Nowt wrong with it. Not a red.

Moa did nothing worse than a shoulder barge - nothing but bad luck Rinaldi hit it in the right place to knock him cold. Moa's arm is down, he just leans his weight in. Some collisions are simply so hard the brain is rattled - just a huge impact. He doesn't aim high. he simply goes shoulder-to-shoulder and Rinaldi is the smaller man.

Morley's hit on Hansen was much worse simply because Morley cocked his shoulder/arm and deliberately targeted the head.

Anyway, these things happen. We do NOT want to go down the RU route of insisting arms must be wrapped round - big shots are part of our game and culture and part of what makes RL so fantastic.

The what? FFS.

I don't understand how people can't differentate between a legitimate shoulder charge - i.e. one that hits shoulders or chest - and one that hits someone in the head. Its exactly the same as a tackle with the arms, and you can't hit someone in the face with the shoulder just because it might look good on youtube.

People also seem to forget that it's the tackler who has responsibility to make sure that the way they tackle isn't dangerous. Just because a player is short or changing direction doesn't mean its in some way OK hit them high. The only allowance I'd make is for someone falling/ducking - then it can be very hard for a defender to adjust.

Again, I'll just blow my whistle and dust off my notebook here, but you're missing the point. This red was not about whether it was a shoulder charge or not. Shoulder charges are legal, as are "normal" tackles. And as with normal tackles, the tackler has full responsibility about where and how contact is made. If Moa could not avoid hitting Rinaldi where he did by effecting a shoulder charge, then it was his responsibility not to effect a shoulder charge. He remains responsible.

You should know, as a Leeds fan, that Rob Burrow wins you a lot of penalties for head high shots when blokes who are a good foot taller than him tackle at normal height. If they were hitting a forward, it'd be legal. On Burrow, it's head high. They don't get let off on the grounds he's a short . They just have to judge how to effect a legal tackle. If they can't, then penalty. If they make negligent and serious contact with the head, then sending off. The shoulder charge thing is a red herring, served up, as usual, by the commentary box.

Tackles like this are the reason i Love RL.

This was exactly the same type of hit that Morley put on Hansen a few years back. Im a wigan fan but i have been raving on about that ever since. It was perfectly legal and spectacular to watch.

To compare what happened tonight to Mick Cassidys effort on Moz is a joke. Mick raised the elbow and targeted the chin. Sam Moa is only guilty of putting a peach of a hit on an opponent.

To those calling for a banning of the shoulder barge. get a grip.

I have been left uncouncious 3 times after contact has been made with my melon, but i would not change the rules for anything. Accidents happen.

It is not the toughest game for nothing.

Yes, of course. We never see any allowances made for players making contact with the head if the attacker is falling or ducking, do we? Moa did everything that could reasonably have been expected to ensure that the tackle wasn't high. His knees are even slightly bent at the point of impact. Unfortunately, Rinaldi's knees were rather more bent. This is not a situation that merits a sending off. If Rinaldi had remained conscious, it would have been a penalty at the most.

What if there is an accidental clash of heads between players?

Should we then send of the defender for not getting his bonce out of the way?

No. You're wrong. Again you're talking about what Rinaldi was doing. It's irrelevant. The only responsibility was Moa's. If he bent his knees to lower the hit (as opposed to drive forward with more power, which is what everyone outside Hull thinks, tbh), then he didn't bend them enough. That's still his fault.

This was a correct decision. You can certainly argue that other decisions (like Tommy Lee's offence, for example, should have been treated the same, but weren't, and you'd be right. I'd support you. But the argument that because other decisions are incorrect, then this one should have been as well, is a bit flawed. Deserved red card.

Take off the black and white specs. I suspect you'll see Moa again next week, and you won the game, so unless you're Rinaldi, with minor brain damage, then all's well that end's well. But trying to argue that knocking a player unconscious with an - at best - negligent head high contact, is somehow ok, makes you seem a little one-eyed.

Right, so if I've bent double to tackle a player around the waist and he falls forward and I knock him out with my shoulder, it's a sending off?

Oh, and, plenty of neutrals don't think it was a sending off.

Depends on the incident. If you adopt a set position, back bent, aiming for the waist of the guy carrying the ball, and he slips, causing him to hit your stationary shoulder with his chin, then it's a penalty, because any contact to the head is a penalty, and according to the rules, even if he slips (or sidesteps, or does the hokey-cokey) then you're still responsible for not hitting his head. But you'd be unlucky to be sent off. However, Moa was advancing to the carrier, and was not stationary. He was not bent double aiming at anyone's waist (let alone Rinaldi, because he's a short guy), but was standing upright, and clearly intended to make hard contact with his shoulder on the upper body of the ball carrier. The fact that he misjudged it and made contact with the ball-carrier's head, is why he got the red card. The situation you describe is a different one, and does not apply here.

Give this one up. It was the correct decision. The real issue here is why other similar offences go unpunished.

As long as the refs are as "consistent" in future, I won't have a problem. Contact with the head, accidental or not = red card

Quote: Big Graeme "The what? FFS.'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Hull my take on it is it wasn't a malicious intended shot but a mistimed one which was high and dangerous and could have caused serious injury and as far as i'm aware that is a reason to dismiss someone, like has been said its up to the tackler to adjust to make sure he doesn't hit the head !

Quote: Big Graeme "The what? FFS.'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Hull my take on it is it wasn't a malicious intended shot but a mistimed one which was high and dangerous and could have caused serious injury and as far as i'm aware that is a reason to dismiss someone, like has been said its up to the tackler to adjust to make sure he doesn't hit the head !

The only logical way of solving the problem if we are keeping the shoulder charge is at the defenders risk i.e. if you hit the head expect a red.

Personally though i woudn't change it.

No it isn't!

You need to go back and dust your rule book off again.

Attacking the head is an offence. What Moa did was not an attack to the head