A couple of days after the NRL announced it's intention to ban the shoulder charge for the 2013 campaign, they are rumours now that the rule makers in the southern hemisphere are attempting to get the RFL to make the same change. If we're honest, the RFL are more than likely to 'bend over' and do as they are told, which would be a shame in my opinion.

Personally, I love watching a player 'smash' an opposing player. Sam Burgess is probable one of the best at the shoulder charge, this is one of the main reasons I loved watching Rabbitos games last year. Impact players often come up with big plays, which then ups the 'ante' for their team. Scruton was one of the Bulls players that executed this technique well, a couple of years ago before he 'Wed' the treatment table.

How do people/fans feel about this ruling? Have we lost a great aspect of our game, or eradicated a nuisance tackle? Or will this ban prolong the career of players (such as Scruton and Burgess) who have a history of shoulder problems?

Answer is both, we've lost an aspect of the game AND prolonged the careers of the Scrutons and Burgesses. I'd leave things like this up to the player's association to decide.

There's already a long thread on the VT, and first of all the ARL have made a big mistake in referring to "shoulder charging" which is already a specific thing, in the rules, and not at all what they are talking about.

I don't know of any evidence of player's careers being shortened by shoulder to body impacts. Even if there was any, then surely it is then up to the player to use the technique, or not?

Has anybody asked the players? Isn't this sort of matter tailor-made for player representative organisations to lead? What has really motivated it?

From what i have read, the NRL are concerned that the retired players may be able to sue the organisation for allowing this technique. Due to this type of tackle, individuals may suffer in later life. The NFL have had recent cases, where retired players have sued due to injuries that have occurred later in life.

And - I didn't realise the thread on VT, don't really look outside this forum.

I have a number of scars on my head. I had an ear that had to be sown back on twice. A twice broken nose. Several missing or broken teeth. A dislocated shoulder. Displaced vertebrae. Scars all over my legs. An ankle that I sprained a 100 times. Are there any good lawyers on here? (How I’ve maintained my youthful looks & boyish charm is a miracle).

As a layman I can't see what the NRL have to worry about; was the offending part of the game taking place when they joined their clubs, were they coerced into signing or taking part in games against their free will? Answer no to either part and their case is zero in my mind, though I await FA's response with interest.

If they do go to Sue Grabbit and Run, and win their case, you do have to ask what about the others? The players who rupture their ligaments due to having to make quick turns - obviously we'll have to stop the game to allow turns to be made safely or run the risk of being sued...the mind boggles

Are big tackles and hits not one of the reasons we all love this game?

And as for players sueing the league.... give me a break. they know what they're getting themselves into. Its a contact sport and tbh shoulder charges are the least of players problems over the years.

What next, banning tackles completely???

link to the aussie press, detailing the potential threat of a legal action (bottom of the page)

rlhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/they-banned-the-shoulder-charge-to-avoid-a-negligence-charge/story-e6frexnr-1226522236147rl

...and you still live with her after all that.

I think that what is needed here is some definition of exactly WTF they mean by a "shoulder charge" which is banned.

There is a good short article rl hererl by the great Darren Lockyer. He agrees that shoulder charges - as HE defines them - should be banned because too many end up with a contact with the head. But he is equally adamant that "big hits" should NOT be banned - he quotes Chris Close
"big hits front on with arms down ... that's what brings them through the gate. Leave the game as is".

If they restrict the ban to strictly no cannonball-style shoulder dives then fine, if the legitimate big hit as described here is left alone. If we lose the big hit, we lose a central part of the game.

Its only been a central part of the game fairly recently.

Never liked them. There's usually an element of a cheap shot about them. The ball carrier is often looking to the side, off balance, or doesn't have the chance to brace himself, get out of the way, or respond in kind.

If there is contact with the head or neck its a high tackle. If the officials police the current rules properly, then there is protection!

No need for the new rule. The league should ask players to sign a disclaimer before they play each season that indicates what is within the rules and the risks that playing Rugby League entails and does not allow them to claim against the governing body or the player/club in the future, unless there is foul play outside of the published rules.

Shoulder charges aren't that frequent an occurrence, i thought it would be more likely that the person making the shoulder charge is more likely to be injured.

They could police it to protect passers but if two players are running at one another ie. a prop running into the line or sams hit on fuifui moimoi - rlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v - where a prop is there to do a job then that should be fine, but a late shoulder charge by a prop on a SH or HB who is looking where they are passing to and cant brace themselves should be policed properly.

There are several issues here but banning any type of tackle that is dangerous should be considered. They have in the past - spear, stiff arm, tripping etc.. The shoulder charge it's self is not dangerous, it's that it is usually poorly executed with the "charger" jumping up into the tackle, raising the arms or just being late - all these can be policed by the officials and the appropriate action taken. Correct training of the technique can reduce the injuries to both the "charger" and "chargee". It would be impossible to limit the type of tackle carried out depending on the size of the players concerned. What tackle would you allow on Burrows but not on Sam Burgess?

The same one as on Maguire.