Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Jack_Napier]

It's simple and has no doubt been stated 10000 times. You punish the players when they f**k the technique up and you make the punishment harsh. If your a repeat offender then i'd suggest you wouldn't have a long career.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If these merkins ban the shoulder charge having not even appointed a CEO or dealt with any of the real issues in the sport it must be proof that the ARLC are just as f**king useless, reactionary and incompetent as all the previous administrations.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

I hope they ban it, I'm okay with the top of the shoulder charge where no arms come around the ball carrier.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Topoftheshoulderball.

 

[BunniesMan]

Apex.

 

[Hutty1986]

Apex charge?

Scrum half boogie?

 

[Hooch]

I would love to know what possible insight a scientific analysis of the shoulder charge could provide.

We know what it is, we know what it does, we know what the risks are. The question is simply do you ban it or not.

They will ban it because it's ugly and a bad look.

We all know what the results of the investigation will be. Hint: it won't be, 'shoulder charges are awesome fun and present no medical risk'.

Therefore if you want to ban it form a committee and sling a phd student a few bucks, and you will get what you want and be able to hide your moral decision behind 'science'.

Wankery of the highest order.

 

[kmav23]

i predict it will be banned....

the doctors and lawyers have said it should be banned...

the game will be liable for injuries if it does not,,,

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Nonsense. Why do people keep claiming this? Players are injured by completely legal events in a game and don't sue. And players are injured in illegal events on the field and don't sue. Save for Jarrod McCracken. Any and every tackle in the game has the potential to injure a player. Outlawing shoulder charges will not change this. There is a rule in the game that says contact with the head is illegal. That's all there needs to be. It covers shoulder charges, swinging arms, elbows, careless grabs - anything that connects with the head. Done. Sorted. Move on.

 

[adamkungl]

Dark day for Rugby League if/when they ban it.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

No Adam, they're not going to be as strict on it as union, you'll still be able to use the top of the shoulder without having to bring your arms around, it's just the outside of the shoulder barge they're going to ban. Which will also stop the third man in having a cheap shot on the ball carrier, as happened to Craig Wing against the Roosters, think it was Riley Brown who came in and caught him on his shouler blade which did Wing's shoulder in.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I don't think it would be missed as much as people claim it will be. I have never left a game and thought "gee, I wish I'd seen a few shoulder charges." They are great to watch when they come off, but really they are not essential for a game to be good.

For the record, I think it should stay with harsh penalties if you hit a bloke high.

 

[kmav23]

Nonsense. Why do people keep claiming this? Players are injured by completely legal events in a game and don't sue. And players are injured in illegal events on the field and don't sue. Save for Jarrod McCracken. Any and every tackle in the game has the potential to injure a player. Outlawing shoulder charges will not change this. There is a rule in the game that says contact with the head is illegal. That's all there needs to be. It covers shoulder charges, swinging arms, elbows, careless grabs - anything that connects with the head. Done. Sorted. Move on.

the reason they have not sues is the seriousness of the injury...

if a player has any sort of brain damage.... you can be sure his going to try and sue....or his family

 

[Pugzley]

St George names Ben Creagh as captain. Their reputation as a bunch of soft c**ks are now strangely cemented. :lol:

 

[God-King Dean]

Nobody would even be talking about this if the Telegraph weren't pushing their agenda.

 

[adamkungl]

Yep. Seems like the Telegraph is so desperate to create an issue they're happy to actually drag the game down to do so.

Oh, so business as usual then.

 

[El Diablo]

and the DT will knock the decision either way

they've probably got the articles drafted already

 

[Expansion]

I don't think it would be missed as much as people claim it will be. I have never left a game and thought "gee, I wish I'd seen a few shoulder charges." They are great to watch when they come off, but really they are not essential for a game to be good.

For the record, I think it should stay with harsh penalties if you hit a bloke high.

That could be said for every rule. I never walk away from a match wishing I saw a field goal, a 40/20, Golden Point or a kick restart at the 20m line. That doesn't mean those rules or the shoulder charge won't be missed from the game. The shoulder charge is apart of what Rugby League is. Keep it in the game.

 

[Nezzo]

No.

 

[Munro_Mick]

The head high bit is what destroys it. It's a bit like the shirtfront in AFL - - go in low and don't leave the ground.
People have to work out what they are trying to achieve in doing it.

and people have to be answerable to themselves and others after the event should it all go wrong and someone ends up in a wheelchair.

For administrators of a professional code however - the choice really appears as though there is no choice. Something must be done.

Do you pander to the thugs or to the ball players??