FWIW, I called you a chump because you are another one of these who feels the need to bring football into a discussion on RL. They are two completely different games but for some reason so many RL fans seem to think that belittling football makes their game all the better. It doesn't. It just makes you look envious.

Players usually only react to a bad tackle if play stops straight away. They dont normally react if play continues, unless it is exceptionally bad.

When video refs get involved in these types of incidents its usually on the basis of "have a quick look". They don't usually replay the incident several times. Clearly there was plenty of time for the video ref to study this incident in detail whilst the player was being treated. But I suspect that he told Ganson it was ok after a quick look. As a general principle I dont think that the mere fact that a video ref has had a look at an incident should prevent it from being referred to Red Hall.

You showed yourself as a chump for your jaundiced and nutty claim that


This is simply untrue. I actually think that there is some bloody good debate on these forums, and on RAB, and indeed on this very thread. We have a number of posters able to offer intelligent views and the fact that they disagree often is really what a debate is about. Your claim that honest debate is dead is really insulting, and if I'm honest, in my opinion stupid. Many people can and regularly do "see past their own colours", and the 'football path' closing remark is as bewildering as it is irrelevant.

Which ever way you put it Scruton's shoulder makes contact with the head of the opposing player!!!

Are your eyes painted on ? The Leeds players initial reaction was to go to drop on the loose ball. Not until Chase checked on Hardaker did a Leeds player even remotely approach Chase.

The logical, and absurd, conclusion to that thinking is that a player could head butt a tackling players shoulder and get him sent off for contact with the head.

Scruton makes contact with the shoulder, slightly late I agree, but shoulder to shoulder contact is legal in the game. He doesn't raise arms, elbows or jump into the tackle so IMO it isn't deliberate or reckless. The question should be is it careless? If any contact with the head counts as careless then he'll be done, but the same argument and penalty would then apply if O'Brien fell over and hit his head on Scrutons knee, which is obviously accidental (unless your name is Leon).

Since the RFL has now decided to do what the NRL requires, and is to ban shoulder charges, the conspiracy theorists may well conclude that this incident has all fallen very opportune. And that the RFL may perhaps look to make an example, to "prove" why they "had no choice" but to comply with the NRL?

But since there are no precedents whatsoever for the RFL making an example of Bradford, (are there?), any such conspiracy theorists would surely be barking up the wrong tree...? Wouldn't they?

Seeing as the RLIF has now banned shoulder charges, and is implementing them during the WCC and the World Cup this October, i dont see how the RFL cannot ban them. My question is what do they deem a shoulder charge?

We can't afford for him to be banned, the squad is not large enough to have any more players missing. It seemed to me like it was shoulder to shoulder, then his shoulder moved up to O'Brien's head.

This also my take on the challenge. Where that leaves Scruton in the eyes of the panel is anyone's guess, but it has to be a big worry if the referees don't know what THEY should be penalising with the benefit of unlimited replays.

It's understandable for a ref to be unsure at full speed but for two of our most experienced refs to deem the challenge not worthy of a penalty for the panel to ban him.. Well you just couldn't make it up.

The simple fact to me, having watched it many times, is that the unfortunate O'Brien's head "whiplashes" into Scruton's shoulder, due to the impact.

The video images are not clear, and can't be clearer, but do seem to show a blurred motion of O'Brien's head, and that is to LEFT of centre, not to his right. I.e., for those who don't get the point, the OPPOSITE direction to where the first impact with head would have sent it.

Now, the question (given the charge) is whether Scruton made an illegal contact with the head. If you accept my analysis (as presumably the VR would agree) then Scruton is not guilty. The fact is that it was the head which made contact with Scruton, not the other way round. However it contacted him, he did not contact it. And that cannot be an offence on any reasonable view, in these circumstances.

I know some have said that ANY contact with the head is now an offence, but to illustrate both my point, and the falsity of that claim, with an extreme example, if O'Brien had launched himself headfirst at Scruton and dived into Scruton's shoulder, would that be an offence by Scruton? Clearly not.

If Scruton had first made contact with the shoulder and then the shoulder slid off and moved into contact with the head, I would agree that that should still be viewed as an illegal contact, but that's not how I see what happened here, the head snapped into contact with the shoulder by sheer bad luck due to the angles, point of impact etc., the shoulder did not move into contact with the head. Which is why I think that, unfortunate though it was, there really was nothing in it. As the match officials also felt.

And that would be my analysis regardless of which players were involved.

Far too much common sense in that post!

Shoulder charges now banned according to BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21502550 Let's hope they don't decide to 'send a message' by banning Scruton

Shoulder charges now banned according to BBC website www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/21502550 Let's hope they don't decide to 'send a message' by banning Scruton

Scroll up about 7 posts...you are not the first to ponder on that.

Certainly taking their time to come to a decision it would seem.. All the other verdicts are in...