It must be a health & safety thing. I mean, who wants to run the risk of a hefty lawsuit for allowing what is basically a violent block? It must be risky which is why they would never even contemplate such a thing in that most litigious of societies, the US. I mean you never see anything like that in the NFL do you? Oh, hang on . . .

Seriously, they want to start by sorting out their terminology. The ordinary meaning of a shoulder charge is shoulder to shoulder, and it's allowed when both players are going for the ball. As it is in that soccer game. I presume what they are referring to is the shoulder hit, or shoulder tackle, but what is basically only ever referred to as a "big hit", and is something completely different from a shoulder charge. The "shoulder charge" is specifically allowed and described in the Notes to Section 5 of the laws of the game, so it looks like the ARL are discussing banning one thing when they are talking about something completely different.

The true reason is of course that they are sick to death of Sam Burgess sitting their players on their fat arrses.

Sonny Bill must be scratching his head thinking WTF I'm glad I only signed the 1 year deal.

I think that the shoulder charge will continue, I think the way RL is played it will be impossible to legislate so it can be policed consistently without it making a huge impact on the way the game is played.

I think that the shoulder charge will continue, I think the way RL is played it will be impossible to legislate so it can be policed consistently without it making a huge impact on the way the game is played.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Just remove the 'on report' cop-out and force officials to consistently penalise 'big hits' that end up making contact with the head, either through recklesness, intent or poor execution, and let them get on with it; coaches and players would soon get the message and use their own prudence to judge when a shot like this is appropriate or not - and they'd get better at it so as to avoid being penalised.

It seems a huge knee-jerk reaction to something that actually only happens in a tiny percentage of the total tackles made and has caused injury in only a tiny percentage of that tiny percentage.

Does this mean that you can no longer run the ball in leading with your shoulder.

I can think of two high profile incidents when Ruben Wiki smacked Soliola and Mark O'meley flattened Bryce Gibbs.

These are exact same types of contact they have just outlawed, the only difference is if you are carrying the ball under your arm when you commit it.

Should the attacking player have a duty of care over the defender who is trying to flatten them?

What an absolute pump of a decision.

Softcock criminals.

A truly ridiculous decision. If you asked the people in the stands what they wanted to see, the big hit would be very high up that list.

It's also very, very unpopular with the NRL players, I've seen a few questioning their place in the sport if it is brought in.

A better compromise would have been to clarify that a shoulder to the head is not acceptable and would mean a 12 game ban, or whatever. Banning it altogether is just very silly.

I play both League and Union for local teams. I favour league greatly and i have got peaple from union to league. The main thing that draws them is the shoulder charge (shot).

Banning shoulder chargers will not change anything long term injury wise. Since brain damage is more likely to occur from high shots than shoulder chargers. So lets follow on with the ARLC’s logic. Ban tackling! A sure-fire way to avoid injury there.

Its always sad when stupidity win over sense and reason, even sadder when its something I hold so dear.

P.s. How boring is the NRL going to be next year, lets face it, its more defence than attack and now they have taken the most interesting point of defence out of it.

This is LEAGUE not UNION.

Banning shoulder charging, why not make it tag rugby too?

A big shoulder charge is one of the best things to see in the game, get rid of that and you get rid of one of the best things in the sport.

Just looking at a certain social networking site and it seems that asking the players to take a pay cut would be the only way the authorities could become more unpopular. Every player on there can't believe the decision.

I've not seen a single player say banning the shoulder charge is good for the game. Every single one is in complete disbelief and disgust and absolutely blasting the decision. So the the authorities have banned the shoulder charge, to protect the players, yet not a single player wants the should charge to be banned. Brilliant.

It's a bit like F1 having a 30mph speed limit for the safety of the drivers. I really hope the RFL grow some nuts and listen to the PLAYERS and FANS and keep the shoulder charge.

Some players base their game on shoulder charges e.g chris sandow

I'll hold off on buying WCC/RLWC tickets then, if I was interested in soft tackling rugby I'd go to Twickers.

Jon Wilkin and the Super League Players Association balloted SL players to see if they were in favour of banning the shoulder charge, and NOT ONE said yes. rlArticle here.rl

He makes a couple of good points, that aggression is one of the selling points of our game, that whilst a poorly exected shoulder charge can cause injury so can any tackle, and that big shoulder charges are rare enough to not be an issue. We all know the ability to get smashed and get back up is one of the major tests of Rugby League, we all love watching the big hits and the players know the risks.

As far as I'm concerned, this all stems from that Greg Inglis smash. Talk about over-reaction.

I think we need to keep this discussion current, as unless we're careful the same legislation will sneak into SL, at which point I'll be thinking carefully about whether I want to carry on paying to watch. A pointless league season, 5th place finishers being crowned 'champions'. a pointless international campaign, and this sanitising of the collision and aggression we all love.