You're right, going by the letter of the law there was nothing wrong with the principle of the shoulder charge being used, however, it was reckless and careless and fully deserved a red card as a result, and yes, I also believe that the shoulder charge should be banned. I personally believe it offers nothing but the risk of injury to players in this great game of ours.

It was a freak incedent.

Unlike an arm, it's not easy to adjust the height and direction of your shoulder especially if you're moving forwards. The combination of angle, height, speed and timing was just unfortunate and Rinaldi came off worse in what is an uncommon accident, not foul play.

I hope shoulder barges aren't outlawed as they're a great, physical part of our game at all levels. I just hope that if the RFL do review them, it is done so by people who have actually played the game and not spectators.

I think you still have your black-and-white glasses on. I've seen it plenty of times, and if I was being generous, then I'd say that contact with the chin and shoulder were simultaneous. If I was being less generous, I'd say that contact was made first on the chin, which is why Rinaldi was out cold before he hit the ground. Either way, a very hard contact was made with the head. All you have here is a classic case of two eye-witnesses seeing slightly different versions of events. As a neutral, the ref saw direct contact with the head. So did I. As someone with a vested interest, you saw a version of events more favourable to the man on your team. So far, so predictable.



None of this is incorrect, but I say again THE POSITION, DIRECTION AND SPEED OF RINALDI IS, WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE IRRELEVANT. Moa has to avoid hitting his head with his shoulder with sufficient force to knock him out. He didn't.




I'm a great admirer of any professional RL player for his physical bravery and athleticism. Some of them are also intelligent guys. But the idea that just because some think this wasn't a foul means it wasn't a foul is so laughable as to be nuts. If players were always perfect judges of what constituted foul play, we'd never have any penalties, ever, in any game. This tackle MUST have been reckless or careless. It knocked Rinaldi out. There is no way it could not have been reckless or careless. Even if Moa went into it thinking about how much he loved Rinaldi, and how he'd rather chop off his own arm than hurt the poor dear, and that he was really looking forward to donning his beret and heading off to eat snails with his good friend Julien after the match - IT WAS STILL CARELESS - because he hit his effing head hard enough to knock him out ! I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand.

It isnt if you have a rod through your back keeping it straight. Like Noble says bend your back-30 odd bones in a spine.

Lazy tackle that attacked the head. Got to be outlawed

What about the Wigan, Catalans, Leeds, and even London fans who have posted similar comments in this and other threads? Have they got their black and white glasses on?



The underlined part is nonsense. If I'm driving my car quite properly and a pedestrian suddenly runs in front of it, I am not guilty of careless or reckless driving. By your own admission, what Kosh and others have said about Moa's trajectory and Rinaldi's sudden change of direction is 'not incorrect', yet you still feel that Moa was careless and/or reckless? That's just weird. The only way Moa was careless or reckless was if every person who attempts a shoulder charge tackle is careless or reckless.

He was committed to the challenge by the time Rinaldi's head dipped.



You agreed that this was 'not incorrect'.

So what you're saying then is that a player who is guilty of not having superhuman reflexes should be sent off for carelessness/recklessness. That's just plain wrong.



Again, this is nonsense. In a contact sport like RL it is quite possible for a player to get knocked out without anything reckless or careless occurring. FWIW, I reckon even if Moa hadn't have hit Rinaldi's chin, he'd still have been knocked unconscious. Even if that wasn't the case, to simply state "he was knocked out, therefore it was careless or reckless" is just silly.

This is crap. Even those who are supporting the decision to send Moa off don't assert that he 'attacked the head'.

Presumably then if an attacking player stumbles just before the point of contact and knocks himself out on the tacklers knee the tackler should be sent off in Roy Haggerty world?

Rock God X embarrassing himself as usual.

Good God. I'll give you credit for obstinacy.

Your car analogy is a false one, as in your car, you are not trying to hit the pedestrian in a safe way. Moa was trying to hit Rinaldi, presumably in a safe way. Rinaldi didn't run after Moa to smash his chin on the man's shoulder, while Moa tried to take evasive action. It was a tackle. On a pitch. Moa was trying to hit him. God. Look, "careless" means that a negative outcome results from an unintentional action which could have been avoided. Accidents are almost always the result of careless actions. Negligence is not taking sufficient precautions to avoid a possible predictable outcome. I'm entirely happy to believe that Moa did not intend to hit Rinaldi's head and cause him brain damage. But he did. If the referee judges that Moa could have predicted the head impact, and did not take sufficient action to avoid it, then it's negligent - red card. If the referee judges that Moa accidentally hit Rinaldi's head by attempting the tackle he did, then it's careless - red card.

You're just refusing to accept the facts now. You keep talking about whether Moa's reflexes were normal, or Rinaldi's change of direction was predictable. But they are not relevant. I don't know how else to say this. They are not relevant. They are not relevant. They are not relevant. They are not relevant. There is no other option. There isn't a "he didn't mean to, but it wasn't careless" option. It's either deliberate, or negligent, or careless. Because it happened. The only situation in which it wasn't either deliberate, negligent or careless would be IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. But it did. The tackler is responsible for the contact, and because contact was made with the head, and because contact with the head of this nature is illegal, then there are only three possible judgments - deliberate, negligent or careless. There is no other option. None. There's isn't a "none of the above" option in the laws of the game. Accidental means the same as careless in this instance.

This is very, very simple.

The tackler has a responsibility not to hit the ball-carrier's head. If contact is made, and it is either malicious, negligent or careless, then it can be penalised with a red card. Moa should not have hit Rinaldi's head. Everything else, with all due respect, is just p!ss and wind. He hit Rinaldi's head so hard he knocked him out cold. If he intended to do so, then he deliberately attacked the head, and should be banned. If he didn't intend to do so, then it was careless, and he probably won't be banned, but the red card was still justified.

I've said this in as many ways as possible now. I can't think of any other way to express it. I give up.

No. And this has already been dealt with on this thread. If you're going to offer stupid hypotheticals, then at least have the wit to read what has gone before.

In reference to the calls to ban shoulder charges, please stop trying to make the game soft! People want hard, fast, skilful and fair Rugby League and none of that requires banning shoulder charges which have produced some of the most defining moments in Rugby League history. Start banning that, you end up on the slippery health and safety slope. We'll end up with mandatory head gear and padding, aka American Football style.

Regarding the hit. Perfectly fair hit with accidental hit to the head after initial impact. Its unfortunate that because the London player was dipping into the tackle that he suffered. Moa has made these tackles before and it was always perfectly legal. Circumstance, rather than dirty play meant that this one unfortunately went wrong. Shouldn't have been a red card in my opinion, but I can understand the refs reaction. The panel now have the luxury of time to review it and I strongly suspect we'll see a Sending Off Sufficient result.

Ok same situation a player goes to tackle around the legs/waist and the attacker decides to duck at the last second. Contact is made with the head and the player is knocked out. Explain how that is different. In both cases the tackler is making an attempt at a legal tackle with reasonable certainty that it won't be foul play and accidently makes contact with the head. Are they both red cards?

It's not a false analogy in that Moa was acting within the laws of the game (or making every effort to), and circumstances beyond his control meant that his shoulder made contact with Rinaldi's head. Of course Moa was trying to hit him - that's the game.



The underlined part is extremely relevant. The only way that the contact could have been avoided is

Keep saying it, but they are very relevant. To prove that a player was careless or reckless you have to take into account whether or not they took every precaution that could reasonably be expected to avoid hitting the opponent's head. Moa did take every reasonable precaution and it was only the sudden change of trajectory of the attacker that led to contact being made with the chin. Whether you like it or not, that's extremely relevant.



You would think.



Quite. But it wasn't malicious, negligent or careless.

On the contrary, it was negligent and careless.

So should Adrian Morley have been sent off in 2010 after his hit on Harrison Hansen?