Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Timmah]

What is this world coming to? I agree with hillbilly AND Bunniesman?

Much fluff about nothing. As the NRL article states, those tackles make up 0.05% of all tackles made, we aren't a poorer sport for it being outlawed.

The netball comparisons are both laughable and ridiculous.

 

[El Diablo]

Phil Rothfield ‏@BuzzRothfield
Great call to ban shoulder charge #nrlnotincrisis

:shock:

 

[joshreading]

@Bunnies and co - DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT ALL TACKLING IS NOT SOMEWHAT HARMFUL TO HEALTH?

If tackling is harmful to health (which it is) then should the ARLC not pre-empt law suits and ban tackling?

Ps. @hillbilly do you honestly think those videos were as good as this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRJyKEnM3O4

Serious question - Bunniesman - WHO DID YOU PLAY RL FOR?

 

[The European Polynesian]

After a quick scan of twitter, doesn't look like the players are too happy about it either.

 

[God-King Dean]

I think the general consensus is the banishment of the shoulder charge is the ARLC's most popular decision to date.

 

[Perth Red]

Terrible decision. Less shoulder charges hit the head than arm tackles. The report shows it isn't a big issue, we have laws that punish poor techniques, the logical conclusion to this farcical decision is helmets and no tackling above the waist. Dear oh dear, what used to make our game great and unique is slowy being eroded away. Knee jerk reaction that now puts us on par with AFL and RU for taking away the ferocity of the game. I just hope the ESL don't follow the ARLC's stupidity.

 

[dragonslover682]

Bunniesman speaks with common sense on this issue......to all the drama queens who think that Rugby League is not the greatest game of all because the shoulder charge has been banned......kindly stick your head up your arse and f**k off and support Rugby Union


......but before you do check these out....not a single shoulder charge to be seen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXgIZSLveb0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C2ahp3bXbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z1T_2HS7l4&feature=related

You are saying for us to support rugby union because we want to see shoulder charges?? I don't understand :?

 

[GAZF]

for me...its all about the position of the arms of the tackler...

thats a bad one.......inglis had gone into that tackle as if he's running to smash down a door.....i don't have a problem in that being banned....but for me if inglis' right arm was out to the side and he'd hit the st george player square on in more of a "ball & all" wrap up big hit..thats fine.

take simon dwyers big hit on JWH a couple of years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ILh-w5LPYo&feature=related

dwyer has set himself,arms apart....boom!...nothing wrong with that imo

This is where the new ruling will get murky. Watching that video, JWH ducks into the tackle at the last minute and Dwyer makes contact much higher than expected, adding to the severity of the tackle. A legitimate tackle to wrap up the ball and stop the defender in his tracks is now illegal.

 

[reanimate]

I guess how much this actually affects the game will depend on what is defined as a shoulder charge and what players are still allowed to do. If the banning is more or less a formal version of what came into effect at the end of last year, I.e. players will go straight to the judiciary if they make unsafe contact with the head/neck of another player, then it is much ado about nothing. However, if it results in instant penalties for contact with the shoulder, judiciary and bans for any sort of that contact and the wiping out of the big highlight reel hits, then it's a terrible decision.

We'll have to wait and see what exactly they define as a banned shoulder charge and how they police the ban.

 

[Danish]

What is this world coming to? I agree with hillbilly AND Bunniesman?

Much fluff about nothing. As the NRL article states, those tackles make up 0.05% of all tackles made, we aren't a poorer sport for it being outlawed.

The netball comparisons are both laughable and ridiculous.

They also make up about 100% of every single tackle used in any advertising campaign run for our game.

f**king pathetic decision based on absolutely ZERO actual evidence and instead just on the musings of pansy doctors who like to make headlines.

Shoulder charges have been in the game for over 100 years, and yet despite the apparent "inevitable" brain damage they are supposed to cause, there is not a single former NSWRL, ARL, or NRL player that they can point to suffering from all these problems that they claim they cause.

Idiots have read a bunch of articles based on NFL studies and simply just assumed that they must apply to league

 

[joshreading]

0.05% of 142,000 is 710.
28 injurys to the attacker
7 to the defender
35 injurys in total.

No mention of how bad those were at all either. Pathetic.

AFL is the last game in Australia that allows the shoulder charge.
Yep, don't we look pathetic.

Seriously, how hard is it to say if you hit the head you get 6 weeks?

 

[magpie4ever]

This is the biggest thing:


If anyone has their head around American sports there is a real possibility that the NFL may cease to exist within 10-15yrs. CTE as a result of head trauma is killing players, causing depression, suicide, early onset alzheiers and reducing intelligence and cognitive function.

Over 3000 lawsuits (and growing by the day) are already in front of the courts and could bring the largest sporting competition in the world to it's knees. The ARLC can not be seen to neglect the safety of its employees.

Spot on - it is the numerous subconcussions (bouncing of the brain within the skull). A good hard tackle will cause the brain to bounce probably twice in the tackle (once from the tackle, then from the body hitting the turf) but the blindsided shoulder charge will cause the brain to bounce numerous times as the head goes into a whiplash action. You will never get rid of subconcussions out of a contact sport but you can miminise it.

Best move the league has made.

For once, I agree with BM - a tackle from 1908 was meant to involve the shoulder and arms.

 

[Yoda]

Ban the wrestle, that will give us a better product.

 

[snoozer]

Stupid.

Those stats are interesting though. 0.05% must be ignoring the 1,000s of missed attempts.

that's what we lose.

the beauty of a shouldercharge also includes the misses and fails(thinking sandow v inglis)

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Rothfield:#nrlnotincrisis

:lol:

 

[eozsmiles]

This is something players, fans, and coaches will get over very quickly. It's not as though they have changed the shape of the ball or added 2 extra goal posts that you get a point for kicking between.

 

[Fire]

@the f**kwit that said what do we have now that distinguishes us from Union. How about all the f**ken important things. Strength, speed, agility, more skill, more attack, more tries. You know...all the f**king important things. Not an archaic inefficient and ineffictive tool that belongs in the 20th century.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/f**kushima-no-1-meltdown-confirmed-japan.jpg

lol, what a tripper. Probably never played a game in his life.

 

[eozsmiles]

0.05% of 142,000 is 710.
28 injurys to the attacker
7 to the defender
35 injurys in total.

No mention of how bad those were at all either. Pathetic.

AFL is the last game in Australia that allows the shoulder charge.
Yep, don't we look pathetic.

Seriously, how hard is it to say if you hit the head you get 6 weeks?

35 injuries from 710 tackles is 1 every 20.2 tackles or 1 injury for every 3.3 sets of tackles.

Seems pretty high.

 

[Perth Red]

Ps. @hillbilly do you honestly think those videos were as good as this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRJyKEnM3O4

Kids are going to watch that in years to come and ask wtf happened to RL? :x

 

[Danish]

since when is an injury to the ball runner a bad outcome for a shoulder charge anyway?

Origin is just going to be GREAT this year :roll: