It is blatant that the NRL is neither serious nor genuine in its attempt to stamp the shoulder charge out of the game.
The handling of the latest incident involving Wests Tigers forward, Bodene Thompson, is testament to that.
Thompson, in his team’s Round 5 loss to the Melbourne Storm, performed an act commonly known as ‘grass cutting’ on Storm five-eighth, Gareth Widdop, as he kicked the ball.
This illegal play wasn’t only a grass cut, but a shoulder charge with the potential to cause serious injury.
The on-field officials completely missed it, failing to place Thompson on report, instead penalising Billy Slater for being offside in the very same play.
The Tigers second rower was eventually charged with dangerous contact on a kicker after the Match Review Committee acknowledged the illegal play and possible subsequent injury.
Thompson’s acceptance of an early guilty plea will see him miss one game. One game, for what could have caused the victim of his recklessness an entire season.
The approach the NRL has taken has been reactive, to say the least.
There is no doubt that if a shoulder charge caused a serious injury, the aggressor would cop a lengthy suspension. However, because no injury occurred, a one-week ban is all we see.
The time has come for fans, media, ex-players and even current players and coaches to stop demanding the shoulder charge be reinstated into rugby league.
The NRL made the decision to ban the shoulder charge. The RLIF followed suit and has banned the act internationally.
It is now a spectacular play of yesteryear and will not be back. Not in a legal capacity, anyway.
The rule change, while removing a much-loved part of the spectacle of the game, is about protecting the players. Research now shows such contact can result in memory loss, other brain-related medical issues and possible death.
The players need and deserve to be protected. They are the product, the life blood of this great game.
If the NRL is serious about eradicating the shoulder charge from the game, a proactive approach was needed from the moment Dylan Farrell put boot to ball and kicked off the 2013 season.
Thompson isn’t the only player who can consider himself lucky the judiciary are not yet aptly suspending players for shoulder charge offences.
The judiciary missed their first chance to stamp authority on this aspect of the game following the Round 3 Gold Coast v Manly clash.
It was in this game that Manly’s Richie Fa’aoso blindsided Ashley Harrison with a late shoulder charge – a charge that should never have been downgraded.
Manly argued that the grading was too harsh, claiming that the contact was an ‘accidental’ head clash. The judiciary, accepting this joke of a defence, gave Fa’aoso a meagre one match ban.
Geoff Toovey, who is rarely happy with a call the NRL makes unless it benefits his team, insisted on an overhaul of the NRL judiciary’s grading system.
To put the charge into perspective, Brisbane Broncos captain, Sam Thaiday, copped the same consequence for grabbing a referee’s shirt.
This makes a mockery of the entire judicial process.
Yes, Thaiday should have had his one week on the sideline, but Richie’s holiday on the bench should have been longer.
His shoulder charge, whether the head clash was ‘accidental’ or not, was the direct cause of Harrison’s concussion.
When a defender’s arms are tucked in with his shoulder braced, it’s pretty damn hard to not align his head with the ball carrier’s. When a defender’s body is tensed, ready for an impact not unlike being hit by a fridge, it’s near impossible to move quickly enough to avoid a pending head collision.
A legal tackle now stipulates the defender’s arms wrap the attacker on impact. Good technique also requires the head of the tackler to be manipulated to the tackling side, thus reducing the chances of a head or neck injury to the defender himself, let alone the ball carrier.
Had Fa’aoso attempted a legal tackle, the chances of the sickening head collision would have been significantly reduced.
I challenge the NRL judiciary to prove that the safety of the players is paramount and throw the book at the player who next commits a dangerous shoulder charge on his adversary.
A one week holiday is weak.
The NRL needs to stop with the talk and act.
Tim
Guest
That s a bit rough. The rookie is commenting on the rule and its seemingly arbitrary application of the rule during game time and in the judicial process. Please debate the topic
Stu
Guest
Don't they really need to create another category. Shoulder charge cat 1: no contact with the head Shoulder charge cat 2: contact with the head, shoulder charge cat 3: contact with the head or otherwise that causes the player tackled serious injury or/alternatively, a premeditated/malicious shoulder charge (such as Sandow's efforts in the opening rounds). Luming them in with dangerous contact etc is not sufficient. The judiciary then have to compare apples with oranges i.e. swinging arms to shoulders.
Gareth
Roar Pro
"There is no doubt that if a shoulder charge caused a serious injury, the aggressor would cop a lengthy suspension." Like a fractured orbit? Or a concussion? I understand that the NRL have now closed the "loophole" of incidental contact, but I'm not sure the degree of injury sways them in any way. I'm not sure what it would take for the toothless judiciary to impose a fair sentence. It'd have to be from a player who is grubby enough to have a reputation for it, but not good enough to be above the law. Travis Burns is long gone, Paul Gallen is a martyr, the Storm boys are canonised, who's left? Maybe Luke O'Donnell? In any case, they'll eventually find someone to "make an example of" and they'll cop 12 weeks in the same week that an origin superstar gets 1 week for something much worse.
turbodewd
Guest
I agree that the shoulder charge should not have been banned. HOWEVER if there is any significant contact with the ball carrier's head - whether accidental or not - the shoulder charger should get several weeks.
Mark Tickner
Roar Rookie
So are you trying to argue that 15% of conventional tackles involve swinging arms? Of course a player is more likely to cop a regulation high shot than a shoulder charge to the head, as most tackles in a game are conventional. Basic probability tells you that. However, it's all about the potential that it has to cause damage. A shoulder to the head contains a lot more force than a swinging arm to the head. Just beause it's a contact sport doesn't mean players should expect to get hit in the head every so often. There's nothing tough about taking a shot to the head.
Mark Tickner
Roar Rookie
You are correct in saying they had a chance with Slater, however, it was always going to be a tough one to rule on. Winterstein was falling and Slater's contact was more with his hip than his shoulder. I am aware of why Thaiday spent time on the sideline and his loading. The grab is still what pushed him over the line to get the one week.
Dave
Guest
Sounds like oikee still hasn't got over the flogging Manly gave the Brisbane geldings in round one. Haha.
eagleJack
Guest
3 men in the tackle? Slowing down the ruck? Shock horror oikee you are onto something. You should write a letter to the 15 other coaches and suggest they start trying it. Cause right now no other side in the comp is doing this except Manly.
oikee
Guest
I was filthy that Fa'aoso got less time than Ashley Harrison. It just goes to show that the point of banning shoulder charges because of the head to head damage it was causing was not quite right. They have now made head to head contact part of the charge so the next time a player shoulders and knocks some player out, he will be charged for the head to head contact. Toovey's explanation of the shoulder charge was typical of a guy who had taken too many headknocks himself as a ex=player. He had no "duty of care" whatsoever for the player knocked out, only for his own players. This is what the game is trying to stamp out, the attitude of coaches and ex-players who have no idea about the bigger picture, the worldwide class action against sportsmen and women who get injured or brain damage from playing a sport they love. I was disappointed in Toovey's press conference, and he should not have a voice when it comes to situations like this, head trama. He also made the whole process seem amatuer, in which the loop-hole he found had to be closed for the safety of the game and the possiblity of later in life brain damage to players in which Toovey seemed to show no care at all. I see he is now under investigation by ASADA. I just hope he is as helpful to them as he was to getting his player off for causing head trama to another teams player and fighting so vigorisly to get him off on some minor technicality. I would also like to point out to everyone Manly's boring slow down the play tactics of 3 men into every tackle. This team is so plastic, they will probably try to blame the storm for this as well.
SuperEel22
Roar Guru
Last season less than 1% of all tackles attempted in the NRL were shoulder charges. 15% of those shoulder charges made contact in a dangerous manner. Rugby League is a contact game. You are more likely to be hit with a swinging arm in a conventional tackle than you are to be hit in the head with a shoulder charge. This research you refer to be has been peddled by the NRL but not conducted by the NRL. They keep using statistics from the NFL. Up until 2 years ago NFL players were legally permitted to lead with their head in effecting a tackle. Bit hard to compare the 2 when the rules of one game allow players to practically concuss themselves. If you don't want to see tough nuts go head to head then go watch AFL.
eagleJack
Guest
Actually Manly's defence was built around the fact that Billy Slater had knocked Antonio Winterstein out with a shoulder charge in Rd 2 but he only received a Grade 1 and received zero weeks. Fa'aoso received a Grade 3 so a downgrade was always going to occur. So in fact the Test case for the shoulder charge where the NRL had a chance to stamp their authority was in Rd 2. And also the reason Thaiday spent a week on the sidelines was due to prior offences and that he had 20% loading. Luke Bailey was charged with the same offence but did no time due to his clean record. Therefore a simple "grabbing of the refs shirt" does not usually warrant any time on the sidelines If you are going to write about the judiciary and compare instances atleast cover it correctly.
Chris morrison
Guest
The only thing that is weak is you. Shoulder charge is fine. There is no more force from a shoulder charge then a conventional tackle. Rule should never have been changed. All they had to do was police the existing rule of defenders not to attack the head. Only reason they changed it was to give players a chance when they made a line break against south Sydney. Otherwise the would have ended up like dean young, SMASHED by immortal Greg Inglis