Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Bengal]

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

You're right there. I built a rather large bridge over this game (courtesy of the ole Super League war). What was once my life (everything revolved around it, as it did for my parents before me) is now just a bit part that I fit in whenever.

 

[Bengal]

And their Origin promo videos. Rugby league is so frustrating to be a fan of sometimes. The appeal of rugby league is the collisions and the brutality, it's evidenced every time Origin comes around and half the highlights package is the biffs of yesteryear. Yet we do everything in our power to try and become more politically correct. Rugby league will never be the game mothers want their sons to play. Soccer has that market and forever will.

Good calls. Rugby League has just lost its biggest selling point and one of its key points of difference between it and Rugby Union.

Fantastic, another grey area to confuse the fans. He charged with his shoulder but tapped him with his arm on the way down, is that a penalty? He bent at the hips, drilled him in the gut, knocked him down but forget to wrap his arms around, is that a penalty?

Too true! You see this rubbish in Union ? players getting penalized for not attempting to use their arms in a tackle. Another grey area beckons?

 

[magpie4ever]

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.

Why don't you organise a rally and march on League HQ; I'm sure you could con a few of the dopes on here to march with you - it would be hysterical.

 

[magpie4ever]

You're right there. I built a rather large bridge over this game (courtesy of the ole Super League war). What was once my life (everything revolved around it, as it did for my parents before me) is now just a bit part that I fit in whenever.

Same here, mate.

 

[simmo1]

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:

Pretty much this.

 

[roughyedspud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PITIzoVF2vA

The funniest thing about this is now no. 8 will be a penalty to the Dragons.

i've just "graded" all 10 tackles

10 - good

9 - penalty , defenders arms not either side of the attacker

8 - lol f**k knows how thats ruled

7 - penalty , defenders arms not either side of the attacker

6 - good

5 - penalty....defenders arms not either side of attacker

4 - penalty...same as the rest

3 - good

2 - penalty...as above

1 - penalty......lol




i still don't think its actually been made clear,so we all know,whats been banned by the ARLC??

this type of shoulder charge....inglis on young
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdtb-_3MTE

should be banned...hitting someone like you're trying to break down a door is'nt a "tackle"

these types of shoulder "hits" & tackles...should never,ever be outlawed though

sbw on clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4a5T0bDcjE
sbw on chris flannery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GfziEThFes
sam burgess on matt bell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU7-GWSWbs
tahu on norrie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moKsmnq2eQ8
Kylie Leuluai Big Hit Brett Hodgson ChallengeCup 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXfOfEw7vq4

 

[Springs]

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:

But he led with his shoulder, caused damage with a shoulder charge, Soliola was in Disneyland. Isn't that what we are trying to eradicate? But it's only on one side is it? How is that fair? Attackers might as well lead with the shoulder all the time now, since they have no chance of being bumped off.

And you want reasonable responses, yet call everyone who wants the shoulder charge (the vast majority) secret homos. :roll:

Spud, the thing is, the ones you call penalties are no worse than the ones trying to wrap their arms around. Isn't the reason for the rule change because of massive g force and sub-concussions and injuries later in life?

The Inglis one on Young was bad because Young was being dragged down from behind. If Young was upright I'd say it would have came off the same as the others.

 

[Bengal]

Legally you cant write a contract waiver with employee to accept brain damage from shoulder charges...

you cant sign away legal rights to workplace safety...when it comes to serious brain injuries...

Employer must take reasonable action to prevent foreseable risks to employee...

All 16 club doctors wrote a letter saying it should be banned...

Is brain injury the only thing doctors are worried about? We know that tackling and tackles can lead to all manner of injuries and even in the most unfortunate cases - death. Do these other injuries, do these other consequences not matter? Because these consequences, they're all foreseeable, we've all seen many of them and we may well continue to see many more. So, if its reasonable to ban shoulder charges then it sure the heck isn't a stretch to ban tackling full stop given that the likelihood of some of these other injuries occurring through any other form of tackle - I imagine - would be similar to that of a shoulder charge.

In other words, the same argument that's been used to ban shoulder charges can clearly be used to ban other harmful elements of this game, namely, the tackle situation full stop. So, why haven't they...unless as earlier mentioned, maybe they just don't matter. Or maybe this all a bit like how our referees act - this week they're going to concentrate on a, b, c and d, next week it will be x, y and z.

Be angry at the doctors....if you must....
All they care about is people welfare..bassstttards

Maybe they care up to a point, as when their own jobs are on the line. People welfare, in the Rugby League sphere, that term stretches a lot further than the consequences of a shoulder tackle.

 

[axl rose]

You're right there. I built a rather large bridge over this game (courtesy of the ole Super League war). What was once my life (everything revolved around it, as it did for my parents before me) is now just a bit part that I fit in whenever.

Its not just the shoulder charge. The lack of pressure on kickers now is farcical. To the point where someone like Jamie Soward just stands there for 5 seconds and dares a defender to touch him. They don't even attempt a legit tackle as they know late or not its always a penalty. Yawn, lucky for these admins Rugby league has loyal supporters.

 

[magpie4ever]

But he led with his shoulder, caused damage with a shoulder charge, Soliola was in Disneyland. Isn't that what we are trying to eradicate? But it's only on one side is it? How is that fair? Attackers might as well lead with the shoulder all the time now, since they have no chance of being bumped off.

And you want reasonable responses, yet call everyone who wants the shoulder charge (the vast majority) secret homos. :roll:

Spud, the thing is, the ones you call penalties are no worse than the ones trying to wrap their arms around. Isn't the reason for the rule change because of massive g force and sub-concussions and injuries later in life?

The Inglis one on Young was bad because Young was being dragged down from behind. If Young was upright I'd say it would have came off the same as the others.

If Soliola goes low the shoulder doesn't come into play. Although, he still might have caught Wiki's hip bone - same result, who knows. That is league, it is a collision game - accidential injuries happen, they occurred in 1908 and they will occur in 2028. The ban on shoulder charges is due to medical advice on subconcussions on the ball runner; other legal tackles do not have the same effect.

Mate, I was taken the piss - man up.

 

[axl rose]

Who actually sits on the rules committee that this proposal will go through? it will obviously pass but merely curious.

 

[Springs]

If Soliola goes low the shoulder doesn't come into play. Although, he still might have caught Wiki's hip bone - same result, who knows. That is league, it is a collision game - accidential injuries happen, they occurred in 1908 and they will occur in 2028. The ban on shoulder charges is due to medical advice on subconcussions on the ball runner; other legal tackles do not have the same effect.

Mate, I was taken the piss - man up.

So the medical advice on subconcussions for the tackler just didn't exist? What does it matter if Soliola went high or not? I'd say he wanted to do to Wiki what Wiki did to him. Maybe if the ball runner does not run that angle he doesn't hit the shoulder, it happens quite a bit actually. Shoulder charge should not be banned then, right?

If you take the piss, don't ask for 'reasonable responses'. :roll:

 

[magpie4ever]

So the medical advice on subconcussions for the tackler just didn't exist? What does it matter if Soliola went high or not? I'd say he wanted to do to Wiki what Wiki did to him. Maybe if the ball runner does not run that angle he doesn't hit the shoulder, it happens quite a bit actually. Shoulder charge should not be banned then, right?

If you take the piss, don't ask for 'reasonable responses'. :roll:

That was "taken the piss"; didn't expect reasonable responses.

Seriously, all tackles create subconcussions (brain bouncing off the skull) for the defender and ball runner. The shoulder charge if perfected will, whether it hits the head, shoulder or body of the ball runner, create a whiplash action to the head of the ball runner (and defender) causing a significantly higher number of subconcussions then a normal legit tackle.

The example I can provide is: a boxer can take 20 left jabs to the face or one massive right cross to have the some number of subconcussions. We should all know of the effects that these can have on boxers in later life, long after they retire.

It is about player safety, ball runner and defender, it has not been done to piss the supporters off.

 

[magpie4ever]

A Moody Christmas - best show currently on TV. A corker

 

[Clifferd]

Sandow must be spewing...he might have to actually attempt a proper tackle rather than going in with just a blind shoulder charge everytime and getting bounced like the fat little turd he is

 

[roughyedspud]

Spud, the thing is, the ones you call penalties are no worse than the ones trying to wrap their arms around. Isn't the reason for the rule change because of massive g force and sub-concussions and injuries later in life?

The Inglis one on Young was bad because Young was being dragged down from behind. If Young was upright I'd say it would have came off the same as the others.

i know what you mean mate...im just trying to make sense of what the ARLC have banned..

 

[afinalsin666]

They better at least leave it for Origin, call it Traditional rules or some sh*t, but leave the shoulder for origin. Can't imagine origin where the first hit up isn't a massive don't argue shoulder.

http://youtu.be/nbheeRevqpo

Tim Grant lead with the shoulder on Petero this year, that's a penalty, possibly a sin bin depending on how strict they get, and Queensland have the ball on NSW 10 8 seconds after the game starts.

http://youtu.be/lztKkkOF9A4

Tony Williams putting a hit on slater before putting the ball down for a try, lead with the shoulder. Good offense normally, but now, noooooooo, that sh*t's a penalty, no try for Manly and Storm have the ball.

http://youtu.be/qKVqgH2SHhE

Majority of these hits are Idris standing his ground, or stepping forward one or two steps. Not a sprinting lunge, but still, can't do it now.


There are going to be so many instinctive hits this year from career player squaring up, because they have been doing it for 20 years.

 

[Lambretta]

Sandow must be spewing...he might have to actually attempt a proper tackle rather than going in with just a blind shoulder charge everytime and getting bounced like the fat little turd he is

So as Parramatta have already been awarded the Premiership for 2013 (see moronic thread started by deluded dribbler) - does the banning of the shoulder charge and Sandow's inability to make any other sort of tackle increase or decrease their winning margin?

On the one hand, he will make less tackles, on the other he might actually learn to tackle properly and make more.

This new method of awarding the Premiership before a game has even been played is rather confusing.

 

[adamkungl]

I could write a f**king essay on this. I have never, not once, been as angry at my favourite sport as I am today. Off-field scandals, shit refs, etc do not compare to this. This is in my opinion the worst decision made in Rugby League since Souffs and Norths were booted. I think the game has lost integrity on and off the field due to the reasons the decision was made and the result. Call me hysterical or a sook, I honestly don't care - today Rugby League lost a part of its soul.

The stats provided do not justify this decision. 4 % injury rate from 0.5%. With 'injury' undefined. This does not paint a picture of an epidemic. Claims that someone will die are overblown nonsense.

In my opinion, this is not at all a player safety issue, but an image issue. A reaction to the images of Dean Young plastered all over the back pages and the faux-outrage generated by absolute merkins calling themselves journalists who haven't set foot on a football field. It's an attempt to mum-friendly a game that will never be mum-friendly and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't be.

And it won't work on any level. Accidents will still result in players getting concussed, and mums still won't let their kids play contact sports, even though the shoulder charge has always been banned in juniors.

Rugby League is a contact sport, that has always prided itself on being the toughest, most uncompromising football code around. It has prided itself on tackles and collisions that are brutal but within the bounds of sportsmanship. Which is why we have no head shots, elbows, gouging, biting, tripping etc. A good shoulder charge is a front-on body hit, a high risk but high reward play that can be a game changer, and should always be legal in Rugby League.

No one likes to see blokes smacked in the head, and that's what the suspension system is for. This has gone a step further. Why not ban tackles around the chest in case they bounce up? This is entirely inconsistent with everything else in the sport. The correct solution, as it always has been, is to punish shots that hit the head. Just like spear tackles are illegal, but lifting to the horizontal is not.

And the f**ked justifications for this from dimwitted merkins who obviously have a very limited understanding of Rugby League/sport in general?

"But i prefer a good driving tackle anyway"
The f**k? How is what you prefer even remotely relevant? The existence of shoulder charges does not prevent you watching any other type of tackle.

"The NRL are just covering themselves from litigation"
You've obviously taken one too many hits to the head. If this was an issue, combat and contact sports simply wouldn't exist. Try again f**khead.

And the worst one...
"It's just 0.5% of tackles, won't be missed"
Do you have even a basic understanding of what makes sport exciting? The rare, game changing plays are what fans come to see. All the little things, the shoulder charges, the crunching tackles, the intercepts, the chip and chases, the perfect cutout passes, the field goals, the length of the field tries - these are the rare, game changing moments that make games memorable, and we've just lost one of the most iconic in our game. Kill yourselves next time you think you have a rational thought, because your opinion is wrong.

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

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

Won't be missed my arse.

---

The game does not belong to the pricks in suits at Moore Park. It belongs to the players and fans. No players want this shit and most fans don't. And the fans that do are soft merkins who should find a different sport to watch.

Here's hoping the players and coaches take a stand before this shit is written into the rule book.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

The outside of the shoulder barge should be banned.