Quote: Andy Gilder ""The solution has harmed the show"? There are still plenty of big hits in RL. The difference is, these are done with significantly less risk of serious injury to the tackler or ball carrier than a barely controlled shoulder charge presents. If anyone can give me a memorable, legal example of a shoulder charge that stuck in their memory and didn't result in injury to one party or the other, go ahead.'" Here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFV6G0QKF3E Sam Burgess on Fui Fui Moi Moi, two big men coming together, totally legal, immediately cheered by the fans Your telling me that when you saw that live you thought that it shouldn't have been allowed? By the way, there is a logical reason that the defenders NEED to be able to shoulder charge, because the attacking player can essentially shoulder charge into defenders with the ball and by making shoulder charges illegal the defender can not properly defend himself and has to stand opened bodied with his arms by his side, as what occurred in the NRL last week, the shoulder of the attacking player can then make contact with the head of the defender and he had to go off with concussion In league the attacker gains benefit from running upright and leading with the shoulder, compared to in union where the attacker benefits from finding the floor quicker

Quote: Andy Gilder ""The solution has harmed the show"? There are still plenty of big hits in RL. The difference is, these are done with significantly less risk of serious injury to the tackler or ball carrier than a barely controlled shoulder charge presents. If anyone can give me a memorable, legal example of a shoulder charge that stuck in their memory and didn't result in injury to one party or the other, go ahead.'" Here you go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFV6G0QKF3E Sam Burgess on Fui Fui Moi Moi, two big men coming together, totally legal, immediately cheered by the fans Your telling me that when you saw that live you thought that it shouldn't have been allowed? By the way, there is a logical reason that the defenders NEED to be able to shoulder charge, because the attacking player can essentially shoulder charge into defenders with the ball and by making shoulder charges illegal the defender can not properly defend himself and has to stand opened bodied with his arms by his side, as what occurred in the NRL last week, the shoulder of the attacking player can then make contact with the head of the defender and he had to go off with concussion In league the attacker gains benefit from running upright and leading with the shoulder, compared to in union where the attacker benefits from finding the floor quicker

What do the players that have been smashed in the head by a shoulder or received lasting brain damage from RL said?

Well you can ask rob burrow who used to receive more shoulder charges to the head that anyone and who wishes it was brought back

The debate over contact with the head is irrelevant though, as if the rlf just imposed 10 game bans to anyone who shoulder charges to the head, no one would dare shoulder charge someone smaller than them as it would be too risky, and the halfbacks would be protected

BTW the contact by SOL on that wakefield player did more damage than any shoulder charge will, yet he was only given a one match ban, so where is the logic?

Personally never understood why it couldn't be treated like a normal table, ie penalised when it hits the head.

As for examples. Bailey on George Rose in the Wcc game comes to mind. As does the PNG 4 nations game against the Aussies.

I have no problem with forwards going at each other with big hit rugby tackles but the shoulder charge is not a proper rugby tackle neither is leading with the forearm into the head or a spear tackle into the ground. That these sort of tackles use to happen does not make them a proper part of the already very tough game of rugby league. Those that are titillated by this sort of stuff should switch to cage fighting or similar.

A ball carrier running the ball back shoulder first is entirely different to a shoulder charge.

The players feet aren't off the ground, there's no rotation of the shoulder and the defender has more opportunity to move and position themselves to receive the ball carrier.

It is not the same thing at all.

Obviously it's not exactly the same, but I'd also argue not all shoulder charges are 'feet off the ground and no rotation of shoulder', but the force is equally as damaging - watch Mark O'Meley on Ben Ross and tell me that isn't exactly what you described above.... Arm tucked into his side, running at full speed on collision, and actually does have feet off the ground.

And for those saying 'if you want to see that, watch UFC' type comments - most of us started watching and playing the game when a legitimate (not head high) shoulder charge was an exciting part of our game.... So, how about we flip it and say, those who are too precious to want to witness a shoulder charge, go watch badminton (or rugby union)... And those who don't fancy playing a full blooded, dangerous at times, heavy contact, potential for the odd scuffle sport, choose something a little more delicate, like snooker, or rugby union.

I'd love an honest survey of all players on whether the legitimate shoulde charge should remain banned, professional and amatuer players - the result would be an absolute landslide. We signed up for the risks when we started playing and continued playing the sport.....

The world has gone kid gloves, PC, mock outrage crazy.....

Oh good. The "PC gone mad" brigade who have no understanding of what "PC" actually is have arrived.

I thought the debate was going too well.

I think good defensive technique is a thing worth watching. I happen to think we should be teaching kids good defensive technique. I don't think kids watching blokes trying to smash each other with shoulder charges (legal or not) teaches them that good tackling technique is rewarded over just smashing people.

It gets copied at junior and amateur level by people who have neither the athletic ability, sharp reflexes or technique to deliver it correctly, and as a result they end up injuring either an opponent or themselves. It's the rugby equivalent of football's "out of control" tackle, where the player dives in with one or both feet off the floor. Sometimes people will get hurt, sometimes seriously, and sometimes they won't. But the administrators want to take that level of risk out of the game.

In over 50 years of rugby involvement including a decade of coaching in junior rugby I am well aware of the attractions of full bloodied contact. IMO the banning if the shoulder charge is nothing to do with PC kid gloves and has not diminished the game at all. It has taken out an element that has too high a risk of injury, is too difficult to control and favours the less skilled player with poor technique. Ironically the hit man himself runs the risk of career ending shoulder problems too. Too many negatives and few positives if any in my view.

News just in, rugby's a tough old game. You can define any style of tackling as dangerous, even if it's executed perfectly within the rules of the game or outside them.

Indeed. So anything that is even more dangerous than the tackle as defined in the rules is too risky. That a player died as a result of one only recently should be sufficient reason. Player safety should be paramount over spectator spectacle.

Tend to agree. Players are so powerful these days and the game so fast, that when it goes wrong the consequences can be dreadful.
You can't exercise to strengthen jaws, cheekbones, eye sockets or protect the brain.
The release of the fixtures reminded me of my first trip to Featherstone in 1976, challenge cup quarter final. Fev pack took Leeds to the cleaners. iIRC ended up 30 odd playing not many for Leeds. Think Fev may have ended up as champions that year.
Richard "Charlie" Stone and Jimmy Thompson in the 2nd row - ouch.
Jimmy Thompson was a top class forward and for the era, a pretty clean one.
Although they had a top pack, I reckon a Vince Farrar shoulder charge would not have carried the impact of one from Walmsley, Ellis, Flower or any of the modern era.
40 years on I think the square pitch will better suit Leeds one man drive round the ruck style than back then.

Where does it end? We might aswell pack in the game as a contact sport.

Everyone plays the game out of choice, you know the 'potential risks' when you agree to play - yes we should protect from foul play and shots to the head (but they've never been legal), but a legitimate shoulder charge is just a high impact tackle, we're sanitising the sport to appease the namby pamby, do gooder, ambulance chasers....

There should be (and I'm sure there probably already is to an extent) a section in all signing on paperwork that players sign to play the game that states the game is played at your own risk, and the sport is not liable for any injuries, from either legitimate or foul play... If someone is then seriously injured as a result of foul play, they can take action against the individual who carried out the act, if they're injured as a result of a fair and legal shot, then that's the dangers they agreed to when they signed on to play....

Why sanitise the game?? The players know and accept the risk.... It's ridiculous...

Contact sport is doomed if we carry on down this route.

Is there a clip of this tackle ?. Normally sky would.
When is the big hits thing done with Barrie ?