Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Whats Doing]

Will be interesting to see the usual inconsistency of the judiciary and whether the rule of protected species continues.

A hit to the head is illegal

 

[Vic Mackey]

The shoulder charge is fine

Hitting people in the head isn't

How is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

You can bet your arse this is the end of the shoulder charge. The media are going to have a pre-madonna field day.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

The NRL should tell the media to piss off. More people in the game need to speak up and use logic. The "it's a man sport" defence isn't going to cut the mustard.

If the NRL let the media bully them into removing the shoulder charge, what's to stop the same thing happening in future for all tackles? Because that's the way society is going, it won't be too long until a fair enough number of people think of tackling, textbook or otherwise, as brutal and unnecessarily dangerous.

What I'd like to do, next year, seeing as there's only a few rounds left, is start a thread on here and keep tally with the help of other members of noticeable concussions in the game and their cause. My hunch is that if we were to get down to the facts and record concussions, we'd find concussions from shoulder charges aren't a 10th of what they're made out to be.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

And people are going to have to choose their battles with the shoulder charge now. Defending shoulder charges that go high, accidentally or intentionally, will hurt shoulder charges on the whole in the long run. Shoulder charge advocates need to surrender the battle to win the war.

The only way to protect shoulder charges is to get on board and make distinctions between legal shoulder charges and shoulder charges that hit blokes in the head, even if by accident. People taking the Gus Gould position - ie "it was an accident" so it's fine to smash someone in the face in his "rulebook" - are going to hurt the case for shoulder charges in future, as the media pressure and bullshit mounts.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Masoe, I agree with so much that you have written in this thread.

But I firmly believe that if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Shoulder charge advocates need to stand firm and only focus on where the initial contact was made... accidental contact is accidental contact, can happen with any tackle type. Otherwise it will be taken away from us. I'm with Gus on this one.

Personally I don't like where the game has been heading with the shoulder charge this year. I love watching the shoulder charges.

 

[Danish]

There is a world of difference between the shoulder charges penalised by Teo, kasiano, Hargreaves et al and the flying shoulder elbow out on by inglis tonight.

Most of the ones suspended and penalised this year have been pretty weak, but launching yourself in the air like inglis did was in hoppa territory

 

[bottle]

The shoulder charge is fine

Hitting people in the head isn't

How is this so hard for people to understand?

So simple, and regardless of where 'initial contact' is made. It's an irrelevancy.

If you're going to take the risk with a shoulder charge more power to you. If it goes wrong and you make contact with the head full and total responsibility is with the 'charger'. That's how it should go down. If you're going to do it, get it right.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Masoe, I agree with so much that you have written in this thread.

But I firmly believe that if you give an inch, they will take a mile. Shoulder charge advocates need to stand firm and only focus on where the initial contact was made... accidental contact is accidental contact, can happen with any tackle type. Otherwise it will be taken away from us. I'm with Gus on this one.

Personally I don't like where the game has been heading with the shoulder charge this year. I love watching the shoulder charges.

I agree that accidents happen and that a lot of challenges are mainly chest to chest, with unintentional contact to the face, often outside of the initial point of contact. And if you ask me I don't have any problem with that. Just like I didn't have problems with Tony Williams last year belting an England player in the face, as the first point of contact was the shoulder.

But I've changed my stance because I'm worried that if I, or all of us who love the shoulder charge, carry on saying accidental contact to the face is part of the shoulder charge, then the shoulder charge is going to get axed sooner or later.

The only way I can see the shoulder charge remaining in the long term is for us dinosaurs and keyboard warriors to give an inch. The shoulder charge as it is now is going to be put under increased scrutiny, and the NRL are going to falter, the best outcome I can see is for a distinction to be made, that way the NRL and League fans can justify the shoulder charge.

I'd rather shoulder charges to the face being punished, than the shoulder charge in all its forms being banned ala Rugby.

Penalise high shoulder charges as you would any other high shot. There are plenty of players who can break people in half without going high, Matulino is the best for it. We know that accidents happen, but like with any other tackle, you run the risk and the tackler in standard cases should be responsible for ensuring contact is below the neck.

We pretty much agree on shoulder charges, even the illegal kind that people hate and that I'm now arguing against, I still love, can't beat a shoulder to the face :lol: Seriously, Masoe on Jeremy Smith, Pritchard on Graham, I can't get enough of those "shoulder charges", you only have to see my videos on youtube to know I'm the biggest fan( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrlGk__7FuU ). BUT we disagree on where it's going. I think to protect the shoulder charge we've got to concede the shoulder/chest to the face, where as you think we've got to defend the mistimed shoulder/chest to the face to protect the shoulder charge.

And there are hypocrisies, like Gus pointed out after reading my threads and stealing my ideas: Why are shoulders to the face only punished when a player ends up concussed? A player can hit someone chest to face 10 times in a game, and he'll only be punished if the other player gets a concussion, so where is the consistency? Tackles punished on outcome rather than action, that's bullshit.

Lots of garbage surrounding the shoulder charges. But for me the only way to ensure the shoulder charge survives the PC, soft society we're turning into is if we bite the bullet and say okay, you go high that's your fault, you ran the risk, here's a ban. If the NRL is proactive in punishing shoulder charges that go high and leave players concussed then the naysayers, doctors and media swine have not a leg to stand on in calling for a shoulder charge ban. At the moment they do have a leg to stand on, and the reason they have a leg to stand on is because people like us are lax with interpretations and support shots that go high by accident.

I don't know, in my mind accepting punishment for high shoulder charges, intentional or not, will make sure shoulder charges shoulder down are safe.

It's all f**ked. The f**king media scum are trying to ruin the game. Make no mistake League is under attack, the NRL is under attack, this has nothing to do with safety. Drawing a line between the high shoulder charge and the not high shoulder charge is the best point of defence I reckon

Anyway I'm sure we'll still disagree, but we're both holding our positions for the same reasons, we think it's the best way to protect shoulder charges and the game.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

To summarise, because I talked a whole load of shit and probably confused everyone.

There is no argument against shoulder charges that make no contact with the face, unless you were born with mental deficiencies and cannot think properly. There is, unfortunately, an argument to be made against shoulder charges that make contact with the face. The media as it stands now, along with anti-shoulder charge merkins, are conflating the two. So long as they conflate the two they have a valid argument against shoulder charges, as far as I'm concerned. If you oppose shoulder charges that make contact with the face, you take away the medias ability to criticise the shoulder charge.

That's why I'm taking the position I am.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Fmd. Ban the shoulder charge and change our name to union or afl.

 

[DC_fan]

I really don't have a problem if they ban the shoulder charge.

The game wouldn't be any worse of if they did and players safety would be improved.

 

[Knownothing]

"Straw" Andrew's neck was broken in a spear tackle. That led to the banning of spear tackles.


Sooner or later, somebody will be maimed or killed in a high shoulder tackle, and the rules will be changed. Or an injured player will sue the ARLC. Or the game's insurers will bump the premiums up to an unsustainable level.


The Commissioners are probably personally liable for these aspects of player safety. Some of them are bright enough to work out the implications.

 

[Perth Red]

We don't ban people for accidental head clashes so why do we for accidental contact between shoulder and head?

 

[seanoff]

We don't ban people for accidental head clashes so why do we for accidental contact between shoulder and head?

because you don't usually lead with your head on rugby league, but Inglis lead with his shoulder. if he lead with his head it would be a year off.

as Vick said, you can do whatever you like, but if you hit a bloke in the head, time for a holiday.

 

[Sugar]

No it wont be the end of the shoulder charge.
Players have been rubbed out for chicken wings, grapples, stiff arms and high shots and it still happens every week.

GI will face the music get on with life and next week there will be heaps of shoulder charges in the games it only takes 1 to go wrong and people get their nickers in a knot

 

[East Coast Tiger]

After Burns' effort today it will be the end of any use of the arm in a tackle.

As long as you don't tackle with the shoulder or arm you'll be right. Nate Myles will be the only player in the game who can tackle from now on and only until his cannonball head tackle is outlawed.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

"Straw" Andrew's neck was broken in a spear tackle. That led to the banning of spear tackles.


Sooner or later, somebody will be maimed or killed in a high shoulder tackle, and the rules will be changed. Or an injured player will sue the ARLC. Or the game's insurers will bump the premiums up to an unsustainable level.


The Commissioners are probably personally liable for these aspects of player safety. Some of them are bright enough to work out the implications.

That's not even a reasonable parallel.

They banned the spear tackle. For the comparison to be true the NRL would have banned any lifting whatsoever.

Because, as has been pointed out several times, there is a world of difference between a shoulder charge to the face and a shoulder charge not to the face. Just as there is a world of difference between lifting, and putting someone on their head.

Also so what if someone is seriously injured in a freak accident down the line. Since when is that reason to get rid of an area of the game. I don't see Rugby banning the scrum or the ruck for that reason, plenty of devastating spinal injuries happening there.

 

[chrisD]

Harden the f*ck up.

Im sick of trying to appeal to the mums , the reason I love rugby league is because it's the toughest footy code in the world. Take that away and it's going to be a pale imitation.

The media love to use the 'mums' as a reason, yet where this brigade of mothers calling for the soft cockery being permeated on this board and in the media are hiding I do not know.

Are we to believe mothers are only just now waking up to the physicality of our sport? Have they only just started watching? Or have they apparently turned into weeping vaginas over night like this board?

 

[ANTiLAG]

Sooner or later, somebody will be maimed or killed in a high shoulder tackle, and the rules will be changed. Or an injured player will sue the ARLC. Or the game's insurers will bump the premiums up to an unsustainable level.


The Commissioners are probably personally liable for these aspects of player safety. Some of them are bright enough to work out the implications.

:crazy::lol:

What exactly will the injured player sue the ARLC for? Permitting shoulder charges? The same way boxing permits punches to the face?

Who do you mean is insured by the game's insurers and what claims concern you? Medical bills?

Without discussing indemnity by the NRL and ARLC, how is a commissioner personally liable for these aspects of player safety?

It is a physical contact sport. If a player intentionally breaches the rules, then they are personally liable. Not the governing body.