Quote Big Graeme="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="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

That's not the rule. And it would be a ridiculous interpretation. A light slap caused by a sidestep or wrong footed defender which causes no harm, is a penalty, but would be ridiculous for a red card. A swung forearm would be a red card. An arm which bounces up off the ball into the face would be a penalty, but not a red card. And arm swung violently into the face at first point of contact would be a red card. An accidental head shot caused by an attacker diving for the line at a defender's knee-level, where the defender swings for the ball but contacts the head, would be a penalty, but not a red card. Smashing someone in the face over the try line as they jump to catch a ball would be a red.

I don't know why some people are struggling with this concept. I started watching RL in the 1980s, and any significant contact to the head, of the sort seen by Tommy Lee and Sam Moa this weekend, was an automatic red. There were always rumours that some teams had an expendable "hit-man", whose job was to lamp the opposing team's star player, in the knowledge that he'd be sent off, but would take the star with him. It's not new. If anything, the problem has been that our refs have become so scared of sending someone off, that they have hidden behind the on-report system, and allowed some really dangerous tackling styles to develop.

watching it back, and in slow mo thanks to youtube, i honestly dont think he connects with the head, he gets very close but initial impact was on the shoulder/chest and i cant see a second where he connects with the head. i think it was just a great, hard hit.

edit - just seen another angle, he connects, but looks to be just below the chin, hence his head flying back. still thing a red card was harsh though.

You don't have to "attack" the head. This is the law :

[i15 Misconduct

Definition of misconduct 1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he: ......

(b) when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.[/i

This is the power of the ref :

[iPower to dismiss 6. In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender[/i


You're right, of course, that I went too far in saying that any contact with the head is a penalty. There is frequently accidental contact with the head in tackles, usually when putting the player to ground. If this is deemed unreasonable, then it's the "grapple" tackle. If it's deliberate, such as grinding the forehead into the opponent's face, then it's still a penalty. If it's just head-to head contact as a result of a close tackle, with no obvious intent or injury, then it'll be waved on. However, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between contact to the head in the impact of the tackle, and contact to the head during the end-stage of the tackle (subject to the grapple rule above). Impact causes brain damage. That's why it should be seen as more serious.

Was it intentional contact with the head? No IMO

Was it reckless or careless contact with the head? Again no IMO I'm not sure what else Moa could have done while using that tackle technique to guarantee their was 0% chance of any contact with the head.

If your putting a big hit/shoulder charge in their is always a chance you may end up making contact with the head so either it's ok to tackle in this way or it's not.

Or... If you're going to shoulder charge a guy thats half the size of you, don't mess it up.

Problem?

He isn't half his size, not by a long way.

He didn't "mess it up" as such, he went to hit him in the chest which he did but he also caught him with the top of his shoulder on the chin. It was a couple of inches away from being perfect. If were going to allow this type of tackle then it can't be a red card because you make fractionally higher contact then you intended. It's not like a swinging arm for instance which has a much higher chance of contacting the head.

This.

The tackler has responsibility for his technique, regardless of the stature, body position or star sign of the tacklee; Moa went for a billy big-shot on a shorter player, therefore he had the responsibility to make sure it was a legal tackle - he failed to do that and in so doing, could have seriously injured Rinaldi. Intent or not, the red card was the right decision.

Can't say I was particularly happy to see Hull players high-fiving each other whilst Rinaldi was out cold on the floor either - that's a bit distasteful and suggests disregard for a fellow professional's wellbeing.

What happens when a defending player just stands his ground, holds his shoulder up and the attacker comes off second best when he runs in to it?