Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Frank_Grimes]

Herp derp, doesn't say the kiwis were lobbying the rest of the world to change to their rules.

Herpa derpa doo, it also clearly states the NZRL were consulted before the proposal to ban the shoulder charge was put forward to the ARLC. Hardly Australia lobbying NZ or the rest of the word to change their rules - particularly considering NZ had already changed.

And if anyone thinks that this means a major change to the game they're dreaming - the shoulder charge has been outlawed by defacto for a while now thanks to the interpretations of the MRC/Judiciary.

 

[Frailty]

The G force of a shoulder charge is around 10 where a conventional tackle is 6 so a shoulder charge is inherently more powerful and dangerous but doesn't mean their won't be an occasional outlier conventional tackle that may be greater than a shoulder charge from time to time. You also said the NFL still have big hits but they are fining players tens of thousands of dollars for what are still completely legal hits but considered dangerous or risky. this is their attempt to change the culture of the game. sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1209/nfl-fines-2012-season/content.1.html?mobile=n

Not sure if serious...

There were 12 of the 22 that were for helmet-to-helmet hits
Then 4 high shots (defined as head and neck)
Referee abuse
Late hit
Faking injury to stop the clock without a timeout.

All illegal plays....

 

[Frailty]

Herpa derpa doo, it also clearly states the NZRL were consulted before the proposal to ban the shoulder charge was put forward to the ARLC. Hardly Australia lobbying NZ or the rest of the word to change their rules - particularly considering NZ had already changed.

And if anyone thinks that this means a major change to the game they're dreaming - the shoulder charge has been outlawed by defacto for a while now thanks to the interpretations of the MRC/Judiciary.

ARLC are lobbying England and other RILF nations...

NZRL were consulted during ARLC's investigation (ARLC approached them).

There will be a change, the MRC/Judiciary had outlawed shoulder charges which hit the player high - which was already illegal and just needed more severe penalties.

 

[macnaz]

How can they be sued.. there is already a law in place banning ANY tackle attacking the head. So its not as tho the league allows high shoulder chargers.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

The report is f**king nonsense!

"Shoulder charges made up 0.05 per cent of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012;"

0.05% my arse. Nothing they say can be taken seriously when they can't even count. 1 in every 200 tackles is a shoulder charge, supposedly. Does anybody believe that? How on earth are they defining shoulder charges if these are their figures?

Incompetent buffoons. Colossal blow for Rugby League and sport in general.

 

[Springs]

See above applesauce.

I'd like to know where they measured the G force of these tackles.

How about when say Fui knocks over a player while he has the ball? Like he did to Hunt a few years back? Illegal? I'm sure the G force is high..

 

[chrisD]

The report is f**king nonsense!

"Shoulder charges made up 0.05 per cent of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012;"

0.05% my arse. Nothing they say can be taken seriously when they can't even count. 1 in every 200 tackles is a shoulder charge, supposedly. Does anybody believe that? How on earth are they defining shoulder charges if these are their figures?

Incompetent buffoons. Colossal blow for Rugby League and sport in general.

They had their conclusions before they started any analysis. It's a load of wank.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I would wager decent coin that we get more concussions from players attempting conventional tackles and collecting the hip.

Game has gone soft.

Injury is part of the game, it has been from the start. The only people outraged by this seem to be overbearing mothers and dolts.

I would wager that if concussions go up next year we won't go back to the shoulder charge.

Disgraceful decision. The numbers being floated around from this study don't even make sense.

The g force explanation is nonsense. If it's about g force then get rid of the 10 metre line :roll:

 

[kmav23]

This is a legal / Medical issue...

There is no choice but to ban it....

No one on the board wants to be sued in a few years by players

 

[kmav23]

follow the money...

If im on the ARL board and the a barrister tell me the game or yourself can be sued in the future...

guess what

 

[Frailty]

Is it legal to operate a dangerous mine if you get the workers to sign waivers ?

nope

Former Wests Tigers backrower Jarrod McCracken successfully sued Melbourne players Stephen Kearney and Marcus Bai for about $90,000 for a spear tackle which prematurely ended his career in 2000.

The NRL responded by cracking down on dangerous throws and beefing up its penalties for players found guilty of the offence.

Precedent is set by Jarrod McCracken....

You are neglecting why the players were found guilty. The court ruled that they had intended to injure McCracken. The league was not sued.

If we are use this example as a case study, the logical response by the ARLC would be to increase its penalties for shoulder charges that come in contact with the head. Of course, they did this already 2 weeks before the finals.

As for your example of your mine - this is a poor example. You can not sign away right to life, or responsibility to provide a safe environment as this is determined by legislation and regulations (that are related to the mining industry). But you can sign a waiver acknowledging risks that are associated with the regular hazards of the workplace that are best mitigated. Having a high shot illegal is the mitigation...

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

71 shoulder charges a season.

Does anybody believe there are 71 shoulder charges a season? That's 2.7 shoulder charges a round. About 0.3 shoulder charges a game.

How can anybody, whether you agree with a shoulder charge ban or not, take this study serious with such wildly inaccurate figures?

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

This is a legal / Medical issue...

There is no choice but to ban it....

No one on the board wants to be sued in a few years by players

Okay, well the 10metre line is responsible for significant raise in g force

multiple players in the tackle are responsible for significant rise in g force

Why not ban those. Why not go to a 5 metre rule and only allow 2 people in a tackle.

What's the difference? Both would significantly reduce risk of injury in the same way as banning the shoulder charge, supposedly. So why not?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

There will be a change, the MRC/Judiciary had outlawed shoulder charges which hit the player high - which was already illegal and just needed more severe penalties.

As I said, they had outlawed the shoulder charge by defacto as most players have become too scared to attempt it and risk be being seen to have some part of their body connecting with some part of their opponent's head.

 

[Timmah]

71 shoulder charges a season.

Does anybody believe there are 71 shoulder charges a season? That's 2.7 shoulder charges a round. About 0.3 shoulder charges a game.

How can anybody, whether you agree with a shoulder charge ban or not, take this study serious with such wildly inaccurate figures?

You think there's more? :?

Stats seem relatively accurate to me, there's probably about 2 or 3 per round in terms of actual shoulder charges.

 

[franklin2323]

Rothfield posted a photo of a player with a broken jaw...

I returned with a pic of Yow Yeh's leg which was far more serious and caused the player to be out longer...

BRB Banning jumping to contest for bombs.

Ciraldo's leg was the worst I have seen guess what a legal tackle.

That hit on Clinton by SBW in the 04 Prem or Burgess on Bell in 10 2 of the best hits I have seen. Both now be illegal yet both players were fine

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I'm too tired to even do maths so someone correct me on my figures lol. Either way, they're clearly wrong!

 

[Frailty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXgobIO2g50&feature=related

Highlights 2011... A lot of great tackles and hits now illegal and won't be seen.

 

[Slackboy72]

Personally I blame the players and the refs. Harrigan especially.
Too many shoulder charges ended up with contact to the head. That's the players fault.
No-one got really punished for it. That's the refs and especially Harrigan's fault.

His insistence that games remain 13 v 13 meant that people were put on report rather than sent off. If the refs had of sent people for contact to the head then players would have amend their behaviour. They didn't and now we get the obvious response.

 

[kmav23]

Okay, well the 10metre line is responsible for significant raise in g force

multiple players in the tackle are responsible for significant rise in g force

Why not ban those. Why not go to a 5 metre rule and only allow 2 people in a tackle.

What's the difference? Both would significantly reduce risk of injury in the same way as banning the shoulder charge, supposedly. So why not?

The difference is all 16 Club doctors wrote a letter saying this is dangerous the brain injury and should be banned.

Once the letter was written the game had no choice.

When a player sues... all they need to do is bring up the letter from the 16 doctors !!

that evidence is damming !!!