that a shot to the head is already illegal so if you shoulder charge to the head that should produce a penalty. I'm guessing they figured it was better to remove it altogether.

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.

I think the same exists in Rugby (both codes), having played both in Union I expected to be raked for example. And in both expect attacks to all parts of my body legal or not, gouging, kicks, stamping, elbows all expected and all received, but none of them legal.



I wasn't suggesting that frequency determined legality, more that frequency in the case of brain damage (illegal headshot) is very low and the attribution to brain damage is weak at best.

Same here. I remember H being cleaned out by Morley a few seasons ago and he was out for the count. Much debate at the time if it was legal or not but that didn't alter the fact H was concussed. So I think the idea we can look after this by banning players who commit illegal shoulder charges misses the point which is that it won't undo the damage done to the injured player. As you say modern players are so big and fast. This makes the tackle a lot more dangerous these days.

I can understand people not wanting the physical side of the game diluted but the positive side of this is players will have to improve their tackling technique.

As Steve Mascord said, If a group of doctors say something in the workplace is unreasonably dangerous, and the bosses fail to act, bosses are liable.

In that case we can all look forward to the continual dilution of the sports until it isn't worth watching at all. Look how long it now takes for refs to call held. If some docs happen to say that this is unreasonably dangerous, what then?

What evidence do you have to suggest that's going to happen?

Great, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be tricky to find a group of doctors that would confirm that two adults running at one another to take part in a collision which is likely to occur at over a 20mph impact speed to be unreasonably dangerous and will eventually result in broken bones, soft tissue damage, brain damage, possible paralysis and even death.

So there you go, that's a massive liability that needs to be addressed. Maybe we make it a non-contact sport.

But OF COURSE that's what doctors will say if asked to assess high-G collisions! Their ultimate concern is with minimising risk. Do we know the risk assessment on the shoulder charge was carried out by medical professionals for a fact? Or indeed whether a risk assessment was carried out at all?!

I ended up having a beer with a SL club doctor a few years ago in Perpignan, and he told me in no uncertain terms that if they had their way, they'd ban RL. They think we're all fooking mental and a liability, and I get that impression every time I've had to go to my GP or the hospital with a RL-related injury. Can't say I blame them.

Can't help but think it is a lot of fuss about nothing - so it will be banned, the game will continue and within a short space of time it will all be forgotten and no one will notice/comment.

Realistically how many shoulder challenges are made in an average match? Not that many I suspect (I haven't really studied this but can't recall that many and then a lot either miss or are pretty ineffective anyway). A properly effected tackle is far more effective than a shoulder barge.

It is banned from now time to move on.............

bit hits can still be made legally, instead of running in with just the shoulder pointing to the opponent (shoulder charge) the tackler runs in with his arms just at or below his own shoulder height and wraps them around the ball carrier at the same time as driving through the tackle with his upper arm/shoulder. If you look back at some of Tommy's big hits from the last few seasons you will see how effective it is. Not a shoulder charge but a fantastic text book tackle

Agreed, the much vaunted tackle by TL on Maurie Fa'asavalu was a tackle involving his arms and was perfectly timed on exposed ribs, not a jump into a tackle with the shoulder. I always felt that a blatant shoulder charge was a cowardly "tackle", reducing the risk of injury to the bargee. TL clearly puts his head and arms into that tackle, making it not only excellent, but brave.