Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[eozsmiles]

We have to remember that there are some dumb, clumbsy blokes playing this game. They can't be trusted to catch the ball and they get sidestepped by shadows. It is these blokes who can't be trusted to use a shoulder safely. Now that the evidence is around that head shots f**k your brain, the NRL are naturally covering their arse.

 

[POPEYE]

Refs will need a protractor to judge intent. I'd say Inglis held his arms out in front so they'd bypass the player before his upper torso,
which includes his shoulders, struck. Looks worse from behind when you can see how far apart his arms were, side on would have looked ok.
The question is if a defender doesn't turn sideways is it a shoulder charge. A safe bet on how long the rule will last will depend on how well
players adapt to pretending they're using their arms. For me the interest is how many attacking players with the ball tucked under one arm
will be penalised for turning their shoulder into the head of a defender.

 

[CrazyTiger]

The shoulder charge will be less of an issue once they get all the players off EPO and steroids. Get rid of the big, strong, fit blokes. The shoulder charge won't do much damage when everyone is back to human size.

I was about to post this. Also everyone going on about how it used to be legal in the good old days. In the good old days it was 5m. For all we know there will be a whole host of ex players who will turn into gibbering idiots in the not too distant future down to these massive collisions. God knows what the league would have to shell out for 30 odd players with early onset alzheimers.

 

[Bengal]

We have to remember that there are some dumb, clumbsy blokes playing this game. They can't be trusted to catch the ball and they get sidestepped by shadows.

Looks like an opportune time to introduce a practical intelligence test as condition of entry into the professional ranks of League. Said test may include (1) the ability to know the name of an actual NRL team (2) being able to run several times forwards and backwards without tripping over themselves (3) the ability to actually catch or pass a football (4) the ability to not be spooked by shadows. So on and so on. The criteria can be fluid, ridding the game of as many boof heads as possible is the point.

Now that the evidence is around that head shots f**k your brain, the NRL are naturally covering their arse.

Its fact that contact with a hard surface can hurt people. The harder the contact, the more frequent the contact the more damage that said contact will have on people. That?s fact. This is why children?s playgrounds usually have soft surfaces around areas where contact with the ground is most likely to happen. There?s evidence that shows that headgear and mouth guards don?t do enough to protect people from frequent contact with a hard surface. Henceforth, to use your reasoning, the NRL needs to seriously look to soften all playing surfaces because there is overwhelming evidence that points to the danger that hard surfaces pose to people. Either that or make contact with said hard surface illegal. All sounds a bit silly but the same arguments that are being used to support the outlawing of the shoulder charge can also be used to support the hard surface point. So why one and not the other given that the potential for damage is as great, if not worse with head contact to the ground as it is with head contact from the shoulder!

Oh and why don?t we highlight the real elephant in the room while we?re here - the tackle! The whole process of tackling but especially with attempted tackles around the knee, hip region, some of which, unfortunately, have led to crippling injury and death. No player has died or even being crippled as a result of a shoulder charge, I hear, but same can?t be said about the standard legal tackle. Now what do we do about the tackle?we all know it can be dangerous, there?s overwhelming evidence out there that supports this and every Doctor in the world will tell you it can be dangerous. The same ingredients that have led to banning the shoulder charge are there so now what do we do?.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Its fact that contact with a hard surface can hurt people. The harder the contact, the more frequent the contact the more damage that said contact will have on people. That?s fact. This is why children?s playgrounds usually have soft surfaces around areas where contact with the ground is most likely to happen. There?s evidence that shows that headgear and mouth guards don?t do enough to protect people from frequent contact with a hard surface. Henceforth, to use your reasoning, the NRL needs to seriously look to soften all playing surfaces because there is overwhelming evidence that points to the danger that hard surfaces pose to people. Either that or make contact with said hard surface illegal. All sounds a bit silly but the same arguments that are being used to support the outlawing of the shoulder charge can also be used to support the hard surface point. So why one and not the other given that the potential for damage is as great, if not worse with head contact to the ground as it is with head contact from the shoulder!

Oh and why don?t we highlight the real elephant in the room while we?re here - the tackle! The whole process of tackling but especially with attempted tackles around the knee, hip region, some of which, unfortunately, have led to crippling injury and death. No player has died or even being crippled as a result of a shoulder charge, I hear, but same can?t be said about the standard legal tackle. Now what do we do about the tackle?we all know it can be dangerous, there?s overwhelming evidence out there that supports this and every Doctor in the world will tell you it can be dangerous. The same ingredients that have led to banning the shoulder charge are there so now what do we do?.

There are people in society who would ban rugby league on the grounds that it is too dangerous.

It comes down to what society as a whole deems as an acceptable risk. The games players are subject to Australian law. If society decides you are going to get a ten million dollar payout if you become a gibbering idiot then that is not something they can control.

We live in a society where it is unacceptable for a kid to blow out the candles on a birthday cake at a child care centre. Welcome to the nanny state. Individuals do not assume responsibility for themselves in a nanny state. Get used to it.

 

[Bengal]

We live in a society where it is unacceptable for a kid to blow out the candles on a birthday cake at a child care centre. Welcome to the nanny state. Individuals do not assume responsibility for themselves in a nanny state. Get used to it.

Point is the reasoning behind the ban. The same reasoning behind the ban can extend to most elements of the game. Likewise, what is deemed acceptable risk can also be extended towards the shoulder charge. In League parlance we're dealing with 'interpretations' rather than hard and fast rules.

 

[WayneBennett]

The game is so bloody sanitised now.

 

[Usain Bolt]

Hey guys listen to East Coast Tiger, he knows more about head injuries than doctors

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Hey guys listen to East Coast Tiger, he knows more about head injuries than doctors

 

[SuperiorEasts]

The only reason the shoulder charge is banned is cause SBW is back in the NRL and they want to limit his potential.

It is all a conspiracy against Easts cause the refs don't want us to win premiership 13. But we will anyway, SBW has more tools in his arsenal than just the shoulder charge.

Don't fret, it will be back when SBW returns to union, it just depends on whether that is 2013 or 2014.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Hey guys listen to East Coast Tiger, he knows more about head injuries than doctors

How many head injuries are caused by tackles and knocks other than shoulder charges? So lets ban all tackles. Moron.

This ludicrous argument comes up time and time again from the same thick dickheads. Contact with the head is already banned under the rules. I bet some doctors don't even realise that because they are not rugby league players or officials, which is why their opinions are not the be all and end all. The same doctors will probably want all tackles banned next because there is a risk of injury with all of them.

 

[adamkungl]

The people who made this decision should be booted from the game forever. And shot.

qft

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Doctors still send injured players out. I've said that time and time and time again. We're supposed to not have an argument and just fold in the face of the fact that doctors know better and have player interest at heart. But they've shown enough times its money first.

The biggest problem and health risk in the game is not that concussions occur, but that they're frequently ignored and doctors will send out people with serious brain drama back out on the field, or not even take them off the field in the first place.

If the goal is really health then a lot more needs to be done on that front. But I wonder how happy bunniesman would be if 3 of his star players were sidelined for 3+ weeks each because they were concussed in a game.

A lot of people talking the health talk but won't walk the walk. Asking them to take their arugment to its logical conclusion is too much, East Coast. Their brains do not function coherently enough to expect that of them.

 

[magpie4ever]

Doctors still send injured players out. I've said that time and time and time again. We're supposed to not have an argument and just fold in the face of the fact that doctors know better and have player interest at heart. But they've shown enough times its money first.

The biggest problem and health risk in the game is not that concussions occur, but that they're frequently ignored and doctors will send out people with serious brain drama back out on the field, or not even take them off the field in the first place.

If the goal is really health then a lot more needs to be done on that front. But I wonder how happy bunniesman would be if 3 of his star players were sidelined for 3+ weeks each because they were concussed in a game.

A lot of people talking the health talk but won't walk the walk. Asking them to take their arugment to its logical conclusion is too much, East Coast. Their brains do not function coherently enough to expect that of them.

FFS baby eater - just give it a break. Vote and be done with it, you have a real intelligent partner in crime with East Coast Tiger, not.

 

[Bulldog Force]

One shoulder charge yesterday, that was more of a defensive reflex. If this is what we're in for all season, it's going to be a pretty boring one.

 

[magpie4ever]

One shoulder charge yesterday, that was more of a defensive reflex. If this is what we're in for all season, it's going to be a pretty boring one.

What you couldn't get a stiffy, hey.:lol:

 

[Jason Maher]

FMD, BM all for it, BF dead against it. How is anyone meant to form an opinion in such circumstances?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

FFS baby eater - just give it a break. Vote and be done with it, you have a real intelligent partner in crime with East Coast Tiger, not.

As opposed to the kind of person who says something and puts "not" on the end.

What a f**king genius.

 

[Fire]

It'll be back in the 2014 season.

Inglis is a protected species.

lol@BM in this thread, typing essays and shit. State your opinion and leave the thread like normal folk do lol

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

FFS baby eater - just give it a break. Vote and be done with it, you have a real intelligent partner in crime with East Coast Tiger, not.

Losing count of the number of times you've ducked the issue, now.

Whenever you're confronted with a logical argument, you and your buddies take to hiding, or wheeling out fallacies.

Everything I've said about post-concussion treatment is bang on the money. You can bring in as many rules as you like to try and prevent concussions before they happen, but unless you're prepared to deal with them properly after they happen, then the effort is futile.

The doctors that are being fallaciously(appeal to authority) used by people like Usain Bolt to end the argument, yes, they're the same doctors who won't stand up and protect players. Yes, some of them are the same doctors who'll have administered illegal substance to players if initial reports on the drug scandal are anything to go by.

The doctors are passing the buck and their support of the shoulder charge ban is not an argument ender. They support a change of the rules, of course they support a change of the rules, because that's easier than them having some moral fibre and doing their job.

You know as well as me that club doctors will be turning a blind eye to concussed players in 2013, just as they do every other year.

Now if you have some sort of counter-argument or disagreement with that then by all means please make it, because you haven't yet.