Thats an odd thing for someone who continually compares different incidents to ask. It's no less legitimate when others do it also.



The incidents were very similar, a stooping ball carrier meeting the defenders shoulder head first.



The referees initial reaction in both was the same as knock-ons were ruled. IIRC Bailey received no ban but the incident did spark a debate about when contact is made between one player's shoulder and another player's head - Mick Potter's comments were waved away at the time by the RFL but it is something that is now being applied through on field dismissals and/or bans through the disciplinary procedure when these type of collisions go wrong.



Because that would miss the point. Just because other players get away with something now and again (as do Leeds players now and again) doesn't mean McGuire or Chase have been hard done by in these incidents having gone on report and subsequently received bans through the correct procedure.

McGuire had a major influence with both ball in hand and off the boot in the PSF at Stade Gilbert Brutus in a game (if you follow the logic of some of the argument on here) he should have been dismissed from (as should Fakir later) and perhaps Leeds' season would have ended there and then.

That's the point, if you are happy to get the benefit of the doubt when it goes in your favour then you have to accept you'll be unlucky in other situations as perhaps was the case on Sunday. A meaningless two comp points lost at Castleford is a small price to pay over eighty minutes from Old Trafford.

Don't be so soft. It's a contact game, mistakes happen

If there's intent then, by definition, it's not a mistake.

From the poor footage I've seen I'll accept that Chase caught Zak with his shoulder.

Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).

I would certainly not argue that Chase's tackle was an act of thuggery.

To be honest, rulings on shoulder charges are a bit confusing. It's either a legal tackle "technique" or its not. If it is, then when it goes high without malicious intent it should be like ay other high tackle.

Personally, I'd be happy to just do away with shoulder charges and make the whole thing simpler. Until then, I think Rangi Chase can probably consider himself a bit unlucky to be banned. Consistent with the Sam Moa incident I suppose.

Oh, and also more or less consistent with the McGuire tackle in the play offs. But I wasn't totally convinced that warranted a ban either.

Rangi Chase is a dirty little sod. He has past history with illegal shots, remember Benji Marshall (his supposed best friend) and the Cas versus Featherstone Cup Game last season when a Fev player was out for something like 10 weeks as a result of Chase.

As for Fozzard passing comments on tackling techniques, just a joke

Quote Clearwing="Clearwing"Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).'" In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.

Quote Clearwing="Clearwing"Now, can anyone explain to me why he's been charged with an illegal shoulder charge when the RFL has sanctioned the shoulder charge as a legitimate tackling technique? What's the difference between a legal and an illegal shoulder charge? I'm not saying the disciplinary is wrong, I'd just be grateful for some clarification (and yes, I am too lazy to read the rules myself).'" In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the game will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we will.'" You can get bogged down watching frame by frame, but I thought Leuluai put the shoulder into a more conventional tackle (i.e. one using his arms) and I'm also not convinced first contact was with the head, I think shoulder to chest was the main impact. So that (if my viewing of the incident was correct, which of course is a bif 'if') would be a little different. I wouldn't describe that as a shoulder charge. Chase made no effort to use anything other than his shoulder. I find that a bit lazy and I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone. As it stands though, shoulder charges are not illegal, so the ban is a little harsh. Use of lazy technique to generate artificially big hits leaves me short of sympathy though.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the game will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we will.'" You can get bogged down watching frame by frame, but I thought Leuluai put the shoulder into a more conventional tackle (i.e. one using his arms) and I'm also not convinced first contact was with the head, I think shoulder to chest was the main impact. So that (if my viewing of the incident was correct, which of course is a bif 'if') would be a little different. I wouldn't describe that as a shoulder charge. Chase made no effort to use anything other than his shoulder. I find that a bit lazy and I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone. As it stands though, shoulder charges are not illegal, so the ban is a little harsh. Use of lazy technique to generate artificially big hits leaves me short of sympathy though.

I don’t think that people can criticise Chase’s attempt, it was his execution of it.

As you say it is a big risk play, but that is also how it is refereed. There is nothing wrong with a shoulder charge and if you execute one you will be fine, you have the responsibility however to ensure there is no contact with the head. Chase didn’t do that, there was contact with the head. If he had a better disciplinary record, he may have gotten away with it. But he doesn’t, so a 2 match ban pretty much fits.

As for the Bailey tackle, I think that would be one of the most difficult. Fa’asavalu lead with his head and just ran straight into Bailey. Bailey had his hands by his hands low didn’t jump into it and pretty much stood still whilst Fa’asavalu ran at him. But under the current climate Bailey, it would seem, would be held responsible for that contact and would probably have received at least a penalty, possibly a ban.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.'" Thanks TVOC, I think your point about the new norm since 2012 might well explain why there appear to be anomalies in the way these challenges have been viewed by the disciplinary board during recent seasons. On balance I'm with you regarding its retention. I might have to review my stance were it to become a more frequently-used tactic. So long as it remains largely opportunistic, as opposed to a coached and rehed technique, I think the current level of risk is acceptable and the sanctions for getting it wrong are about right.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"In this instance I presume it's the point of contact that has changed an otherwise legal challenge into an illegal one and the margin for error is pretty small. This disciplinary ruling is consistent with what appears to be the new norm since 2012 and mirrors the judgements in cases such as Sam Moa V London www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3339 and Tony Puletua V Les Catalans www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?3842 Personally I don't recall that either of those were any worse than Kylie Leuluai's on Brett Hodgson at Wembley - a hit so unbelievably brutal but legal that the video referee watched it over and over and over and over again. Phil Bentham couldn't get enough of it. Rugby league at it's savage best and the spectacle of the pro game, played by full-time professional athletes, will be poorer in my view if we eventually have to lose it from the sport ..... which unfortunately I believe we probably will.'" Thanks TVOC, I think your point about the new norm since 2012 might well explain why there appear to be anomalies in the way these challenges have been viewed by the disciplinary board during recent seasons. On balance I'm with you regarding its retention. I might have to review my stance were it to become a more frequently-used tactic. So long as it remains largely opportunistic, as opposed to a coached and rehed technique, I think the current level of risk is acceptable and the sanctions for getting it wrong are about right.

I agree, Leuluai's first contact wasn't with Hodgson's head as I think it clearly snapped forwards towards Leuluai before snapping backwards. The point about whether Leuluai was making a more coventional attempt is a good one as driving into tackles making contact with shoulder first with the arms wrapping or attempting to wrap around second is the definition of a big hit to me and will remain whether the shoulder barge is eventually outlawed or not.



That's a fair point. In Chase's defence (as was often the case with Thomas Leuluai) he has to do something extra to generate a big impact as he doesn't have the raw materials otherwise.