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 15 Misconduct

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

This is the power of the ref Power 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?

I suppose that would depend on what part of the body his shoulder makes contact with - if it's the head, see above.

how about situationally unlucky? A player lines up a legit tackle (A shoulder charge to the shoulder in this case) the opposing player at the last split second moves in such a way that the impact is now shared between the shoulder and the lower part of the head (possibly chin in this instance)
Now tell me how any of intentionally, recklessly or carelessly applies to the incident?

From the slow motion replay the shoulder judders from the hit so there is evidence that the contact was on the upper body at least (as opposed to just the head) if not then the body does not react in this way if it were a clean head shot.

Thus the RFL should determine a sending off was not the correct decision in this instance. if they do then a very dangerous precendence will be set that would massively effect our game as we know it. By definition ANY shoulder charge would be classified as reckless and/or careless due to the potential damage it could cause.
You can make a direct comparison to traffic law, an action is not automatically deemed to be dangerous/careless just because someone gets hurt, that can purely down to circumstance and bad luck.
This is one of those cases with zero intention to harm from the person doing so.

That happens, for examople when attackers run into players after a kick looking for a penalty. Players rarely knock themselves out though.

This was completely different. Moa dipped and then raised his shoulder, it was no surprise it ended up in Rinaldi's face.

Zero intent to harm? Get real - Moa lined Rinaldi up and put a massive shoulder into him, with no attempt to affect a proper tackle; he may not have intended to knock him out cold, but he certainly intended to hurt him.

It does raise a question about this type of non-tackle; it may be exciting to watch, but when it goes wrong, as in this case, the technique poses a serious risk to player safety.

I thought it was a harsh red given that you see a lot worse go under the radar. However if this is the benchmark for a red card then any tackle where contact its made with the attackers face (whether it be accident or not) should be a red card. If the officials are consistent with it then I am ok with that.

However it appears that is not the case when Silverwood only gave a penalty for a blatant head hunting swinging arm by a London player a few moments later. This is why I think we have huge debates about whether or not its a red card because one week you'll get a warning the next you'll get a red. If the officials were more consistent then they would be less discussion on them and more on the game.

Effecting a 'proper tackle' what is that these days then? You might see a dozen in a match if you're lucky, and a shoulder charge is still a legitimate method of stopping a player in the same way as a standard/traditional/wrestle tackle so your arguement holds no water whatsoever on that front. so you get real!

He attempted to stop the player in his tracks and/or dislodge the ball using physical force (a shoulder charge), that is what rugby is about is it not? if you've played and have gone in to hurt a player then you'll know that what Moa did had not one ounce of intention to harm, was deffo not reckless or even borderline careless (Otherwise every tackle a player makes has the potential to be the latter 2)
I'm not even saying a SC is the [imost[/i effective way to bring about the result you want but as long as it is legitimate to use then players will do it and clashes like this will continue to happen weere fractions change the outcome and no blame should be aportioned. So as I said you cannot seriously classify this incident in any of the 3 mentioned reasons previously (Deliberate, reckless, careless) as reason for a sending off.

If you cannot understand the physical dynamics of what happened here then that's fine (& there's little point in explaining it to you because obviously you've made your choice about it and won't change your mind even when you know you're wrong for fear of losing face). But, you're wrong and so were the officials.