Medical experts will also tell you that larger men increase the chance of injury, faster men increase chance of injury. Tackles are dangerous. Playing league is dangerous. Numerous medical experts have said so.
But f**k it that is the joy of watching/playing the game. The line of 'acceptable risk' is subjective, but you are making out like it is set in stone.
It might be the joy of the game. But personally I love rugby league for more reasons than something that happens in a fraction of 1% of all tackles. And the joy of the game won't count for much when the game is getting multiple lawsuits wanting millions from the NRL because they were warned of the problem and did nothing to stop it.
How many ex League players suffer from brain damage.
Players old enough to be suffering the consequences now played in a time when the game was much less physically demanding. Look at the stats in the article about how quickly players are getting bigger and stronger. And with modern fitness regimes those players are getting bigger and stronger without losing any speed. That's why a shoulder charge in 2012 is more dangerous than a shoulder charge in 1962.
This is about stopping the danger before it happens.
Rubbish.
Expand on this point in relation to risks of injury or even death in sports such as boxing, martial arts, sumo wrestling, horse racing, formula one, bullfighting or motorcycle racing.
Banning the shoulder charge does little to nothing to reduce the risk of injury - there still exist and always have 100 other ways to sustain severe short or long term injuries in the game. Are you claiming that just because a penalty is attached to the act this prevents players from suing in the future?
Let the risks be known. As long as players are aware of the risks and are willing to sign off on future litigation then it becomes a non issue. No other option my ass.
Those aren't worth the paper they're written on. You can't force someone to sign away their rights as the only way to get employment in their field or when the time for their lawsuit comes they'll say they didn't want to sign, they were forced to and the judge would laugh at the NRL.
It's a rubbish call. You don't see many shoulder charges anyway. Maybe 1 a round if that. You will always have injuries anyway. Just make any head contact bad suspensions.
The players will find away to get around this they always find ways to do it. So if you only have 1 arm in the tackle do you go? Another grey area in RL just what we need.
I agree shoulder charges happen very rarely. So can people please stop going into meltdown at the banning of something that happens so rarely.
As I have said before... This doesn't stop already illegal hits from happening, all it does is make good tackles not illegal.
Bunniesman, please explain how the NRL would be liable for any injury suffered from a high shoulder charge? Note: Using the NFL as example is incorrect due to context i.e. NFL concealing information, and the US Duty of Care laws are vastly different to Australia's.
Furthermore, please explain why an illegal high tackle would apparently not have the same consequences of legal action?
In addition, explain how boxing has been able to avoid a waterfall of legal action taken against the fight commissions and organisations.
In boxing the whole point of the sport is getting hit in the head. You know going into the sport that the only way to play the sport correctly is to risk getting hit in the head.
Rugby league is not about getting hit in the head. The point of rugby league is scoring tries and stopping the other team scoring tries. Unlike boxing, that can happen without any head injuries.
Also, the majority of neanderthals in this thread are missing the point. The danger of shoulder charges isn't just from the ones that directly hit the head. A proper correct "good" shoulder charge is just as dangerous. The impact it causes can damage the brain without the head ever being touched directly.
If the NRL did nothing after the warnings its been given all we'd need is for one day a former footy player to commit suicide, his brain be examined and if damage was found the NRL would make his missus a very rich woman.
The NRL would be so open to lawsuits to the point of risking bankruptcy. That's why this is necessary and unavoidable.
What a dumb f**k fallacy. Doctors don't make the rules, the commission makes the rules. Now how the f**k is the commission in a better position to interpret a doctor's report and assess the worthwhileness of the risk than the actual players?
Really? How many players do you think actually read the entire report? I'd be willing to bet none did.
Most players are uneducated, players are 20 somethings that feel bulletproof like most 20 somethings do. Just because they want to do something doesn't make it right and it won't stop them from suing 20 years from now when they're living with the consequences they thought would never happen to them.
The worst I can think of is a couple of broken jaws. Never seen a serious neck injury or similar from a shoulder charge.
FFS the risks aren't what happens to the brain 1 minute after the shoulder charge but what happens 10 or 20 years down the line.
