Consequences of the shoulder charge must be discussed

There is nothing tough about a shoulder charge! 1 - Nine times out of Ten the ball carrier is looking the other way so does not even suspect the hit that is about to come 2 - Having played a lot of Rugby and Rugby League, it takes a lot more courage to put a hit on using the point of your shoulder and your arms than turning your body side on and basically bumping them with basically your hip and shoulder

If they want to provide a safe workplace, why do they continue to let Matai off, who continually hits cheap shots to players heads. They wontr ever be taken seriously until they crack down on the swinging arm, forget the shoulder charge. These employees, these people running them game are clueless. Players are knocked out from swinging arms, are they blind. A hit to the jaw knocks you out, this is a head shot, your jaw is part of your head, a sudden jolt can knock you rotten, ask any boxer. Matai will do the same again early next year, you all heard it here, i said it last time he did the same thing and they simple let him off, let him walk scott free. The game and people running the game are jokes, and listen to commentators like Joey and Freddie, play-on, play-on. Matai did not even bother to check if Merrit was ok , he picked up the ball he had dropped and tried to run away. This guy is a lunatic. A loose cannon. When he hurts someone i do hope they sue his backside off him. He should be in a cage.

I also think they do not want to say anything against for fear of being pereived as soft. - which would be completely unfair, no player in the nrl is soft, but the first to comment against the charge would run a risk

Noel, The case law is clear - as the players employer, they have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. If they dont, and someone is hurt and killed, then if they are reckless and negligent about it by, say, refusing to take action on fixing a known safety problem, then the directors could go to jail.

Its actually worse than "don't do anything". By making it apparently safer, helmets lead to more brain damage. Ban head shots. Ban helmets. Ban head-butts.

As far as I am concerned the shoulder charge should be banned effective yesterday because of the following; .1.When and if [God forbid] a shoulder charge goes horribly wrong just who does the tackled player sue via the legal system. .2.Should and again [God forbid] that any player being on the wrong end of the shoulder gone wrong and suffers consequential physical and physcogical problems again where is there the possibility of legal redress as to the future costs of assisting this player with ever increasing health care costs? .3.Are we to see a repeat of the State of Origin where a player sued through the legal system, but was criticised via the commentators of the day when they continually harped the message, 'what happened on the field stays on the field" and I believe that the two protaganists on this occasions were Les Boyd from New South Wales and Daryl Brohman from Queensland. .4.Just what responsibility will the recently formed ARLC take for any mental and or physical problems encountered by any current and or future rugby league as a direct and or indirect result of a shoulder charge gone wrong? .5. What if any responsibility will the ARLC take for any player tccept should any player either current or in the future take for such players being so physoligically damaged from this form of tackle that they could be declared not respoinsible for their actions. Which means that they were so intellictually impaired as a result of this tackle gone wrong, just who is deemed responsible, and more importantly there may be an extra victim of this tackle which should be banned yesterday.

The NRL doesn't help the situation in the way it promotes the game either, as eaglejack states below. It's part of a culture that needs to change and the NRL and the ARLC needs be proactive and on the front foot. TV shows like NRL on Fox love promoting it too, with their hit of the week segment, as much as I love that show.

I admit Steve, I used to be one of those keyboard warriors...but now common sense is finally penetrating my thickish skull. Ever since the discourse with yourself, Mushi and Jimbo the other day(Luke Doherty's article on shoulder charges) I have really looked deeply into this and I concede that the NRL is laying the land mines for a problematic future full of litigation, which will become an expensive public relations nightmare...it's not too far down the track either. Having played rugby league as a youngster, I got smashed more times than I care to remember, but I was lucky in that I was never the recipient of a damaging high shot. I don't think that anyone can argue that a well timed shoulder doesn't look spectacular, but the variables and associated risks far outweigh any aesthetically pleasing aspects of this defensive manoeuvre. But that's what I love about the roar...a well constructed, intelligent comment can change your opinion on an issue that you never thought you could change. Anyone who isn't yet convinced about the future of the shoulder charge needs to read the following link: http://monash.edu/monashmag/features/clear-heads-needed-on-concussion-in-sport.html I do find it interesting though that a majority of players don't want to see it gone. I guess amongst the playing ranks, they still value the shoulder charge as a game changer.

Ban swinging arms, these are the tackles that cause most the damage. The shoulder charge is not the problem, if your shoulder hits a players head, that is the problem. Tougher penalties, and the callers like Johns and Fittler have to stop saying it is ok to get hit in the head. Its not ok, it can cause brain damage fools.

Maybe rugby league should move to gridiron style helmets or some form of advanced helmet. And some sort of padding for the throat too.

I'm a Manly fan and quite frankly I'm sick of Matai. For whatever good he does, he ruins it with stupid penalties, and spends a lot of time off the field with suspension. He's a grubby player and a distraction, and its annoying to watch.

Steve b.......I think it will take an injured player getting a smart lawyer and suing the player who committed the offence and the ARLC before it is banned. Money is the only thing that talks these days.

thats nine issue i think arlc are moving to impose heavier bans on head injuries. and way to inforce it during play is for play to continue and the tackle count reset. either way the arlc are not going to have a vote on it, they will just take it a way.

if you hit a players head, ban them. its not just shoulder charges as the manly game showed grubby elbows and high shots are also dangerous, equally in rugby league you will never be able to completely avoid head clashes of an accidental nature like ritchie faoso in the storm game. which looked horrendous.

A major issue is that the game loves promoting the shoulder charge. On one hand they speak about ridding it from the game, the dangers it exposes the players to etc. But then on the other hand the shoulder charge features heavily in TV promos. On Fri night Channel 9 put together a hits of the year package. Showcasing the "toughness" of the sport. From memory I counted 3 hits they showed that earnt the tackler a suspension. There could have been more. Pritchards shoulder on Simmons. Te'os hit on Groat. And of course Inglis's hit on Young which they showed twice. Now I realise this was a channel 9 package and they are independent from the ARLC. But surely there must be efforts made from both parties to not to throw out mixed messages. Right now what they are saying is: "If a shoulder charge goes wrong you will spend 4 weeks on the sideline but the hit will feature heavily in our 2013 ad campaign".

I agree with richie on Steve Matai. He get made to look a fool by a opposing player so the next tackle he takes their head off. He has been doing it for yrs. remember the hit on gasnier in the test??? I was thinking the same thing huge suspension and send him overseas. The poms can have him