If Christian Grey is every mini/mod rugby league mum’s billionaire fantasy, then the NRL is the unmarked white van hanging around Abercrombie Street outside Sydney University.
There are any number of grey areas in the laws of the game – stripping the ball, obstruction, blockers, markers – which is why the NRL Referee Guidelines (or ‘Interpretations’) are in place.
In the digital age of slow-motion replays they are a necessary evil in the eyes of many fans, because since the laws were written in 1895 and the game has moved on a bit.
Which brings us to the darkest shade of grey in the game – the shoulder charge.
If a kaleidoscope could exist without colour, then grey pictures of NRL players spinning around would abound.
Since being outlawed three years ago, the shoulder charge has been a difficult rule to police for on-field match officials. If differs significantly from the old-fashioned stiff arm high contact, because in a shoulder charge the bodies hit each other in a collision – which is part of every tackle in the game – yet there is no exposed limb to view contact on the opponent.
With a high tackle the officials would see an arm out in a swinging or tackling motion, and with high contact there is a noticeable and immediate impact on the tackled player’s head. Specifically, the head gets rocked back (with players in an upright stance) or the head’s momentum is stopped in an instant (with players whose body position is nearer the horizontal).
(Of course I’m referring to my experience as a touch judge, where I see a side-on view of the tackle. The two referees have a front-on view which has its own disadvantages and the video referee has the advantage of slowing down the replay to see the point of contact.)
However, the shoulder charge is an entirely different beast. Players from the age of six are taught to tackle with their shoulder, so it is no surprise that we are running into trouble in the year 2015.
The critical point that the NRL has adopted is that, upon contact, where there is no tackling movement of the arm (i.e. the arm is tucked by the side of the tackler) then the impact will be deemed a shoulder charge.
That’s it, black and white. Or is it?
Judging by the charges that came out of the Round 23 matches and the three players who were exonerated by the NRL judiciary, the matter is far from black and white. The entrancing image of Christian Grey and his erotic treatment of his concubine has been replaced by an overweight bald guy in the white van you’re more likely to see on an episode of Law and Order: SVU.
Our problems stemmed from the match review committee’s reluctance to charge the Roosters’ Kane Evans for a spectacular Round 22 hit on the Bulldogs’ Sam Kasiano. A collision which ticked every box for a shoulder charge was deemed outside the scope of the guidelines the committee were presented with, so it was given a ‘written warning’ instead of a grading.
The fallout from this ill-judged circumstance was for NRL CEO Dave Smith to step into territory that even Mark Latham feared to tread – announcing a change of policy via Twitter.
What followed is now history, with Jorge Taufua bracing for collision with Jack Wighton attracting a two-week suspension and the crime sensibly being thrown out the following Wednesday. The same result was seen with the other two players who challenged the match review committee at the judiciary.
I’m not sure where we are with the shoulder charge. The NRL’s hierarchy, the match review committee and the judiciary (comprised of respected former players) need to be using the same guidelines.
My own opinion has been tempered by the tragic death of Queensland Cup player James Ackerman.
I was originally an opponent of banning the shoulder charge, but seeing the lethal impact it can have in a rugby league game and depriving a young family of their father is enough for me to jump into the ‘outlaw’ camp.
If a shoulder charge has been detected then it should be penalised, and that is the end of the section. Coaches, who don’t tolerate penalties in yardage sections of the field where shoulder contact occurs anyway, will stop selecting players who use the ploy and thereby gradually eliminate it.
However, if a shoulder charge results in contact with a player’s head or neck, start with a suspension of 10 weeks and grade it upwards from there. We’ll then soon see the risk outweigh the reward by such a significant margin that players simply won’t take the risk.
As it stands, what are we likely to see this weekend? You can be sure of one thing: there will be charges out of Round 25 and in a fortnight we’re into the finals series, where the stakes are much higher.
The shoulder charge is very difficult to detect by the officials and some are missed every week. Jordan Rapana is suspended because of one and it wasn’t even picked up by anybody on the ground when it happened.
The shades of grey within the shoulder charge have not been coloured black or white. It is still inside a nondescript van with not a helicopter, yacht, or limousine in sight.
In fact, you’re best off not even worrying about Jamie Dornan as Christian Grey at all – go and watch him in the excellent BBC series The Fall.
You’ll get plenty of ropes and vans there, with a lot more than a shoulder charge to make your skin crawl.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
What a silly comment Womblat. Are you seriously suggesting that player welfare be ignored because "if they didn't want to get hurt, they wouldn't be playing?" We're not talking about a corked thigh or a bruised knee here, Womblat. We're talking about players suffering catastrophic injuries, such as paralysis or even being killed. The NRL has every obligation to ensure its players are not irreversibly injured or killed while playing RL. If ensuring people don't die is 'hysterically PC,' I'd hate to see what passes for 'offensive' in your world. Perhaps its PC that rally car drivers wear seatbelts and helmets. After all, if they wanted to truly minimise risk, they wouldn't be racing in the first place. It's a free world. On that note, lets begin allowing head high tackles in Rugby league, and stomping, and eye-gouging and spear tackles... after all, if people want to play a contact sport and accept the risks involved, let them It's a free world.
Jamieson Murphy
Roar Guru
Over the last few rounds players have been charged for "accidental" shoulder charges (Jorge Taufua comes to mind). Even though it may be an accident, it shouldn't be exempt - accidental crusher tackles are still penalised and put on report. And I think the reason there have been so many shoulder charge incidents in the last few rounds is because the refs are actively looking for them. If someone told you to look for all the blue cars as you drive home from work, I'm sure you'd notice more than you normally do.
Womblat
Guest
"Minimise the risk" equals "don't play" Dan. It's a contact sport. It can only be watered down so much before it becomes a non-contact sport. They already exist, and they have their own followers. If people want to play a contact sport and accept the risks involved, then let them. It's a free world. Or it used to be before the hysterical PC risk minimisation brigade stole all the fun out of it. And they won't stop until it's touch footy. They are talking about a breakaway comp. Great, lets do it, and shoulder charges, punching and old style aggression is allowed. My sport will decimate this pathetic watered down giggle-fest within two weeks.
Tim Gore
Expert
And the winner for best opening line analogy in a rugby league article goes to.... DAN EASTWOOD for "If Christian Grey is every mini/mod rugby league mum’s billionaire fantasy, then the NRL is the unmarked white van hanging around Abercrombie Street outside Sydney University."
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Ironically, probably the most textbook case of a dangerous shoulder-charge was Kane Evans's hit on Kasiano, and it went unpunished. But I agree that the definition needs to be tightened.
pete bloor
Guest
It does feel like in an attempt to make up for the Kane Evans miss we've started going crazy (partly due to media pressure to be fair) but in reality there isn't a judicial system in the world that is 100% consistent.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Definitely. One thing the last couple of weeks has shown and in line with Dans shades of grey theme is that there are many types if shoulder charge. None of the ones I've seen so far have involved anyone running in at full pace and cocking the shoulder. Eg Mason and Guerra
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Good comment Parra.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Surely in all of this the real issue is contact with the head/neck ... however it occurs. Why then, do we not simply move to a situation where any action (and recognising the need to separate out genuinely accidental contact) that results in contact with the head resulting in very severe sanction? In this way, we can move away from the current ridiculousness of "high contact", "dangerous throw", "first point of contact", "shoulder charge", etc. and simply introduce a charge of "endangering the head and/or neck of an opponent". Such a charge could result in immediate referral to the judiciary with very few defences available and very severe penalties. It is only through the simplification of the rules that we will get consistency.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Hey Baz, I can recall that the NRL employed some form of 'experts' when deciding to ban the shoulder charge, so I'm guessing there is a certain amount of data that demonstrates increased risk. I think you are certainly on the mark that players today are bigger, stronger and faster and so the collisions involved with a shoulder charge can be more damaging than ever before. While you are right that a 'Plum-style" tackle can result in whiplash, the difference between that kind of front on collision and a shoulder charge is the speed involved. To tackle a player front-on usually involves leaning slightly forward and pulling up slightly just before impact, so the speed is reduced. With a shoulder charge, you remain upright and don't have to pull up. You can just keep running at the man with the ball at full speed so the level of impact is much greater. It is also worth noting that Plum has himself had to retire early due to repeated concussion injuries. I know we are never going to agree on the Shoulder charge ban and we've argued it to death, but I think we can at least both agree that there needs to be a better system for ruling on shoulder-charges and more consistent punishment.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That's my whole point...do we know that it will even reduce the risk? It certainly won't make it minimal. If the logic process is shoulder charge = fatality = ban shoulder charge. What happens if the next fatality comes from a legal, jolting front on hit?
Dan Eastwood
Expert
It won't solve the problem, Barry, but it will minimise the risk. We cannot play the sport and still guard against every possible injury or incident resulting in fatality.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Agreed 100% Parrafan...
Parrafan
Guest
I think the shoulder charge has been blown out of proportion. I think most people agree with it being ruled out. I think we have come a long way in stamping the shoulder charge out of our game. We made the wrong decision with Kane Evans, but we need to move on. But now we have something we don't need, being a knee jerk reaction from the administration making up new interpretations on the fly. Especially when Greenburg, the Match Review Committee and the Judiciary are all on different pages. It creates confusion and makes us look like amateurs. I think your 10 week ban suggestion is ridiculous in circumstances where spear tackles, contact with the head and throwing tackles receive much less.
The Barry
Roar Guru
There are a number of eye witnesses who have confirmed its a shoulder charge so I don't think it's any sort of a conspiracy. However Womblat has a half point. James passed away after a shoulder charge and apparently as a result of a whiplash effect rather than head contact. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he died because of the shoulder charge. Nigel Plum's highlight feel shows plenty of players getting whiplash but not a shoulder charge in site. People get whiplash in car accidents (I've had it myself) and don't die from it. I read originally that he died from a similar injury as Phil Hughes - that an artery in his brain was crushed. I don't know if that's the case because I haven't read it since but the mechanisms of injury of getting hit with a blunt object and receiving a whiplash injury are very different. There are still some unanswered questions about James Ackermans tragic passing. What was it about this particular man and this particular tackle that led to a fatality when literally thousands of similar men have received thousands of similar tackles that haven't resulted in tragedy? And this goes way beyond the shoulder charge. What if this sort of injury is now more likely because of the increasing size and strength of players? What if this type of injury can be caused by a jolting Nigel Plum style front on tackle as a shoulder charge? What if there's a certain type of physiology that makes someone more susceptible to this type of injury? Banning shoulder charge was a band aid solution that doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
Dan Eastwood
Expert
Womblat, no I did not see the incident. I am relying on those 'handful' who did see it such as his brother Andrew. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/shoulder-charge-must-remain-banned2c-says-ackerman27s-brother/6676576 There would be video of the tackle that the QRL has and out of respect to the family I don't think anyone else needs to see it.
Womblat
Guest
So you saw the Ackerman incident Dan? You know for a fact it was a shoulder charge (as distinct from a high tackle, pre-existing injury or medical condition, or some other tragic occurrence) that did the damage? Or are you just believing what you've been told.. like everyone else? Nothing but the highest respect to James in saying this... but that incident has been swept up and hidden away completely. The facts are known by a handful who are silent. At the same time, it is totally relied upon to support this decision that affects everyone. Think about it. Why hide it if it actually helps you? Cover it up, then spread the opinion you want. And the sheep will believe it and get behind you. I'm sick of people raising the Ackerman incident in the same sentence as shoulder charges when they have no idea it was a shoulder charge that did the damage. That is nothing but conjecture. Mindless, and worse, naivety begging to be exploited. And guess what? It's only a conspiracy theory if it's wrong. Can someone set me straight?
cdd
Guest
Since the shoulder charge has been banned I changed from watching around 30 full NRL games per year to currently about 10. I didn''t plan that. I just get bored. I often find myself surfing the internet while the match is playing. And I'm not going to the stadium anymore. Basically, my spending for Rugby League has dropped to zero.
Onballer
Guest
"There are any number of grey areas in the laws of the game – stripping the ball, obstruction, blockers, markers – which is why the NRL Referee Guidelines (or ‘Interpretations’) are in place." We'll all playing and watching NFL instead of league soon so none of that will matter. The NRL will become an off season subsiduary of the NFL.for American tv