The decision to crackdown on the controversial shoulder charge tackle a week before the finals isn’t a knee-jerk reaction – rather an indication of how seriously the code is taking player safety, according to the ARLC.
NRL chief medical officer Ron Muratore, who is on a committee given the task of reviewing the shoulder charge, praised the move on Thursday.
“I think it’s a move in the right direction and I think the message that it’s giving is that people who do the shoulder charge are taking a big risk,” Muratore told AAP.
“And obviously we have to protect players’ heads.”
The ARLC announced this move as an ‘interim decision’ ahead of the findings, expected to be unveiled soon after the end of the season.
But former Sydney Roosters’ chief executive Brian Canavan, who is the head of the shoulder charge committee, has been in regular contact with NRL director of football operations Nathan McGuirk throughout the process leading to Thursday’s decision.
All indications are it could signal the death knell for the shoulder charge in the modern game.
Under the new guidelines, shoulder charges which result in dangerous contact will be referred directly to the NRL judiciary without grading – bypassing the match review committee – putting it in the same boat as biting, gouging and other non-graded acts.
But Muratore argues it simply outlines how seriously the game views contact with the head and an indication of how seriously it will be treated in the future.
“We’ve always taken it seriously,” he said.
“We always say that the head is sacrosanct and I think this is just reinforcing that message and saying ‘look, if you want to do a shoulder charge, then you’re taking a big risk’.
“If they go wrong, then obviously they’re going to get punished.
“It’s good that we’re serious about the whole thing. It shows we’re serious about player safety.
“The broad message that people need to understand is that we’re not just looking at one thing – player safety is paramount throughout the whole year.”
Retiring Parramatta star Luke Burt urged the game’s rulemakers to not make rash decisions over the controversial tackle’s future.
“Sometimes things accidentally hit heads. They’re (the ARLC) coming in with a knee-jerk reaction, I think,” Burt told AAP.
“You can’t ban the shoulder charge … you can’t get rid of it.
“It’s something that’s part of the game and something that belongs and it’s up to the player to make sure he makes the right contact with the attacking player.
“You’d hate to see someone rubbed out (of the finals) by an unlucky shoulder charge because it’s not deliberately trying to hit someone in the head.”
ARLC chairman John Grant said it was a necessary decision to be made on the eve of the finals.
“What we are making clear … is that the current rules are to be adhered to in a manner that discourages any player from taking unacceptable risks with the welfare of an opponent,” he said in a statement.
Sledgeandhammer
Guest
The real question for RL is why it was ever acceptable to shoulder someone in the head? Going back over the years we've always heard excuses - it was unintentional, the player was falling, big man on small man, it bounced up off his shoulder/ chest etc. What a crock. If you hit a guy in the head, you hit him in the head, full stop. Forget the excuses.
Boz
Guest
Unfortunately turbodewd, Headgear only really prevents superficial damage to the head, rather than significantly lessens the chances of concussion. We both agree on the fact that the shoulder charge should be kept in the game, BUT, if the tackler does get it wrong, expect for them to be dealt with severely.
turbodewd
Guest
Id rather see the shoulder charge left in the sport BUT keep fining/suspending any head attack. They should also consider making headgear compulsory. The might just need to make the headgear look a bit better, maybe a smooth exterior rather than bumpy. This would let teams put logos on the headgear a la NFL. It would look professional. The ARLC also needs to explain how on earth Minichello got off scot free for his leaping head attack on Josh Dugan 2 wks ago.
Wild Man From Borneo
Guest
As dramatic as the Young tackle was, with the Medicab exit and all, he wasn't hurt! He was eating at a McDonalds after the game and played the following Friday! This is a kneejerk decision at best and what was the reason Grant booted Gallop again???? The ARLC should at least be honest to the fans. The reason they are bringing this in has nothing to do with the safety of the players, it is to cover their bum should someone sue them! This is why they are running scared imo. Far out look at the Video Promotions of the game over the last 15 years and the Shoulder Charge has led the Vision!
eagleJack
Guest
The issue isn't the ruling by the ARLC. It is the timing of it. We knew that for 2013 these sorts of measures would be introduced. But why do it one week from the finals? Now a guy could potentially miss a grand final, something he has worked for all year, for a tackle that previously wouldn't have made it to the judiciary. Bypassing the MRC for any contact with the head is great for player safety and will ram the message home. But introduce this at seasons end. This is the very definition of a reactive decision by the ARLC.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Hardly reactive,damaging results from shoulder charges to the head,have been going on far too long.This year a few eg Dean Young brought it to a head.Ther medical staff at the clubs and at the admin,have been pushing this for years. The head is sacrosanct. You can't sell a game to parents, when they see players out cold as an Eskimo''s handshake, a result of these "tackles"gone wrong. I have seen plenty of tough games and indeed exciting , without one shoulder charge.Maybe the players in question, should have learned tackling techniques from the Pearces,Rogers,Rapers ,Cootes of this world The saying goes if you live bya dicey shoulder charge,you bear the conseqeunces.
Scott
Guest
Too right eagleJack. I have no problem with the concept of allowing shoulder charges but making the offender wear a significant risk should it go wrong. But introducing it a week before the finals is just silly.
eagleJack
Guest
Terrible "reactive" decision by the ARLC (Gallop would be smiling). I have no issues with this being brought in at seasons end. But one week from the finals is amateur at best.
jdubya
Guest
Getting rid of the shoulder would be a terrible decision. Let AFL be the game for 'safety', Rugby League is a tough game and people get hurt. The shoulder charge is part of it and that should aleays be the case
steve b
Roar Guru
brain damage is forever !