I don't know, zero intent to foul him.

Rinaldi stepped inside and by doing so dropped his body and head to shoulder height, complete accident.

So do you think the high tackle on Sharp moments after should have seen red? After all you can't attack the head. The one on sharp was deliberate too.

That was my view of it, but then, I'm a Hull fan.

I would say a shoulder to the chin is far more dangerous than a swinging arm. There is much more weight behind a shoulder hit.

If it's high and dangerous how can it be anything but a red?

Haven't seen the incident but I don't like the way that a shoulder charge to the head is considered a great shot. It should be as illegal as any other high tackle, and if deliberate should result in a red card.

The sooner shoulder barges are outlawed the better, you are supposed to tackle a man.
High and dangerous to the head, red card not bottled unlike Bentham.

I don't think it was deserved. In fact I think Moa has got Tommy Lee's red from yesterday. I imagine referees went into their games today with last night's incident on their mind with a view to nipping biff in the bud. Cue Silverwood cacking it at the thought of "doing a Bentham" and he came up with a knee-jerk reaction.

I'd have sin binned him if it was me but I can see where Silverwood is coming from

Im not sure what Moa was supposed to with his shoulder. There isnt a great deal of vertical movement in the shoulder.

People who want shoulder charges to be outlawed should f off and watch Union. Some of the fantastic hits over the years have come from shoulder charges.

Perhaps Moa should look into improving his tackling technique if he can't tackle someone who steps inside of him within the laws of the game.

What was the difference in that and the Morley hit on Hansen in 2010?

That is not what the sin bin is for.

I'd go with this. Intent - or lack thereof - can't be the decider. Rinaldi was knocked clean out - that was a big, bad hit.

Raises the question of allowing shoulder charges at all.

The sin bin is for anything the referee chooses to use it for.

I'm getting so 'with it' these days that I want to 'like' that post.

Agree, intent isn't the be all and end all. Was a reckless shot, hitting him in the face and knocking him out.
Right decision for me

Shoulder charges are not illegal in RL. Whether they should be or not is another matter, but all talk of an illegal tackle is incorrect. It was a perfectly valid tackle within the rules as they exist now.

I'm going to watch the replay again before making a final judgement, but my view of it at the time was that the initial contact was on the shoulder/body. In that case a red card is not justified. If the initial contact [iwas[/i on the head then it's a different ball game, but I'll look forward to every single high tackle resulting in a red card from now on.

Intent is [ialways[/i taken into account. That's why not every high tackle is a red card, for example.

And people who think shoulder barges are an attractive feature of the game should go and watch Gridiron.

I'm looking at it now. Rinaldi is stooping into the challenge. If he'd been even a bit closer to upright Moa would have hit him square in the chest. As it happens, Rinaldi's body angle makes it so that Moa connects on upper chest and chin.

It looks a lot worse than any other high tackle that a player is falling into because of the impact involved. To me, Moa hasn't 'attacked the head', he's gone for a (legal) bit hit that hasn't worked out because of other factors.

Gentle spot on for me. I'm not sure if Sam Moa has Tommy Lee's mobile number but he needs to give him his red card back.

I wonder what Barry and Terry would have made of the shoulder charge.

On first viewing, a red card was harsh. On second viewing, I agree with Mr Sliverwood. Tommy Lee should have been sent off yesterday aswell. No doubt about that one.