Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[some11]

Its Pomeroy's 150th in two weeks right? He'll get off then.

 

[kmav23]

type "rugby league" into youtube and see what comesup. mostly big hits*



so what



where have they been the last 100 years? why should we listen to them now?

*results may vary depending on google magic

the impact is greater now with bigger stronger faster players.

Will you look after or the pay the bills of brain damaged players when they are older.?

Doctors have spoken of the brain damage the nfl is already being sued by ex nfl players.

The game has no choice but to ban this as they will be sued.

Fans can live without shoulder charges but players can't live well with a damaged brain.

You must have brain damage yourself as doctors know more about medical issues the you or me.

there is currently 150 lawsuits against the nfl with brain injuries.

 

[Pugzley]

Let's ban all tackling together. Then call the sport Topball from 2013.

 

[Frailty]

the impact is greater now with bigger stronger faster players.

Will you look after or the pay the bills of brain damaged players when they are older.?

Doctors have spoken of the brain damage the nfl is already being sued by ex nfl players.

The game has no choice but to ban this as they will be sued.

Fans can live without shoulder charges but players can't live well with a damaged brain.

You must have brain damage yourself as doctors know more about medical issues the you or me.

there is currently 150 lawsuits against the nfl with brain injuries.

NFL is not Rugby League douchebag.

High tackles also lead to concussion and are banned (as Shoulder charges already are) but it doesn't prevent them from happening.

The issue is how do you treat a player who has been concussed, and this is why there has been a lot of emphasis on the follow up treatment (and not allowing players to continue in the game). There needs to be defined regulations as there is following any combat sport. The NFL did not have this - which is why they are finding themselves in court.

Even considering this, the US Legal system has completely different definitions of what constitutes negligence and duty of care than what is used in the Australian system. Please do not discuss things which you know nothing about.

 

[chrisD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdtb-_3MTE

There is chest contact with a lowered arm, but the head contact clearly isnt incidental.

Out of morbid curiosity, how do you think he managed to get knocked out?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/fe...rand-final-dream/story-fndujljl-1226462016588

Coaches say it politely, 'strange' decision.

This bodes poorly for Grant's tenure. No CEO and interfering in operational matters almost immediately (despite his ridiculous claims that he isn't).

It indicates a weak commission that they didnt shut him down on this. I wonder what he will be like once he really beds his power base down.

His choice of CEO will be revealing. He may opt for a puppet.

106kg traveling at Inglis speed into an unaware opponent. What is supposed to be the effect? How often does that happen that everyone is so sure of the effect? The only valid comparison I see is between that hit and how quarter backs get blind sided, and shock horror, they too get knocked out. Besides that, he landed on his f**king head.

Here's a better question, how does 106kg of full speed Inglis force hit Young in the face, apparently like a Tyson punch, enough to knock him out cold, and not do any facial damage? Dragons officials confirmed that very night there was no facial and neck injury. Now how many knock out blows to the face leave no mark?

 

[kmav23]

NFL is not Rugby League douchebag.

High tackles also lead to concussion and are banned (as Shoulder charges already are) but it doesn't prevent them from happening.

The issue is how do you treat a player who has been concussed, and this is why there has been a lot of emphasis on the follow up treatment (and not allowing players to continue in the game). There needs to be defined regulations as there is following any combat sport. The NFL did not have this - which is why they are finding themselves in court.

Even considering this, the US Legal system has completely different definitions of what constitutes negligence and duty of care than what is used in the Australian system. Please do not discuss things which you know nothing about.

all 16 clubs doctors are advising against shoulder charges.....fact

Australian law firms have advised the game will be held legally liable..so all your points are rubbish....do your research..fact

In summary all 100% club doctors and all 100% legal advice tell you to ban shoulder charges.... yet the game should ignore this ? lol .....

brain damage payouts are usually in millions....they will be 100 % banned, if not the game need to start saving millions for payouts...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e-doctors-advice/story-fnca0von-1226434240260


THE ARL Commission has been warned by some of the country's leading law firms that it is running the risk of litigation if it continues to ignore the advice of club doctors to ban the shoulder charge.

The shoulder charge goes on trial again tonight when South Sydney fullback Greg Inglis appears before the judiciary to try to have a grade-four dangerous contact charge downgraded for his hit on St George Illawarra's Dean Young.

It is the third time this season the shoulder charge has come under scrutiny after Canterbury's Frank Pritchard was banned for a match for his challenge on Penrith's David Simmons and Brisbane's Ben Te'o was suspended for two games for his hit on Wests Tigers' Matt Groat.

The Weekend Australian was the first to report last month that all 16 club doctors had formed a breakaway group and passed an immediate motion to ban the shoulder charge over growing concerns for players' welfare and safety.


The game's medicos pointed to a class action being launched in the US by former NFL players, who accused the game's governing body of hiding information that linked football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries.

Former Rugby Union Players Association chief executive and a dispute resolution lawyer with Wisdom, Tony Dempsey said the commission needed to determine whether the shoulder charge was dangerous. The league has already commissioned its research arm to investigate but a decision is not expected until the end of the year.

"If the doctors are all saying shoulder charges are dangerous and the data and the statistics show that there's a lot of injuries coming about as a result of shoulder charges, then the administrators have to have a long, hard look at it," Dempsey said.

When asked what would happen if they didn't heed the advice of the doctors, Dempsey replied: "Well, they run the risk of a lawsuit that may _ and I'm stressing the word may _ find them to be in breach of a duty of care. If lawmakers know of some sort of potential side-effect and they haven't created awareness amongst the players, then it's a bit like smoking. Smoking companies knew the dangers of smoking well before it became public.

"It would be a foolhardy administrator to ignore the advice of a collection of highly regarded sports physicians."

The executive director of law firm IMF, John Walker, said it was up to administrators to determine the rules of the game and therefore a safe workplace.

"If you've got a circumstance where the club doctors are saying it should be banned, then you've got medical opinion that the risks associated with the line the league's drawn is too great," he said. "The guys responsible for the rules will be sitting in a very uncomfortable chair until they make the determination.

"If the doctors are right, then the league is at risk."

ARLC football operations director Nathan McGuirk said it would take time to research the matter and the league would not be pressured into rushing anything through.

"We're looking at substantial research into a very important issue," he said.

 

[Pugzley]

f**king hell, medicos and lawyers telling us how to play the game. Next thing we know there's a OH&S officer voted in from the playing group telling defenders to bend their knees while lifting the opposition.

 

[kmav23]

f**king hell, medicos and lawyers telling us how to play the game. Next thing we know there's a OH&S officer voted in from the playing group telling defenders to bend their knees while lifting the opposition.

i know

stupid doctors all they ever do is care about peoples health and welfare....dont they have better things to do ?

next time everyone visits the hospital.. lets tell them all off....

brain damage or not i like shoulder charges....

 

[Pugzley]

Associated risk. Like boxing or even skateboarding.

 

[Frailty]

all 16 clubs doctors are advising against shoulder charges.....fact

Australian law firms have advised the game will be held legally liable..so all your points are rubbish....do your research..fact

In summary all 100% club doctors and all 100% legal advice tell you to ban shoulder charges.... yet the game should ignore this ? lol .....

brain damage payouts are usually in millions....they will be 100 % banned, if not the game need to start saving millions for payouts...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...e-doctors-advice/story-fnca0von-1226434240260


THE ARL Commission has been warned by some of the country's leading law firms that it is running the risk of litigation if it continues to ignore the advice of club doctors to ban the shoulder charge.

The shoulder charge goes on trial again tonight when South Sydney fullback Greg Inglis appears before the judiciary to try to have a grade-four dangerous contact charge downgraded for his hit on St George Illawarra's Dean Young.

It is the third time this season the shoulder charge has come under scrutiny after Canterbury's Frank Pritchard was banned for a match for his challenge on Penrith's David Simmons and Brisbane's Ben Te'o was suspended for two games for his hit on Wests Tigers' Matt Groat.

The Weekend Australian was the first to report last month that all 16 club doctors had formed a breakaway group and passed an immediate motion to ban the shoulder charge over growing concerns for players' welfare and safety.


The game's medicos pointed to a class action being launched in the US by former NFL players, who accused the game's governing body of hiding information that linked football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries.

Former Rugby Union Players Association chief executive and a dispute resolution lawyer with Wisdom, Tony Dempsey said the commission needed to determine whether the shoulder charge was dangerous. The league has already commissioned its research arm to investigate but a decision is not expected until the end of the year.

"If the doctors are all saying shoulder charges are dangerous and the data and the statistics show that there's a lot of injuries coming about as a result of shoulder charges, then the administrators have to have a long, hard look at it," Dempsey said.

When asked what would happen if they didn't heed the advice of the doctors, Dempsey replied: "Well, they run the risk of a lawsuit that may _ and I'm stressing the word may _ find them to be in breach of a duty of care. If lawmakers know of some sort of potential side-effect and they haven't created awareness amongst the players, then it's a bit like smoking. Smoking companies knew the dangers of smoking well before it became public.

"It would be a foolhardy administrator to ignore the advice of a collection of highly regarded sports physicians."

The executive director of law firm IMF, John Walker, said it was up to administrators to determine the rules of the game and therefore a safe workplace.

"If you've got a circumstance where the club doctors are saying it should be banned, then you've got medical opinion that the risks associated with the line the league's drawn is too great," he said. "The guys responsible for the rules will be sitting in a very uncomfortable chair until they make the determination.

"If the doctors are right, then the league is at risk."

ARLC football operations director Nathan McGuirk said it would take time to research the matter and the league would not be pressured into rushing anything through.

"We're looking at substantial research into a very important issue," he said.

Have a quick read of the article you posted and to the bolded parts in particular.

So you have the doctors pointing to the legal action in the US, NOT the law firms.

The NFL is getting sued for suppressing information away from players, not removing the risk.

An Australian law firm said it MAY be in breach of duty of care IF the NRL didn't create awareness. I dare say, the dangers have been made aware.

Furthermore, given that shoulder charges that come in contact with the head are against the rules, illegal shoulder charges have already been 'banned'.

Players are well aware of the dangers of the sport, and thus have no right to sue.

But keep on being clueless and relying on exaggerated media articles to draw unreasonable parallels between the US and Australian legal systems.

 

[Frailty]

Associated risk. Like boxing or even skateboarding.

Shhh... There are no dangers in boxing or any other sport...

The fact that kmav is missing is that the basis for the legal action is not that the head injuries occurred, but rather the NFL essentially withheld and suppressed information about previously unknown head injury risks.

 

[kmav23]

Have a quick read of the article you posted and to the bolded parts in particular.

So you have the doctors pointing to the legal action in the US, NOT the law firms.

The NFL is getting sued for suppressing information away from players, not removing the risk.

An Australian law firm said it MAY be in breach of duty of care IF the NRL didn't create awareness. I dare say, the dangers have been made aware.

Furthermore, given that shoulder charges that come in contact with the head are against the rules, illegal shoulder charges have already been 'banned'.

Players are well aware of the dangers of the sport, and thus have no right to sue.

But keep on being clueless and relying on exaggerated media articles to draw unreasonable parallels between the US and Australian legal systems.

an employer has the legal duty of care.... they have no legal right to remove their legal obligations by making statements...to employees

the fact that all 16 club doctors have stated it should be banned really seals the legal aspect.

If James Hardie told employees that materials they produce a are dangerous and will kill them... this does not remove their legal obligations..to stop producing it... they will still be sued....

If the doctors in America make findings of brain damage due to repeated trauma to the head... this has direct legal medical implications....Americans have the same brains as Aussies...lol repeated trauma to the head...is the issue

 

[kmav23]

Shhh... There are no dangers in boxing or any other sport...

The fact that kmav is missing is that the basis for the legal action is not that the head injuries occurred, but rather the NFL essentially withheld and suppressed information about previously unknown head injury risks.

you missed the point...

the issue is not only they did no inform the players..

its they did not inform and did not remove or reduce that danger.....

Example A

At my office if there is leaking dangerous chemicals in the building...

the Employer must remove the chemicals and inform workers...

not just tell employees there is chemicals and leave it at that

 

[Frailty]

an employer has the legal duty of care.... they have no legal right to remove their legal obligations by making statements...to employees

the fact that all 16 club doctors have stated it should be banned really seals the legal aspect.

If James Hardie told employees that materials they produce a are dangerous and will kill them... this does not remove their legal obligations..to stop producing it... they will still be sued....

If the doctors in America make findings of brain damage due to repeated trauma to the head... this has direct legal medical implications....Americans have the same brains as Aussies...lol repeated trauma to the head...is the issue

Any contact with the head is already against the rules... Any additional ban is overboard and useless.

You can not use James Hardie as an example, because Sport is different, where players accept an associated risk involved. I.e. they risk that they may be injured. This includes risk of head injuries. If there are new risks discovered, they must be informed, and then they can accept the new risk or not.

James Hardie employees are having not accepted an associated risk with their profession, thus your example is flawed.

The issue in the US has been that information regarding statistical and medical information directly related (not generally related) to American Football was withheld from players and the teams. This is why the NFL faces legal action, because they withheld the information and did not formulate any new regulations.

Now, the new regulations would not be 'banning' anything, but rather regulating when a player can return to the field or sport following a suspected head trauma. This is already pretty well regulated in Australian football codes but needs more clarification, imo.

Boxing, MMA, etc have clear rules about fighters returning to the sport following a fight. The risk is not gone, but it is minimised.

Banning the shoulder charge does not minimise risk.

 

[Springs]

Any contact with the head is against the rules. So what aren't we protecting players from exactly?

Example A

At my office if there is leaking dangerous chemicals in the building...

the Employer must remove the chemicals and inform workers...

not just tell employees there is chemicals and leave it at that

How is that relevant in the slightest?

 

[kmav23]

Any contact with the head is against the rules. So what aren't we protecting players from exactly?



How is that relevant in the slightest?

informing players of the dangers does not remove litigation and legal responsibility.

the advice from all 16 club doctors basically means any player can sue for damages due to shoulder charges...if they are not banned...

 

[chrisD]

There are doctors who have advocated the banning of boxing as well as compulsory headgear in boxing, yet boxing is not an open ended legal litigation case. Your haphazard arguments have been thoroughly destroyed and you're not bringing anything new.

 

[Pierced Soul]

the advice from all 16 club doctors basically means any player can sue for damages due to shoulder charges...if they are not banned...

mccracken had his career ended by a spear tackle which was banned, i believe he sued kearney and bai - not the NRL. the tackle was already deemed dangerous it doesnt remove the risk. by your logic all tackles should be banned, a player can get a broken arm by tackling or getting tackled

 

[kmav23]

mccracken had his career ended by a spear tackle which was banned, i believe he sued kearney and bai - not the NRL. the tackle was already deemed dangerous it doesnt remove the risk. by your logic all tackles should be banned, a player can get a broken arm by tackling or getting tackled

The big difference is all 16 doctors have said shoulder charges should be banned.

If only 50% doctors, but 100% of doctors. The doctors have now moved any liability to the nrl as they have covered themselves up from litigation.

 

[no name]

mccracken had his career ended by a spear tackle which was banned, i believe he sued kearney and bai - not the NRL. the tackle was already deemed dangerous it doesnt remove the risk. by your logic all tackles should be banned, a player can get a broken arm by tackling or getting tackled

:lol: