7 match ban, no real surprise

So, between him and Hauraki they have copped 9 game bans between them and James Child deemed neither of them worthy of on field punishment ?? and we wonder why people are getting fed up of referee's in this sport.

Rangi's was sickening and 6,000 people in the stands saw what he did but not the one guy that mattered ??

7 games is nowhere near enough punishment for a blatant attempt to cause serious injury to a fellow player, horrible little grub who has a long history of trying to injure opponents.

What a pity he won't have the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hock in the cup.

He should have been hauled up for his tackle on Paddy Flynn against Widnes.

No player should be put in a dangerous position like that, shows total lack of respect from Rangi , and he deserves the ban.

I am surprised that despite 6000 people in the stands apparently seeing this incident clearly, there was no mention of it on either teams forum until it was announced that he had been charged. No mention in the match day threads etc. If it was so clear then I'm sure it would've been the main topic of post match discussion.

It was a deserved ban, but let's not go overboard.

Here you go.

rlLuke Burgess having his jaw broken by a shoulder charge (video)rl

The resulthttp://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01105/x2_24f3556_13_280x_1105577a.jpg" >

There's serious injuries and there's serious injuries. No one wants to be spending a few weeks on the sidelines with a broken jaw. However it's far preferable to spending a year out of the game having a knee reconstruction. That example is pretty minor in the grand scheme of injuries.

Both of which are serious injuries.

The shoulder barge was banned because it was clear (certainly in Australia, not so much here I think) that coaches were building in the "accidently late" shoulder charge into their defensive strategy to intimidate kickers and there was the suspicion that it was also used to "take players out".

Something like a broken jaw is pretty bad, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But when someone says serious injury, that to me means at least 6 months out.

Freak accidents happen, but it's unlikely that a shoulder charge will end a career. A cannonball tackle easily could.

Personally I don't have an issue with a shoulder charge. If a shoulder charge makes contact with the head then it should be treated as a high tackle, and a card issued if it's deemed appropriate, as with any high tackle. As long as it's shoulder to shoulder that's fine imo.

I've been hit with shoulder charges before, and as far as things that happen in a game of rugby league go, they are not all that painful.

I agree in general play, but I did read that there was a spate of late and high ones leading to some serious injuries and thats why it was banned, should those who go in heavy on a held players legs be in trouble too, damn right they should.

"Serious" is flexible enough that your "serious" might not be my "serious". If you find a medical professional who considers Burgess' injury not to be "serious", then great.



And a shoulder charge could also end a life, in ways that a cannonball tackle is much less likely to (e.g. rlacute subdural haematomarl due to collision - from shoulder or head - at the temple). It comes down to splitting hairs over the risk (and hazard) of injury, and whether the challenge can be controlled well enough by either player to minimise that risk. My opinion is that shoulder charges are sufficiently difficult to control, and risky enough in terms of collisions at the highest level of the sport, that I'm fine with them no longer being permitted. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing, but I do think we have to accept that there is potential for serious injury from shoulder charges, and they aren't entirely benign.

(edited to fix link)

Shoulder charge to the head, dangerous and was always illegal (but not always punished)

Other shoulder charges, not so much