What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

Should the Shoulder Charge be banned?

  • Total voters
    346
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
El Diablo said:
nah

you're an idiot


a recent innovation :lol:
Click to expand...

Ok dude, tell me your earliest recollection of seeing a shoulder charge of TV? Then I'll will tell you mine.

I not saying there was not one previous but it was more a reflect action by the tackler not a deliberate offensive action.

Your call:)
 
Masoe_eats_babies

Masoe_eats_babies

Juniors
Messages
2,364
Parra said:
Helmets are part of the problem in NFL.

For league it would more likely mean removal of high-risk moves - like shoulder charges. Already been done for spear tackles, lifting tackles and dangerous positions.

Mandatory use of mouthguards and soft-headgear would also help a lot.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. There is no evidence, and I welcome anyone to try demonstrate otherwise, which shows shoulder charges are the problem

Go watch the games, rip the footage and look at the tackles. Shoulder charges have f**k-all to do with it. That's an absolute myth, spread by unionites.

For a start the tackled player is very rarely concussed. The bulk of concussions are to the tackler, and the 2 main causes of this are defending on any sort of play with players running the ball at the line with ferocious speed(goal line dropouts, kick returns) and form tackles(players getting low and trying to tackle around the knee or hip)

Shoulder charges have little to do with concussions, and usually when they do it's when they're high shots in the first place, which are already illegal.

It's a myth, an absolute myth, that shoulder charges are at fault. Concussions caused by illegal shoulder charges(those that are high) are brought to media attention, which paints a very deceptive picture about where the problem lies.

You'd reduce concussions much more dramatically if you banned tackles below the waist
 
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Masoe_eats_babies said:
Not true at all. There is no evidence, and I welcome anyone to try demonstrate otherwise, which shows shoulder charges are the problem

Go watch the games, rip the footage and look at the tackles. Shoulder charges have f**k-all to do with it. That's an absolute myth, spread by unionites.

For a start the tackled player is very rarely concussed. The bulk of concussions are to the tackler, and the 2 main causes of this are defending on any sort of play with players running the ball at the line with ferocious speed(goal line dropouts, kick returns) and form tackles(players getting low and trying to tackle around the knee or hip)

Shoulder charges have little to do with concussions, and usually when they do it's when they're high shots in the first place, which are already illegal.

It's a myth, an absolute myth, that shoulder charges are at fault. Concussions caused by illegal shoulder charges(those that are high) are brought to media attention, which paints a very deceptive picture about where the problem lies.

You'd reduce concussions much more dramatically if you banned tackles below the waist
Click to expand...

Now, you want to ban the low tackle. :roll: Send me to Mars, what is happening in the world, the legends of league will be turning in their graves. What is the game becoming.:eek:
 
Kurt Angle

Kurt Angle

First Grade
Messages
9,658
Shoulder charges recent? Not only did I play when shoulder charges were used, my dad in 62 years old, and played for South Newcastle as a teenager. He remembers shoulder charges.
 
Parra

Parra

Referee
Messages
24,900
Masoe_eats_babies said:
Not true at all. There is no evidence, and I welcome anyone to try demonstrate otherwise, which shows shoulder charges are the problem

Go watch the games, rip the footage and look at the tackles. Shoulder charges have f**k-all to do with it. That's an absolute myth, spread by unionites.

For a start the tackled player is very rarely concussed. The bulk of concussions are to the tackler, and the 2 main causes of this are defending on any sort of play with players running the ball at the line with ferocious speed(goal line dropouts, kick returns) and form tackles(players getting low and trying to tackle around the knee or hip)

Shoulder charges have little to do with concussions, and usually when they do it's when they're high shots in the first place, which are already illegal.

It's a myth, an absolute myth, that shoulder charges are at fault. Concussions caused by illegal shoulder charges(those that are high) are brought to media attention, which paints a very deceptive picture about where the problem lies.

You'd reduce concussions much more dramatically if you banned tackles below the waist
Click to expand...


It is the risk associated with the shoulder charge that is the main issue, not the result of a legit hit. You could use exactly the same argument to legitimise spear tackles. After all, the vast majority of spear tackles resulted in no injury at all.

The most often provided excuse for a high shot is the "shoulder charge gone wrong". And they do go wrong. Often enough that most players don't do them. In nearly every case where a big collision results the shoulder charge is a cheap shot. They only work when a player is blindsided, otherwise they are easy to evade.
 
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Ok, we all know that the potential for a shoulder charge in league has been around since Adam was selected as fullback for the Paradise Inn first XIII.

But previously, the shoulder charge was used as a body check as a defensive ploy by a tackler; the modern day shoulder charge is used as an offensive ploy by a defender.

In league (and in any contact sport) there will always be the odd concussion where a player is knocked out from a high tackle, accidental head clash or placing their head in the wrong spot when attempting a tackle. You will never stop concussions occurring in league but can try to minimise these by punishing players who illegally cause such concussions.

My concern with the modern day shoulder charge used as an offensive ploy by the tackler is the likelihood of subconcussions occurring to the tackled player.

So what are subconcussions? This occurs when the head goes into a whiplash action: back and forward or side to side. This causes the brain to be jarred around in the skull, basic bouncing into the sides of the skull.

So what is my concern with subconcussions? I have spoken to a number of boxing trainers regarding why a number of boxers seemingly retire fully functional but within a short period of time (a short number of years) suffer with what can best be described as the ‘punch drunk’ syndrome. The best explanation I can give for their responses are: the straight knock out is not the major concern (although not helpful), it is the 20 or so seemingly harmless jabs a boxer receives every round that causes the head to whiplash backward and forward (the brain bouncing around) creating these subconcussions; these cause continual damage to the brain – basically chipping away parts of the brain or bruising it.

You will never stop the full on concussions in a contact sport like rugby league, the best you can do is try to minimise them. What can be stop is the majority of subconcussions caused by the offensive shoulder charge by banning it.

Don’t believe me: check out the Matt Groat – Ben Tio shoulder charge. Yeah, Ben got him flush on the chin (and deserved to be suspended) and Matt was immediately knocked out but count how many times Matt’s head goes through the whiplash motion before he finally hits the ground; multiple – each movement is causing a subconcussion in the brain. Now, even if Ben got him say 10 centimetres lower so the shoulder charge (under the current rules) was not illegal, Matt would not have suffered a concussion (wouldn’t have been knocked out) but the whiplash effect would still have occurred causing the numerous subconcussions.

As many a boxing trainer has stated these (subconcussions) are the ones that get you in the end.
 
Last edited:
Masoe_eats_babies

Masoe_eats_babies

Juniors
Messages
2,364
Parra said:
It is the risk associated with the shoulder charge that is the main issue, not the result of a legit hit. You could use exactly the same argument to legitimise spear tackles. After all, the vast majority of spear tackles resulted in no injury at all.

The most often provided excuse for a high shot is the "shoulder charge gone wrong". And they do go wrong. Often enough that most players don't do them. In nearly every case where a big collision results the shoulder charge is a cheap shot. They only work when a player is blindsided, otherwise they are easy to evade.
Click to expand...

Not only could we use the argument, we do use the f**king argument. We say that you can lift someone, but you cannot bring them past the horizontal.

Nobody, apart from the most mentally ill of members, says that we should ban lifting all together. Nobody says that, because to say that is to concede geniusation.

Just as nobody, apart from the mentally ill of members, says we should ban shoulder charges outright.

There are hundreds of should charges each game, one goes wrong. The result? Scrutinise (high) shots when they go wrong.

Anyone saying ban shoulder charges for health reasons is a charlatan or an imbecile. The argument you just put to me shows that you aren't all there, mentally.
 
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Masoe_eats_babies said:
Not only could we use the argument, we do use the f**king argument. We say that you can lift someone, but you cannot bring them past the horizontal.

Nobody, apart from the most mentally ill of members, says that we should ban lifting all together. Nobody says that, because to say that is to concede geniusation.

Just as nobody, apart from the mentally ill of members, says we should ban shoulder charges outright.

There are hundreds of should charges each game, one goes wrong. The result? Scrutinise (high) shots when they go wrong.

Anyone saying ban shoulder charges for health reasons is a charlatan or an imbecile. The argument you just put to me shows that you aren't all there, mentally.
Click to expand...

Mate, you are a dim wit goose, unable to argue or put your points forward in a logical manner but carry on like a turd. Yeah, ban the low tackle - shut the door on your way out.
 
Last edited:
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Danish said:
If players don't want to run the risk of concussions, here's a novel idea...

DONT PLAY f**kING CONTACT SPORT.

A girl died playing field hockey the other day, I don't see fans of that sport throwing tanties and demanding helmets be introduced (which if worn would have saved her life 100%)
Click to expand...

Read the comments fully, it is about mininising the risks. You probably have never put a boot on or been concussed, shut the door on you way out.:cool:
 
magpie4ever

magpie4ever

First Grade
Messages
9,992
Why have my comments been moved to another thread "should the shoulder charge be banned" - seems to be a bit over the top by the moderators as they are highly relevant to this blog. Maybe an attempt to down play this blog - so much for freedom of speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top