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.

Agree with DHM and Andy Gilder. The game is tough and dangerous enough without the shoulder charge.

Yeah I enjoyed watching a shoulder charge. But seeing the impact it has on a player I'm not against it.

The game is producing bigger and bigger players all the time. With that the rules have to adapt to the changing nature of the game. So I'm perfectly content with the shoulder charge being banned.
If it does take an element of the spectacular out of the game as well then it's a shame but it's a price worth paying in my opinion.

We, as a sport, then need to adapt again and change the rules/interpretations to help the game be more open and encourage more passing and handling. If there were more teams playing like the 2015 Leeds team then the lack of a shoulder charge would be a distant memory along with 3 point tries and Eddie Waring.

Now I know you're trolling.

People won't watch League because punching someone in the head is frowned upon? Really? Give over.

They're down because it's a one-horse race and has been for some time!

State of Origin used to be a real spectacle - rugby league at it's most ferocious and for me rugby league at it's finest. Now it's a mirror to league the game over a pale, bland imitation of it's former self. SOO no longer lives up to the hype and not just because of the monotony of series results. In the past it was rare for a set of six not to draw an audible gasp from an expectant audience - now nothing, nada, zilch just another eighty minute game of pretty ordinary league.

But that's not because the shoulder charge has been banned or that you're not allowed to punch each other anymore.

It's a consequence of the big increases in player size and strength over the years. Large impacts don't look like big hits anymore. But they are still big hits.

Which is why we have to look at our rules and interpretations to increase the amount of offloads and opportunities to play attractive rugby. And to decrease the opportunities for big, hulking, behemoths to slow and stifle play.

I also think we have to look at enabling other areas of the game in which a team can compete. Right now there's basically only 1 area of competition. The play the ball. If you don't "win" that area of competition it's pretty certain you're going to lose. So I think opening up other areas would be very helpful and make the game both more competitive (especially at international level) and more interesting.

Shoulder charges (and defensive tackles where you use the shoulder to protect rather than attack but don't get the arm around) are fine as long as they don't hit the head. No different to an arm. If you hit the head you're off.

Punching is bad but not worth a bigger ban than an attack on the knees/ankles (excepting cheap shots) on a held up man.

Players don't want to and aren't used to a good scrap these days but every so often a little dust up where no one is hurt really makes the game interesting. Just look at NHL.

I don't want all fighting and shoulder charges but we're losing the "tough" battle with union and I don't see many big hits is SL and I'm slightly biased because I was pretty good at an amateur shoulder charge buy the game needs to be a tad more brutal. I'd rather see big honest hits than snidey twists and attacks at the legs (or head).

The last thing the amateur game needs is the return of the shoulder charge.

I'm sure the self-employed bloke who can't earn for six weeks because some wannabe SBW smashed him in the jaw with a misdirected shoulder loves them.

I can think of a plethora from Tommy Leuluai.

I don't know 1 amatuer player that agrees with the rule... And as someone who's had plenty of time off work from injuries playing rugby (including a full knee reconstruction from a cowards 'snapper' tackle when I was held up) I fully accept the risks (as does anyone stepping over the line) when I step on the field and have the option of insurances etc to mitigate the risk...

So why soften the game? The ones crying about the dangers and making these changes are people who are not impacted at all by the so called dangers.... It's absolute bobbins.

If we're looking at the amateur game rather than the pro game then there's absolutely a reason to both get rid of shoulder charges and to "soften" the game. To increase participation.

I was talking whole game, including amatuer....

And changing or 'softening' the sport to increase participation is a ridiculous idea - coz if that's the case, let's just play football instead - that'll increase numbers too.... There's already a touch/tag version of the game that provides an opportunity for those who don't want to risk injury.... Why change the sport into something different to what that the majority of players and fans fell in love with in the first place?