Let's talk about the shoulder charge

At the start of the 2012 season, the shoulder charge was made illegal in Australia and New Zealand. Super League initially resisted but two high profile incidents where Theo Fages was knocked unconscious by Julian Bousquet and Rangi Chase flattened Zak Hardaker (and pressure from the international board) forced a change.

We are approaching 10 years since the change was imposed but an incident in Thursday night's match involving Warrington Wolves and Leigh Centurions has brought an inconsistency in the law's application to light. 

Sitaleki Akauola went on a rampaging charge from a 20 metre drop out and knocked Tyrone McCarthy flying through the air, with a ferocious shoulder charge. Here is the incident, in case you haven't seen it.

SUPER LEAGUE LIVE🏉

A massive collision as Sitaleki Akauola looks to run through Tyrone McCarthy! 😲

📺 WATCH ON: Sky Sports Arena pic.twitter.com/tHZjUu8Gfz

— Sky Sports Rugby League (@SkySportsRL) June 24, 2021

This was not the first incident of this nature involving Akauola. Similar rampaging runs have caused injury to St Helens' Aaron Smith and Hull FC's Scott Taylor in the past. 

Akauola's style has received criticism in some quarters. However, you cannot criticise a player for running into a challenge as hard as they can. That is the sport. If you fail to do it, then you are likely to be on the end of a painful challenge. Your role, especially as a prop forward, is to scatter defenders. Akauola is effective at that.

The Inconsistency

Akauola has commented on this before and has made a salient point: "Where I get a lot of criticism is that people with the ball are allowed to shoulder charge but not those without it".

That is not strictly true. The laws of the game do not differentiate between an attacker or a defender using the shoulder charge. It is illegal for both to do it. However, the law is applied in a way that only defenders are punished for doing so.

The test that I use for whether a law (or, in this case, an application of the law) in rugby league is logical is: "If I explained this law to someone who knew nothing about the sport, would it make sense"? Let's apply this here. We have outlawed defending players from charging with the shoulder because it is dangerous. Yet the same act goes unpunished, simply because an individual is carrying the ball. That makes no sense.

Let's look at Thursday's incident in more detail:

The attacking player leads with the shoulder and makes direct contact with the opponent's head. If the roles were reversed and the defensive player made direct contact with the head using their shoulder, a penalty would be awarded and the player would either have been sin binned or sent off.

Let's take the footage back a couple of frames now:

Look at how the two players approach the tackle. Look at how the attacking player approaches contact, firstly. He initially dips the shoulder and then raises it before making contact with his opponent.

Conversely, look at how the defending player approaches the tackle. As a defender risks punishment ranging from a penalty to a red card for leading with the shoulder, he cannot approach it in the same manner. There is an inequity of arms.

The defending player therefore is left with two options. He can aim for the legs or try and take the man 'ball and all'. For the first option, to avoid injury, your technique must be perfect and your head must be the other side of the opponent's leg to avoid injury. For the second option, the defender is at a substantial risk of taking a blow to the head and suffering an injury.

Tyrone McCarthy, in the split second that he had, chose the second option. This led to his head bearing the brunt of a ferocious contact. Leigh head coach Kurt Haggerty confirmed that McCarthy was 'in a bad way' after the game.

Bring Back the Shoulder Charge?

When introducing or changing a law of the sport, it must be considered whether the change makes the game better and safer. Aspects of the shoulder charge law have worked. For example, we no longer see high shoulder charges being treated as 'fair game' as we once did, despite initial controversy when such an interpretation was introduced.

I have written in the past of how our constant tinkering with the laws can have unintended consequences. This is another example. The banning of the shoulder charge has led to players defending in a more 'front on' manner, leaving the head exposed to contact.

Going back to Thursday's incident. Had McCarthy been permitted to lead with the shoulder and had he chosen to done so, then we would still have seen a thunderous collision that makes the sport what it is but it would have been far safer, if executed correctly.

The well-intended consequence of the banning of the shoulder charge was to protect attacking players, especially half backs, from aggressive high challenges. The unintended consequence was that those same challenges have left defenders vulnerable as they have had to adopt to use an (arguably) more unsafe tackle technique.

Time to Look Again?

On Friday, I asked our Twitter followers whether the attacking player should be permitted to lead with the shoulder and the results were split, leaning slightly towards yes.

I am leaning towards the view that the shoulder charge should be made lawful again for all players. If executed correctly, it is a way of ensuring that players can keep their heads away from heavy contact and reducing the risk of head injuries. Of course, any head high contact with the shoulder should still be punished.

What we cannot continue to allow is a position where the shoulder charge is deemed legal if you are carrying the ball and illegal if you are not. It is time to look again.