I thought this thread was about another one of Allams money making schemes.

Wonder what the people backing this decision thought of Moa's challenge on Rinaldi last year?

Also think people need to realise the full extent of what this means. How many FB's use the shoulder charge to knock somebody into touch? 99% of shoulder charges are perfectly legal, just deal with the ones that contact the head. How do the referees interpret it? Any time a shoulder hits without the arm simultaneously? Too much grey area here. It will end up being ruled as sufficient attempt to involve the arms in the tackle or some other BS, that leaves it open to referee interpretation which will lead to inconsistencies and even more moaning by us the fans.

Indeed, be glad to see the back of it, make a taackle, cover the ball, thats what RL is all about. And whilst we're at it can we stop using terms like "collision" and "wrestle", it's idiotic for fans to use those terms, let alone coaches.

I'm pro shoulder charges. Of course a shoulder can be dangerous but so can a normal tackle which takes the head, where is the difference?

SL have not made a decision but I understand it's expected that they will ban it afterall, sad day for me.

Greater emphasis on kicking, take away some physicality and the new ridiculous advantage rule - it's almost like Union!!

I wonder how it will impact on the one aspect of the game that sees a legal "off the ball" challenge? If two players are running, in the same direction, towards a loose ball, then a shoulder charge is allowed

I think it will be back in the game in two to three years. There'll be arguments over what was and wasn't a shoulder charge, inconsistent decisions and suspensions, legitimate tackles being penalised etc. It will cause more problems than it ever did when legal. Contact with the head should be the penalising criteria regardless of how that comes about - and it already is so no need for change.

Absolutely and 100% correct.

I would also say that at least 90% of challenges on the kicking are mostly shoulder charges so this is another area that will need to be scrutinised by the officials.

I just don't see the need to ban the shoulder charge as like Staffs FC has said contact to the head regardless of how a player does it should be a penalty whether a straight arm, elbow or shoulder and sanctioned accordingly.

Think this will just make it more of a farce/grey area with the officials as to what each individual deems a shoulder charge. Would it mean anyone found guilty of a shoulder charge will be given a red card or just a penalty and on report?

I honestly do not see a need to bring a ban in on this as if its a shoulder charge and player makes contact with the head its a penalty same as if a player makes a genuine attempt at a tackle but hits high with the referee's discretion to either just give a simple penalty, sin bin, red card or soft option and put it on report the same as they do already.

Do we all agree that concussions are bad?

That a high number of concussions occur from shoulder charges?

Saying concussions can happen in any tackle is true but the chances of it happening is lower with out the shoulder charge.

Anyway it's happening because the NRL and other leading bodies got an expert opinion.

As this article about the NFL shows, 'contact to the head' isn't necessarily the be all and end all of concussion either, and understanding of this type of injury is evolving. www.theverge.com/2013/2/4/395151 ... ry-problem

As this article about the NFL shows, 'contact to the head' isn't necessarily the be all and end all of concussion either, and understanding of this type of injury is evolving. www.theverge.com/2013/2/4/395151 ... ry-problem

The RFL board have today banned the shoulder charge from all RFL games with immediate effect.

It is not clear whether this filters down to NCL and local amateur yet.

I can't remember the last injury from a shoulder charge, and I watched every single NRL game on Prem Sports last year (6-7 per week)? If it hits the head and is illegal then yes, it will be punished as a high arm or elbow is currently. Far more injuries are caused by the outstretched arm tackle, mainly to the tackler, I remember about a dozen players tearing biceps and pecs from the outstretched arm being bent back.

It's ridiculous to ban it, impossible to enforce fairly and will lead to so much confusion it will need another look at in a coupe of years. As someone else pointed out, when a player is diving in at the corner, is he now untackleable?

I dont know why they needed to bring a rule in for a problem which doesn't even exist??