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 ?

If you want to know why both codes of rugby are quite keen to keep the shoulder charge out of the game, take a look at what's happening in the NFL.

In American Football, the object of the tackle is to hit the opponent with so much force that you take them to ground and the ball comes loose. There's no requirement to wrap the ball carrier up to complete the tackle, just knock them to the ground. Hence a high percentage of impacts are just with the shoulder, with little use of the arms or in some cases none at all.

Even with the padding, helmets etc the force of those collisions and the resulting injuries are seeing players having to or in some cases even choosing to retire before they even get to 30. They're so worried about the impact on their bodies that they are choosing to walk away from lucrative contracts rather than continue to place their long term health at risk. As a result, the NFL is constantly looking at ways it can make the game safer for players, including forcing defenders to adapt their tackling technique to remove the most dangerous challenges.

It's not because they're "namby pamby" or "do-gooders". It's because they recognise that a professional sport has a duty of care to its participants, and if it doesn't enforce it then it risks some of its top players walking away in order to protect their future health and wellbeing. It's like the arguments about player workload and how players in the 70s and 80s used to have full time jobs and then play 40 games a season. Go to an ex-players reunion event and take a look at the state some of them are in now and the toll that has taken on their bodies. I bet they wish someone had been looking out for them and helping to reduce that wear and tear so they could enjoy a healthy retirement.

In American Football, the aim is to injure. Your helmet is a weapon, and your shoulder pads are a weapon. Go out and do as much damage to the ball carrier as you can.

But we're not playing American football are we... The games are completely different, with differs types of collision... It's a nonsense argument....

We're sanitising the sport, making it less brutal, less gladiatorial, removing lots of the stuff that has separated league from other boring soft c0ck sports... You only need to look at State of Origin viewing figures as good evidence of the impact these rulings can make - they're drastically down since the banning of shoulder charges and punching.

The sport is plenty tough without shoulder charges and it always will be. All that's been done is to say that a "tackle" is something that has to include some attempt to use the arms from the tackler. As a coach I have never taught or been taught to coach a tackle in any way other than to include the arms.
Someone mentioned Sam Burgess a few posts back, I know he bitched about the shoulder charge being banned. All I can assume as a guy who has had two reconstructs on each shoulder that he's hit himself in the head a few times as well if he can't see the connection. Didn't SBW suffer from shoulder problems also?

The reason I watched RL was the skill. Yes, it's tough and I enjoy watching the physical confrontation, big hits are great and even big lads squaring off every now and again adds to the spectacle, but non of it is a substitute for skillful play. At the moment the game lacks real stars and real skill.