Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[magpie4ever]

A player putting on a shoulder charge might weigh 10-20 kgs heavier these days compared to two decades ago, but so does the recipient of the tackle. It evens itself out.

All they had to do was reduce the interchanges to ensure more fatigued forwards - just like the old days. This in itself would have greatly reduced the force of the collisions.

The point I'm making in my initial post was that the 'excuses' that Dr Merv Cross was coming up with to justify the decision are nonsensical - "look at the health of old retired boxers" - this is Rugby League NOT Boxing! Boxers get hit in the head a million times more often than Rugby League players - it's comparing apples with oranges (and ironically Boxing is not banned!). And the "someone will die" scare tactic - typical medical knee-jerk reaction. No-one has ever died on the field from a shoulder charge in the NSWRL/NRL. That's not to say that a shoulder to the head isn't very dangerous - but this was outlawed under the rules anyway. No-one wants to see a player get hurt but a shoulder charge executed the way it is supposed to hurts nobody. All we needed was a reduced interchange and much tougher suspensions for any player that connects his shoulder to the head of another player. Or even start sending players off.

To take this one step further - do we now ban tackling and play touch football instead because head-high tackles are dangerous too?

Good post, reducing the interchange, say to 4 or 6, would have a dramatic effect on the speed of the game and the force of the collision. You would probably find that size and body shape of the forwards would change so they would go the full 80 minutes.

 

[magpie4ever]

Poor old magpie4ever, getting pilloried. All for expressing an opposing opinion. Ah well, that's forums I suppose.

Whilst I don't support his view I applaud his efforts to express it against overwhelming odds.
I'd much rather read his sensible and reasoned arguments (wrong that they are ;-)) than the imbecilic rantings of the idiots who want to blame this decision on the victims of head hits. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those too lazy to try and effect a proper tackle, or at least get the shoulder charge right.

Thanks mate, appreciate your even handed post even if you do not agree if with my argument for the ban.

But when you give it, you have got to be able to take it. I'm big and ugly enough to handle it. It is all in good fun, at least from my end.

PS: I'm harder then Ben Creagh, that one hurt to the core.:lol:

 

[Pugzley]

Poor old magpie4ever, getting pilloried. All for expressing an opposing opinion. Ah well, that's forums I suppose.

Whilst I don't support his view I applaud his efforts to express it against overwhelming odds.
I'd much rather read his sensible and reasoned arguments (wrong that they are ;-)) than the imbecilic rantings of the idiots who want to blame this decision on the victims of head hits. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those too lazy to try and effect a proper tackle, or at least get the shoulder charge right.

No, blame rests on St George fans and the way they carried on after the twinkie got smacked by Inglis and the twinkie's father having a sook. He played "bravely" the next round. :roll:

The Daily Telegraph also shares the blame after feeding the hysteria and voicing the opinions of the vocal minority calling for a ban. :x

 

[hellteam]

Maybe they are just banning shoulder charges to the head? The way everyone was going on last year, it was like they thought they weren't. Even though they were, hence Inglis getting suspended.

Honestly, this is the shittest thing ever. Its the medias fault. Their fake outrage last year against these "shoulder charges" by Inglis etc, again, pretending the tackles weren't illegal - even though they were being penalised -.was disgusting and blatant attempts to sell papers.

We can only hope the papers etc start some kind of protest to reverse this decision, because it's pretty clear that the commission will do anything they say.

 

[bottle]

...

 

[bottle]

No, blame rests on St George fans and the way they carried on after the twinkie got smacked by Inglis and the twinkie's father having a sook. He played "bravely" the next round. :roll:

The Daily Telegraph also shares the blame after feeding the hysteria and voicing the opinions of the vocal minority calling for a ban. :x

Prime example of said imbeciles.

 

[Pugzley]

Prime example of said imbeciles.

Prime example of a soft c**k spastic.

 

[bottle]

f**k off and let magpie4ever back on. You're taking up valuable band width.

 

[Pugzley]

No. Why don't you f**k off and watch soccer.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

My biggest hope is that their is a massive outrage over this decision. I have major doubts that the decision will be changed, but I really hope it is. It is a moronic decision by the NRL as the shoulder charge is one of the things that makes rugby league great. It's a part of the fabric of the game. I have watched the odd union game here and there, but knowing that players can't come up with a shoulder charge tackle to inspire his teamates and turn defence into attack makes it hard to enjoy the sport.

I agree with what others have said and that the Telegraph has had an impact on this. Rupert Murdoch is playing a large role in screwing up the world, must he continue to screw up rugby leage as well?.....

I also agree that Magpie4ever is a moron.

 

[Geohood]

I've never seen something unite fans and players alike as much as this before... amazing!

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Maybe they are just banning shoulder charges to the head? The way everyone was going on last year, it was like they thought they weren't. Even though they were, hence Inglis getting suspended.

Honestly, this is the shittest thing ever. Its the medias fault. Their fake outrage last year against these "shoulder charges" by Inglis etc, again, pretending the tackles weren't illegal - even though they were being penalised -.was disgusting and blatant attempts to sell papers.

We can only hope the papers etc start some kind of protest to reverse this decision, because it's pretty clear that the commission will do anything they say.

This ^

 

[seanoff]

A player putting on a shoulder charge might weigh 10-20 kgs heavier these days compared to two decades ago, but so does the recipient of the tackle. It evens itself out.

basic physics tells you this is incorrect. Force = mass X aceleration. so bigger faster players = more force not less. and the protection of the brain doesn't scale.

All they had to do was reduce the interchanges to ensure more fatigued forwards - just like the old days. This in itself would have greatly reduced the force of the collisions.i agree with this. would also open up the play

The point I'm making in my initial post was that the 'excuses' that Dr Merv Cross was coming up with to justify the decision are nonsensical - "look at the health of old retired boxers" - this is Rugby League NOT Boxing! Boxers get hit in the head a million times more often than Rugby League players - it's comparing apples with oranges (and ironically Boxing is not banned!). And the "someone will die" scare tactic - typical medical knee-jerk reaction. No-one has ever died on the field from a shoulder charge in the NSWRL/NRL. That's not to say that a shoulder to the head isn't very dangerous - but this was outlawed under the rules anyway. No-one wants to see a player get hurt but a shoulder charge executed the way it is supposed to hurts nobody. All we needed was a reduced interchange and much tougher suspensions for any player that connects his shoulder to the head of another player. Or even start sending players off.

To take this one step further - do we now ban tackling and play touch football instead because head-high tackles are dangerous too? head high tackles are dangerous and that's why they are illegal. same as shoulder charges are now illegal

the response is a little hysterical. the game is still plenty tough.

 

[Usain Bolt]

betcats showing extreme butthurt in a thread once again. Amazing how much butthurt this guy has and still comes back for more

 

[Snappy]

Has Usain Bolt ever made a constructive post on this forum ?

 

[bottle]

Umm No

 

[Springs]

the response is a little hysterical. the game is still plenty tough.

All tackles are dangerous. The whole game is dangerous. There are going to be hits, legal or not, and if they are penalised it's a farce.
If the reason shoulder tackles are banned is because it's dangerous then the game should not be played at all.

And magpie4ever can't even answer any of my questions and often answers others with crap that has nothing to do with the question. I can't see how his arguments are reasonable.

What became of the asking coaches about a rule change thing? So far Bennett, Stuart, Flanagan and Price have been against it. And Toovey has said he would like to see good hard shoulder tackles that hurt the opposition MORE than the shoulder charge, making the reason for the rule irrelevant.

 

[Raidersrawesome]

I really hope they dont go ahead with this.

Like any tackle , if its done wrong then there is a risk of an injury , the shoulder charge is no different.

Im concerned how they are going to police and interpret it.

 

[magpie4ever]

All tackles are dangerous. The whole game is dangerous. There are going to be hits, legal or not, and if they are penalised it's a farce.
If the reason shoulder tackles are banned is because it's dangerous then the game should not be played at all.

And magpie4ever can't even answer any of my questions and often answers others with crap that has nothing to do with the question. I can't see how his arguments are reasonable.

What became of the asking coaches about a rule change thing? So far Bennett, Stuart, Flanagan and Price have been against it. And Toovey has said he would like to see good hard shoulder tackles that hurt the opposition MORE than the shoulder charge, making the reason for the rule irrelevant.

Mate, I watched the Wiki video. Answer: tackle gone wrong, bad technique, Wiki as the ball runner would have zero to answer for.

Listen, all you pitiful secret homos: who crack a woodie when you see a shoulder charge - you will need to get off on something else, now.

The shoulder charge is gone, gone I'm telling you. Banished to where the competitive scrum, competitive play the ball, the low tackle, a hooker who actually could hook in the scrum and the 80 minute front-rower have gone - to the big league field in the sky.

So soak up all your tears, princesses; build a bridge and get over it.

Now, I'm waiting for the reasonable responses.:sarcasm::roll:

 

[Bengal]

Relatively brave decision by the administrators to go against public opinion and do something with the long term health and well being of the footballers in mind.

Why stop at shoulder charges? There are so many elements to this game that can lead to long term physical harm, even death unfortunately. If player welfare is paramount to our ?powers that be? then why are they not targeting every single facet of the game that can lead to injury? We know for instance that legitimate tackles can and do lead to death or crippling injury therefore why is tackling not banned full stop? The season is long, much, much longer than a few decades ago ? why are we not condensing the season? Player welfare is the in-phrase here yet is only seems to apply whenever our ?powers that be? (and those that support their position) deem fit. Clearly, this ?player welfare? argument is a big time crock of shyt especially given that there?s enough evidence, if not more, that points to tackling, all forms of tackling as being as hazardous, if not moreso, than this one element of tackling alone. The evidence is out there ? ban tackling altogether if player welfare really, really is the chief concern of those pushing this barrel.

I pretty much agree with Warren Ryan on this issue - the shoulder charge is a cowardly show, made by wannabe tough guys. Leading with the shoulder and not looking at the impact, which obviously leaves it hugely vulnerable to hitting them in the head/neck region, and generally blindsiding the opponent, nothing 'tough' about that.

First off, not all shoulder charges are blind sides and nor are the cowardly. A player standing his ground in the face of player charging towards him is no more a coward than the guy running at him. Whether that player decides to tackle low, high(ish) or with a shoulder charge, it all then becomes a matter of execution. There is nothing wrong with this one-on-one exchange. If there?s an actual problem here, then it?s in shoulder charging from the side or when there?s more than one person in the tackle.

There's still be big hits, they just need to be done whilst effecting a proper tackle ie wrapping the players up with your arms, driving with the shoulder, rather than simply blindsiding the player.

Rugby Union has shown that they can still put in the big tackles; they?re just few and far between. The "wow" factor in Rugby League has just dropped a notch (or a few) but I'm sure we will get over it. Whether we'll be able to sell this game to newbies in the future, well that job has just gotten a lot harder.