137 replies to this topic

[AndyCapp]

Both are obscene hits to the head. Would be happy to see the players who do it serve lengthy bans.

The problem is shades of grey and they are open to different views.
Take the uncertainty of challenges away from the eye of the beholder and it will be a good decision.
I still think Sam Burgess challenge on Fui Fui Moi Moi was wrong but it is held up as an example of hard play and pay back.

[gingerjon]

The problem is shades of grey and they are open to different views.
Take the uncertainty of challenges away from the eye of the beholder and it will be a good decision.
I still think Sam Burgess challenge on Fui Fui Moi Moi was wrong but it is held up as an example of hard play and pay back.

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?

[marklaspalmas]

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?

Badum tish!

[AndyCapp]

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?

No, I am with you.
Maybe I was vague in what I posted. Did you think Burgess hit on Moi Moi was a fair tackle?
Get rid of the rubbish and high shots and the game will get more juniors.

Edited by AndyCapp, 20 November 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[AndyCapp]

Badum tish!

What does that mean?

[clement]

RL will end up like soccer.

[marklaspalmas]

What does that mean?

http://www.badum-tish.com/

[dhw]

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?

I believe the shoulder charge should be banned; it is dangerous, has little skill attached to it and is a very small and insignificant part of the game apart from greater liklihood of injury.

Though as for "tackling without using arms" this will still be open to interpretation proably as much as illegal high tackles are.

[dhw]

RL will end up like soccer.

You mean largely banishing thuggish behaviour, with a greater emphasis on skills?

Edited by dhw, 20 November 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Southstander13]

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

Thats already the case.

Shoulder charges that hit the head are already illegal.

Any contact with the head is already illegal.

A straight red is too harsh for some tackles and is warranted for others. It can never be black and white.

[Dave T]

Whilst I enjoy a legal shoulder-charge - I don;t have to be on the end of them!

If the experts (players, coaches etc) are recommending that these be banned (and they have some science behind the decision) then who am I to argue?

[brooza]

define "shoulder charge" ??



that type of shoulder charge,the type that you use when trying to break down a door,should be banned...not got a problem in that..


but this type of hit,by simon dwyer on JWH



dwyer is square on,arms out ready to "action the tackle"..then boom......perfectly fine big hit...imo....

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?

[Southstander13]

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?

Exactly. Head high shot is illegal. Done.

[roughyedspud]

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?

aye........but both have used the shoulder...and both tackles knocked the other guy out.....so what have the ARLC outlawed?? lol

[Ant]

RL has always moved to protect players - this is just another step on that path.

They are a tiny and dangerous part of the game so its no loss to see them gone IMO.

[gingerjon]

aye........but both have used the shoulder...and both tackles knocked the other guy out.....so what have the ARLC outlawed?? lol

If they've outlawed nothing why all the rage from English fans about how the international rules are now different?

[roughyedspud]

they've outlawed something.....they've just not said whats ok and what is'nt lol

[Dave T]

If they've outlawed nothing why all the rage from English fans about how the international rules are now different?

My assumption is that the rule would now be more like RU's.

[Tonka]

I'm gutted I love a good shoulder charge.

My two favourite things are:

1. A good shoulder charge;
2. Done by a GB player on an Aussie or Kiwi.

I may never witness this again.

[keighley]

I agree with the other posters on the need to have the RLIF be the authority to institute rules changes.

The rights and wrongs of shoulder charges are irrelevant to this point. If the Aussies wanted it outlawed they should have had to bring it before the RLIF rules committee and have it voted on and passed or not.

They should not be allowed to unilaterly change the rules and expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Suppose they wanted to change to a 5 tackle game or a 7 tackle game or go to 12 players. These would be changes that would fundamentally change the character of the game and they think they can do this on their own without the rest of the RL world having an input.

This problem has been festering for some time and previous anomalies taken up soley by the Australians were interchange rules, two referees and the corner flag in bounds matter.

The games powers, mostly Aus, NZ and England need to confer and give these rule changing decisions to the RLIF and decide on the procedures for any implementation of suggested changes.

The present situation is ludicrous, we will end up with fundamentally different games in different countries if nothing is done. The Australians might be the best, biggest and richest RL country in the world but they are not the sole arbiters for rule changes. There must be world wide conformity on rules/laws and the RLIF is the obvious choice to be the co ordinating body. The arrogance of the Australian leadership thinking they speak for the world game must be curbed or the game will end up as an international laughing stock.