Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Sackyhack]

Same rules as Rugby has now, the game will survive.

When all 16 club doctors say ban them, i cant see any other option.

From a legal and Medical aspect they should be banned.

Then game is brutally tough... already

What are the Rugby rules??

The rules from a game where the objective of the attacking player seems to be to dive/submit into the tackle to be in a better position on the ground, wouldn't really be fitting our game. Limited tackle overs mean every meter the attacker can get is an advantage; so they try and attack into the line harder, stay more upright and keep pushing forward until stopped. Heavy contact through the 'correct' use of the shoulder is an extremely effective defensive method for stopping that progress and even then push the attacker back once stopped.

 

[clarency]

You need to play more oztag.

 

[adamkungl]

As has most likely been brought up already, while the shoulder charge might be appealing to watch it is at its core a skill-less act.

Call me the minority but I prefer the technique of a good tackle.

Whether you prefer a good clean tackle or not is entirely irrelevant to this debate.

 

[some11]

Ban Rugby League, it causes injuries.

 

[clarency]

Well it is in a sense. I think the shoulder charge is given far too much popularity than it deserves, ie: this debate is not worth having.

Also of note. We're moving into magpie season.

They're still f*ckwits.

 

[adamkungl]

And i'd disagree that it's a skill-less act - it's a high risk/reward play, which some players are notably better at than others, some are rubbish at, and some don't bother with at all.

It adds variety to the game, when pulled off correctly it adds at least a big moment of excitement and possibly a brutally forced dropped ball. It can lift a team and a crowd.

Removing the shoulder charge is one step closer to a homogenised game where every team with the same quality players (salary cap) plays with the same defensive wrestling tactics, the same one-out runs designed to get a quick play the ball, we have the same media-trained boring interviews.

There's a reason the highlights reels are full of shoulder charges. The day Rugby League takes advice from mums, doctors and lawyers is the day Rugby League dies.

 

[clarency]

"the day rugby league dies"... Precious.

Everyone you say that the shoulder charge adds can be equally achieved through a good tackle.

Like I said... it's not this important.

 

[Stagger Lee]

And after we ban the shoulder charge do we then ban the two man tackle because it might hurt someone?

There are to many soft clocks that need to drink some concrete.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

As for Mums, it's my understanding that kiddie Rugby League is safe as. Why would Mums not allow their children to player Rugby League based on what happens in the professional leagues?

The people who keep talking about Mums, and I include Lockyer, are irational. Mothers are irrational. Lots of mothers don't want their children playing Rugby in rugby playing nations either, rugby doesn't have the shoulder charge, I wonder what their gripe could be? Could it be that most Mums see violence as violence and actually couldn't give that much of a shit whether their young kid is getting hurt by a shoulder charge or any other aspect of the game :lol:

Here's another one. Mums in Britain do not care about shoulder charges in Rugby League, so why do Mums in Aus? I've never heard a British Mum say they won't have their kid playing League but they'll let them play Rugby on account of shoulder charges. From the outside looking in it sounds like Australian mothers are being manipulated by a media that doesn't like League very much. I wonder if mothers in PNG are banning their sons from playing Rugby League? Are shoulder charges turning mothers and therefore kids away from the game, or is the media the cause.

And people are still making the same already discredited arguments about tip tackles. Tip/spear tackles were banned, but were all lifting tackles banned? No. what happened was that common sense was used and it was identified that the danger was in the tip and spear tackles, and not lifting players all together.

I think it's generally accepted by practically everyone that the inherent danger that comes with the shoulder charge is a result of those that go high. Using the spear tackle as an example you would not ban the shoulder charge, but ban high shots, and then police them properly.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

"the day rugby league dies"... Precious.

Everyone you say that the shoulder charge adds can be equally achieved through a good tackle.

Like I said... it's not this important.

Says who? Using the statistical measures we have at hand that's complete garbage. A good textbook tackle is nothing like a shoulder charge. I want to see people occasionally getting smashed through the f**king air and physically decimated. A good form tackle doesn't satisfy my blood lust in the same sense.

I think I speak for the internet when I say violence > technique.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I think the main gripe I have with banning the shoulder charge is that the argument to ban the shoulder charge is put forward because there are too many high shoulder charges. People seem to be forgetting the already existing rules of the game and going out and hitting people in the face with their shoulder, so we've got to make the shoulder charge illegal to stop that.

I smirk when I read that line of thought is that it's sort of naive. It's like the people who scream "We must make guns illegal, because people are illegally slaughtering people with their legal firearms! If we make guns illegal that will stop the mass murderers". It's funny because of the naive assumption that a mass murderer who shoots up innocent people would give a f**k for gun legality. Or why not ban cars because people drive too fast, drink drive and talk on their phones while driving.

What happens if you ban the shoulder charge, but the NRL only gives piss weak suspensions for it(in the same way they now only give piss weak suspensions for shoulder charges to the face,) what then? Then we're right where we are now except we've deprived viewers and players of one of our defining spectacles, making worse the sport.

After all, the only reason we're having this debate is because of an abject failure by the NRL to properly enforce already existing rules. There is nothing to say that a new rule on shoulder charges would be adhered to and policed stringently.

 

[adamkungl]

Well worth noting that shoulder charges are illegal in junior rugby league.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Well worth noting that shoulder charges are illegal in junior rugby league.

Which is why the argument about mums is so stupid. Junior rugby league has an injury rate comparable to soccer

 

[clarency]

And after we ban the shoulder charge do we then ban the two man tackle because it might hurt someone?

There are to many soft clocks that need to drink some concrete.

Slippery slope argument.

I'm not even arguing that it should be banned and you're already out of material.

Says who? Using the statistical measures we have at hand that's complete garbage. A good textbook tackle is nothing like a shoulder charge. I want to see people occasionally getting smashed through the f**king air and physically decimated. A good form tackle doesn't satisfy my blood lust in the same sense.

I think I speak for the internet when I say violence > technique.

Smartass answer: me.
Proper answer: When the people arguing against banning it can't come up with a legitimate reason for it to be kept, only providing mere ad hominems, it's not that important.

 

[clarency]

I think the main gripe I have with banning the shoulder charge is that the argument to ban the shoulder charge is put forward because there are too many high shoulder charges. People seem to be forgetting the already existing rules of the game and going out and hitting people in the face with their shoulder, so we've got to make the shoulder charge illegal to stop that.

I smirk when I read that line of thought is that it's sort of naive. It's like the people who scream "We must make guns illegal, because people are illegally slaughtering people with their legal firearms! If we make guns illegal that will stop the mass murderers". It's funny because of the naive assumption that a mass murderer who shoots up innocent people would give a f**k for gun legality. Or why not ban cars because people drive too fast, drink drive and talk on their phones while driving.

What happens if you ban the shoulder charge, but the NRL only gives piss weak suspensions for it(in the same way they now only give piss weak suspensions for shoulder charges to the face,) what then? Then we're right where we are now except we've deprived viewers and players of one of our defining spectacles, making worse the sport.

After all, the only reason we're having this debate is because of an abject failure by the NRL to properly enforce already existing rules. There is nothing to say that a new rule on shoulder charges would be adhered to and policed stringently.

This is pretty much it exactly.

Something along the lines of "contact with the head during a shoulder charge = 10minutes in the bin"

Would probably do it.

 

[umina panther]

Why do morons want to wreck the game?

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-shoulder-charge/story-e6frexnr-1226498097933

NRL club chief executives to determine future of the shoulder charge

Andrew Webster
The Daily Telegraph
October 18, 2012 12:00AM

JUST when the shoulder charge thought it was safe to enjoy the off-season comes news the next major step in banning it will happen today at a meeting of club chief executives in Sydney.

The future of the shoulder charge will be high on the agenda when club bosses meet at League Central - as well as the diabolical state of refereeing and the slow crawl towards working out the salary cap for next season and beyond.

New Roosters football boss Brian Canavan will present his wide-ranging study into the shoulder charge to the ARL Commission next week.

That research has taken in a score of advice from leading coaches and players.

A PhD student from Sydney University has also been completing detailed analysis of the controversial tackle, which the commission is poised to ban after stiffening judiciary penalties on the eve of last season's finals series.

"We had a meeting with the competition committee which has coaches on it," he said.

"I spoke to Wayne Bennett. Johnny Lang was on that. Ivan Cleary is on that. Brian Smith was on that. The clubs had the opportunity to relay responses back to me. The medical association relayed responses back. Then we have investigated GPS and video footage. It's been done with a scientific process behind it."

On the use of GPS research, Canavan said: "We have analysed the shoulder charges we were able to identify. They weren't identified up until round 21. That's when we were asked to conduct the review.

"Since round 21 we have been able to get detailed analysis of all shoulder charges, both successful and unsuccessful."

Bennett has said before that he does not want the shoulder charge banned: "But if any player does make contact with the head or the neck using that technique, he should be suspended for between four and six weeks."

 

[Lockyer4President!]

League Central

It's Rugby League Central, Andrew, you cockgobbling hack. Do you refer to AFL House as 'A House'? ffs...

 

[chrisD]

Wayne is the hope for the good guys.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Why cant we just outlaw shoulder charges that make contact with the head but leave the rest? Isn't that the real danger?