We should have told the Aussies to stick it.

It's our game we invented it. The day they invent their own game (I don't count Gaelic football played with a Rugby ball on a Cricket pitch BTW) they can then dictate the rules.

I'm pretty pi$$ed that the RFL have bent over and took one from our Aussie 'mates'.

The only people that want rid of the shoulder charge are those that are in control, the ones that are worried about getting sued when a player makes a claim against them.

I saw Stevo on Sky the other day raging that the game needed to ban this tackle, and I thought, no-one has ever been seriously injured when it was performed correctly. It's only when the player has given a penalty away that the injuries appear more severe. But this is the case for all tackles (i.e. High tackle or a spear tackle).

I play amateur rugby and I'm worried about how this will be policed by referees, I think this rule may actually cause more people to fall out of love with the game.

Scruton's tackle from last week, for example. I actually wouldn't class this as an illegal shoulder tackle, he more or less faced the player straight on, even though he made contact with the shoulder it was in a forward facing motion.

I mocked the other code for banning this tackle, banning players like SBW for something that would have been legal in RL, but now we are a bit of a laughing stock!

As i predicted, I dont think player safety was a massive factor in the boards decision as 90% of players want to retain it.

I think it has more to do with the fact that it is banned everywhere else and we have to tow the line if we want to be included in internationals, and if we want the aussies to come over here.

At the end of the day it should be a matter for the players; they are the ones who matter in this.

Or not at all, as they are the ones who, if seriously injured, would inevitably (and I should add, with every justification) take legal advice about whether they could sue, regardless of what they thought or said beforehand.

We should also not lose sight of what the authorities are banning, whether you agree or disagree. They are banning a tactic which is perceived to carry an unacceptable risk of injury. It is not the shoulder charge per se, but the risk of head/neck contact which it is perceived to entail. If they could find a way to guarantee that no shoulder charge would lead to high contact, it wouldn't be banned.

In my opinion, the NRL, RFL and IRLF should urgently get together to create a compilation of dozens and dozens of "charge" type tackles, there are zillions on the intrenet and they'll hold the rights to all of them between them, and provide specific illustrations from these of what IS and what is NOT now allowed. This should be released on the internet and to all clubs and all coaches. Otherwise we will now have a whole new grey area of "was that a banned tackle or wasn't it"?

Also, nobody has mentioned what the penalty is for a banned shoulder charge. Or does it just depend entirely on the ref? has the IRLF issued any instructions or guidelines as to how the refs should deal with the inevitable transgressions? Is it just a pen, or an auto sinbin, or red card, or what?

I'm sure I caught a glimpse of an advance copy of the new rules, which started "The player shall be taken to the place from whence he came, and thence to a place of lawful..." but I only managed to see that first line. The guy was muttering to his mate that they had to make an example out of the first player to be charged, [ipour encourger les autres[/i...

Have to say it comes across as being part of the, 'namby pamby, nanny knows best', not to mention the, 'money-grabbing letz claim', society which is the scourge modern life. The, 'Oh dear I've hurt my foot because I wasn't watching where I put it down, so someone must be responsible', nonsense which costs us all a fortune everyday.

Bah Humbug...they entered into the sport of their own volition, knowing full well the risks involved. We all have choices and ultimately everything in life carries risks - including doing nothing.

Next they will be banning forward passes....

Funnily enough, given that it's not usually the 'laws' that are important, but the 'interpretation' being used by the referees, I can't wait see the first set of new interpretations from Rot Hall.

When do you think we'll see two referees?

[size=50and probably have to pay in using Aussie Dollars..[/size

The Shoulder Charge
· Shoulder Charge – is where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grab or hold the
ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical
contact with the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked into the side).
· Match Officials should look for hip rotation from the defender and the tucking of the arm
into the side. If contact is made with and opponent with or without the ball then a
penalty should be awarded. If contact is made with the head of an opponent then the
player should be dismissed from the field of play.
· A player should always attempt to tackle using the arms or hands and therefore any
player who uses a shoulder charge on a supporting player or a kicker should be treated
in the same way as someone who shoulder charges a ball carrier.
· If two players are running side by side, near to and towards the ball, it is permissible for
one to make contact with the other with the shoulder.

Everyone and his dog knows that laws and rules made or introduced in a panic end in tears.

Except the NRL poodles at the RFL?