SHOULDER CHARGES BANNED

[josie andrews]

Backlash to shoulder charge ban

THE move to ban shoulder charges from Super League has been opposed by many within the Warriors camp.

Scrum-half Matty Smith, skipper Sean O’Loughlin and coach Shaun Wane are among those who have hit out at the move to outlaw the technique.

Friday’s World Club Challenge will mark the end of the tackle-technique under international rules – and the RFL now likely to follow suit with the domestic game.

O’Loughlin said: “It’s part of our game – I’m definitely one for keeping it. I don’t see any reason to change it.” As one of the smallest players in the Wigan squad, Smith has been targeted with shoulder charges throughout his career – but sees no need for a ban.

“For me, banning it will take away something from the game because everyone loves to see big hits, and they usually come from shoulder charges,” he said.

“A big shot can pick a team up, and adds to the excitement of the game.

“The odd one will go wrong and be high, and that’s what you don’t want to see, and I think if you do then you should be suspended.”

The NRL triggered the move by banning the shoulder charge several months ago.

And recent incidents in Super League of head-high challenges – especially by Castleford’s Rangi Chase and Catalan’s Julian Bousquet – have put the debate under sharper focus.

But O’Loughlin pointed out both of those players were banned under the current rules, deterring those who risk making contact with opponents’ heads.

He hopes the ban is limited to the international game.

Wane has also backed the technique, as long as they are “within the rules of the game”, and rising star Greg Burke Tweeted yesterday: “Disgusted that the shoulder charge has been banned worldwide.”

ROBERT Hicks will take charge of Wigan’s home clash against London this Sunday.

TICKETS for Wigan’s next away game – at Castleford on March 3 – went on sale to seasonal members today.

Any remaining from the allocation of 1,100 will go on general sale from 10am on Sunday February 24.

They are priced £19 adults and £11 concessions – £2 cheaper than the match-day admission.

Children seasonal members are entitled to free entry upon production of away junior voucher number two at the DW Stadium Ticket Office.

http://www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-w ... -1-5428712

[Owd Codger]

Whatever the Aussies decide, we followed like sheep!

[stevethegas]

About 2 minutes from time at Warrington 2 seasons ago, H was just about cleaned out by an Adrian Morley "shoulder charge" that nearly took his head off. Quite how H held onto the ball remains a mystery. But that incident defines the issue. It's not shoulder charges, but ones that get the players head that are the problem. The referees have a hard enough time as it is, and I just don't know if such a subtle distinction is able to be policed. So perhaps better to ban it, and ensure that tackles are just tackles.

We'll see over the next season whether this spoils or improves the game. Whatever, Rugby League is a ferociously tough game to play, and to ignore the players' safety is irresponsible.

[josie andrews]

RFL Laws Committee outlaws shoulder charge

Following the Rugby League International Federation's decision earlier this week to immediately outlaw the shoulder charge from the International Laws of the Game, the RFL has banned the shoulder charge from all domestic competitions with immediate effect.

The RLIF's ban sees the shoulder charge outlawed for the Rugby League World Cup and PROBIZ World Club Challenge and the RFL's decision will see the shoulder charge made illegal in all competitions, including Super League, Tetley's Challenge Cup, Kingstone Press Championships and Northern Rail Cup, as well as community game competitions.

RFL Laws Committee Secretary Blake Solly said:

"The RFL believes that player safety is of paramount importance and we are committed to ensuring that our players can compete in the safest possible environment.

"We understand that the shoulder charge is popular with many people in Rugby League, but we also have a duty to manage the welfare and safety of players involved in the game at all levels.

"We have contributed to the RLIF's discussions about the shoulder charge and whilst we believed the challenge should not be banned, we consider that the RLIF Board have followed the correct process and allowed each member nation to provide a view on the law change.

It is right that the RLIF should have ultimate control over issues such as this, and we remain committed to standardising the Laws of the Game across all nations and competitions.

"We had agreed with the RLIF the option to delay the implementation because we are in season, but the RFL Board has agreed that it is best to immediately implement the ban on the shoulder charge across all domestic competitions.

"We believe this decision will help ensure the future safety of our players whilst not adversely detracting from the on-field excitement of the sport."

http://www.wiganwarriors.com/WContent.a ... &type=news

[DaveO]

Sad day, just hit the idiots who exploit this tackle with a a massive ban :conf:

Never happened to Morley though did it?

There is just too much inconsistency in the judiciary to rely on bans and of course a ban doesn't help a player seriously injured after the event.

Didn't he completely clean Hansen out a couple of seasons back and the excuse was it was a shoulder charge but in reality he just attacked the player? There is a difference and IMO very often the intention is to injure not to tackle.

I can understand people not wanting to dilute the physical side of the game but on the positive side it means players will have to tackle properly and not be lazy which IMO the shoulder charge often was.

[DaveO]

About 2 minutes from time at Warrington 2 seasons ago, H was just about cleaned out by an Adrian Morley "shoulder charge" that nearly took his head off. Quite how H held onto the ball remains a mystery. But that incident defines the issue. It's not shoulder charges, but ones that get the players head that are the problem. The referees have a hard enough time as it is, and I just don't know if such a subtle distinction is able to be policed. So perhaps better to ban it, and ensure that tackles are just tackles.

We'll see over the next season whether this spoils or improves the game. Whatever, Rugby League is a ferociously tough game to play, and to ignore the players' safety is irresponsible.

You beat me too it!

[devon jim 1]

The best shoulder charge I've ever seen Josie was Dennis Boyd from the dim and distant past. The worst Bob Jackson at Wembley when he smashed Edwards. In interest of players saftey I'm ok with its been outlawed.

[Sutty]

The way I see this is that the shoulder charge is a fantastic sight, lifting the whole team and providing a great deal of enjoyment for fans, when performed correctly.

The problem that the authorities have is in ensuring that it's carried out properly. Whilst the majority of them are done legitimately, there will always be some that are either mistimed or malicious in their execution.

It's only a matter of time until a player is seriously injured from a poor shoulder charge, and if the authorities wait until then before banning it, it will be too late for that player.

It's almost like saying that you don't need to wear a seat belt when in a car because the chances are that you'll never have an accident. However, on occasion, there will be an accident and if you aren't wearing a seat belt, then you'll almost certainly suffer a serious injury. Hence, the legal requirement to wear a seat belt will ensure that almost everyone involved in a RTA will walk away relatively unscathed, obviously depending on the speed of the impact. There are certain things that can be done to help eliminate the possibility of serious injury.

Therefore, by the banning of the shoulder charge, the authorities are trying to eliminate the chance of a serious injury being caused by a mistimed or malicious challenge, by removing that potential threat.

I'd just like to say that I enjoy seeing a good shoulder charge as much as the next fan, and they're a spectacular sight when carried out properly, but I can also see the reasoning behind the authorities wanting to ban them.

It's a quandry and there will be people for and against whichever decision is made.

[x Wigan Warrior x]

Sad day, just hit the idiots who exploit this tackle with a a massive ban :conf:

Never happened to Morley though did it?

There is just too much inconsistency in the judiciary to rely on bans and of course a ban doesn't help a player seriously injured after the event.

Didn't he completely clean Hansen out a couple of seasons back and the excuse was it was a shoulder charge but in reality he just attacked the player? There is a difference and IMO very often the intention is to injure not to tackle.

I can understand people not wanting to dilute the physical side of the game but on the positive side it means players will have to tackle properly and not be lazy which IMO the shoulder charge often was.

But even the players are calling this decision stupid like Sam, i think its about time the RFL listened to them.

[DaveO]

Sad day, just hit the idiots who exploit this tackle with a a massive ban :conf:

Never happened to Morley though did it?

There is just too much inconsistency in the judiciary to rely on bans and of course a ban doesn't help a player seriously injured after the event.

Didn't he completely clean Hansen out a couple of seasons back and the excuse was it was a shoulder charge but in reality he just attacked the player? There is a difference and IMO very often the intention is to injure not to tackle.

I can understand people not wanting to dilute the physical side of the game but on the positive side it means players will have to tackle properly and not be lazy which IMO the shoulder charge often was.

But even the players are calling this decision stupid like Sam, i think its about time the RFL listened to them.

I saw that and it doesn't surprise me and maybe to a man all the players are prepared to take the risk but unfortunately I don't think the RFL can let them decide.

Someone does as Jackson did to Edwards as mentioned above but instead of "just" a fractured eye socket he loses an eye then where is the sport going to be? In a mire of litigation?