With the news today that the NRL have BANNED a good old fashioned [ishoulder charge[/i, do you think RL is going soft?

It seems the news this morning hasn't been welcomed by most pro RL players both over here and in Aus.

Thoughts?

I wish the NRL had banned it a few years ago. Then we could tw£t em under international rules in the world cup.

A move to keep prized assets SBW and Sam Burgess on the field and out of the treatment room?

Reducing the number of interchanges seems to be a better option, and appears to be more popular with some of the players.

I smashed my collar bone by poorly executing a shoulder charge, and am as a result fully aware of the dangers they pose, both to the tackler and the attacker. However, I think they should very much remain part of the game. They provide a great collision, and can really gear a player, team or crowd up. No one has to use them, and I don't think they are any more dangerous to the ball carrier than a normal tackle. They do represent poor technique, and often result in a missed tackle, but I think they have a big part in a game.

I agree, I'd be tempted to ban them at amateur level though.

When you see the likes of L.Burgess get their faces caved in there's a big call to ban it but on the flip side when executed correctly some huge hits occur and can change the momentum of the game.
For me i'd keep it but with severe sanctions for ones that are mis-timed and hit high.

trying to fix a to a problem that isn't there imo. half the tackles in the nrl that got so much publicity last year weren't (out n out) shoulder charges anyway, they were just very bad tackles.

its also going to be a nightmare to ref; union has a clear ban on no arm tackles, this is asking the ref to judge a type of tackle & the intention of the tackle - the difference between a body check & a shoulder charge (in the terms of what they're trying to ban) are millimetres and are affected by the attacker himself & other defences involved.

sticking with big penalties for contact to the head is the easiest and best solution.

Yep, you get it wrong, even by accident, expect to be sent off.

I've never been a massive fan of the shoulder charge but I can see this being a nightmare to officiate

Sums it up for me. I don't like a certain version of it but what will be classed as a shoulder charge? A tackle without arms? That would rule out so many perfectly safe hits.
Prepare for meltdown at the disciplinary board and 15 "on reports" a game.

Awful decision. This is what makes Rugby League, Rugby League. Players will continue to do it regardless of the rules. Chris Ashton and Sonny Bill still do it in Union and i'm sure especially in the NRL players will continue to do it. All the best highlight videos show massive shoulder charges.

Aussie softcocks

...or NRL bosses seeking to avoid massive civil damages down the track when some 'hard nut' has permanent shoulder damage or the recipient of a shoulder charge suffers a permanent brain injury? That's what's behind the decision. Nothing to do with the potential for injury itself, but the financial costs to the game if they did nothing about them and got sued down the track.

I must be missing something if the shoulder charge is what 'makes' the sport. Odd that something so apparently important may occur once or twice a game, if that.

Good thing, the elite level sets the trend for the game, shoulder charges have no place in the amateur game especially at junior level where you are trying to teach correct tackling technique. A shoulder charge is no more effective than a correctly executed tackle. As we have seen a number of players being knocked unconscious with this approach surely for player safety will be improved, it is only a question of time before a player gets permanently injured.

Any evidence that the shoulder charge results in more frequent or more damaging shoulder injuries than standard tackling techniques? Because if it doesn't the NRL might want to look at reverting to touch and pass.

The risk of permanent brain injury argument appears to me to be more relevant. Again, I'm not sure how successful a civil damages claim would be, given that boxing is apparently bulletproof. But I don't find the argument that it's worth the risk of the odd player ending their days paralysed or worse because it generates more oohs and aahs from the crowd a particularly persuasive one.

Having said all that, the tackling side of the game is pretty sterile for large parts these days. But this is not down to the laws of the game, rather it's the approach of the players.