Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[magpie4ever]

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.

Are you calling me a pubic hair wig? How dare you:?

At least, you called me a soft one, unlike the normal pubic stubble.:lol:

 

[miguel de cervantes]

- shoulder charges made up 0.05% of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012

- less than 4% of these resulted in injury to the attacking player and less than 1% to the defensive player

- 17% resulted in contact with the head of the attacking player

According to NRL.com, Brisbane's fowards took the ball up from 200 to 400 times in 2012. On average about 300 times.

0.05% * 300 hit-ups = 0.15 shoulder charges per year

ie. your average foward cops on average a shoulder charge every 6-7 years.

If 4% of these lead to injury, the probability of a foward getting injured from a shoulder charge during a career is very, very small. If players are getting brain damaged (there is no evidence that this is the case), it is not from shoulder charges.

This decision is ridiculous.

 

[adamkungl]

Keep going through big hits youtube videos thinking "banned...banned...banned...banned...banned...banned...banned..."

 

[adamkungl]

That's why these figures are wrong. Ben Matulino, Chris Sandow and Jared Waerea-Hargreaves alone would total a minimum, the bare f**king minimum, of 10 shoulder charges a round.

So someone tell me where these people got .02 shoudler charges or w/e figure it is a game from. How on gods green earth can you get to the figures they have.

And if those figures are wrong, who would take seriously the conclusions they've reached? This study has no credibility, just because of that.

My suspicion would be that they've used such a perverse and unusual definition of a shoulder charge(they must have to hit 0.05%) to get the result they wanted, that being that shoulder charges(by their unusual definition where you only see 3 a round:lol are seriously more dangerous.

My posit would be that, were they to accurately measure shoulder charges(meaning they'd count many tens of shoulder chargers a round - as there is at least that) we would see the risk significantly reduced.

I'm not saying they've cooked the figures to get the result they wanted, I think they're just genuinely thick.

Good post. Nothing about this decision holds up to scrutiny.

The only explanation is they're afraid of images like the Inglis-Young hit happening again.

 

[axl rose]

Good post. Nothing about this decision holds up to scrutiny.

The only explanation is they're afraid of images like the Inglis-Young hit happening again.

All this over Dean Young? bung knee should have retried 5 years ago. It was a mercy hit.

 

[adamkungl]

Anyone think the poms have the balls to stand up and tell the ARLC to get f**ked?

 

[afinalsin666]

Anyone think the poms have the balls to stand up and tell the ARLC to get f**ked?

Good god I hope so.

 

[adamkungl]

Out of interest, anyone on here who has actually played the game in favour of banning the shoulder charge?

 

[kmav23]

I will repeat this again !

This was decided by legal counsel who gave advice to possible litigation.

No one on the board wants the game or themselves to be sued.

You will be negligence if you don't follow legal advice.

 

[magpie4ever]

Out of interest, anyone on here who has actually played the game in favour of banning the shoulder charge?

Yeah, this soft hair pubic wig can put his hand up. I also have two sons in junior district reps.

 

[kmav23]

Out of interest, anyone on here who has actually played the game in favour of banning the shoulder charge?

Many have played on this forum but at the top level they are built like trucks with massive force. A shoulder charge gone wrong could cause serious brain damage.

more mums will let sons play if they can reduce brain damage

 

[adamkungl]

People should be entitled to hold an opposing view, albeit in the minority, without being villified and insulted.

Not this time.

They are showing such disdain for the core values of Rugby League, such a fundamental mis-understanding of the qualities of sport, and trying to justify it with arguments that are well beyond moronic.

They can get f**ked.

 

[adamkungl]

Many have played on this forum but at the top level they are built like trucks with massive force. A shoulder charge gone wrong could cause serious brain damage.

Proof = zero.

more mums will let sons play if they can reduce brain damage

No they won't.

Also kill yourself kmav.

 

[Bengal]

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.

I feel the same way

This is in my opinion the worst decision made in Rugby League since Souffs and Norths were booted.

To me, this is worse than the SuperLeague war because fighting over control of the game was one thing, ripping out its soul, now that's something else entirely.

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.

The only time stats mean anything is when all answers lead to the same conclusion. That's a a rarity in stats land. Someone may die from a shoulder charge, there's no two ways about that, but people have died from misjudged tackles - that's an unfortunate fact. Where's the hullabaloo over that!

It's an attempt to mum-friendly a game that will never be mum-friendly and to be perfectly honest, shouldn't be.

It's a fine line. We have to mum-friendly it the best we can. We have to make the game appealing to the widest possible audience. But not this way, not at the expense of its core audience!

more mums will let sons play if they can reduce brain damage

What's with all this mum stuff. Don't dads exist in family land!

 

[adamkungl]

Yeah, this soft hair pubic wig can put his hand up. I also have two sons in junior district reps.

I'm surprised. I don't know how someone can love the game, step onto a field accepting the risks and yet advocate a ban on what is basically tackling too hard.

I realise some of the doctors involved in the decision are former players, but doctors are always going to recommend the safety first option.

Rugby League is about putting your body on the line.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

This thread is brilliant, 9 out of 10 in terms of hilarity factor.

 

[magpie4ever]

I'm surprised. I don't know how someone can love the game, step onto a field accepting the risks and yet advocate a ban on what is basically tackling too hard.

I realise some of the doctors involved in the decision are former players, but doctors are always going to recommend the safety first option.

Rugby League is about putting your body on the line.

Mate, don't come at that - numerous broken noses, a broken jaw, smashed collar bone, broken ribs, a right ankle that aches day and night, a knee with with no ligaments undamaged that can dislocate while walking down the street on which the doctors will not operate because it will cause more damage. Therefore, walk with a slight limp.

Hopefully, no brain damage - although, some would argue that point.

Ok. I have concerns re: two sons; so if they (ARLC) can take one aspect of possible long term health consquences out of the game for a player after they retire: so be it - it will still be a demanding game, just a little safer.

 

[thorson1987]

Many have played on this forum but at the top level they are built like trucks with massive force. A shoulder charge gone wrong could cause serious brain damage.

more mums will let sons play if they can reduce brain damage

f**k me are you just acting stupid or are you fair dinkum.

You do realise shoulder charges are banned up until U/18's

In fact mini and mod footy are pretty safe. The main injuries you see are the same as you would see when kids have an accident whilst mucking around.

And up until 2 months ago I was still playing. Not once have I been knocked out by shoulder charge, but I have been concussed by a solid hit around the waist, and I was out before I even hit the ground.

 

[Springs]

So why don't you advocate for all of the dangerous aspects to be rubbed out of the game? So your sons don't have the same injuries you do?

Kungl, don't listen to magpie4ever, before he wanted all scrums to be contested again, which I find nothing wrong with, except that he wants the shoulder charge gone because of potential injury yet the scrum has history of many bad neck injuries including being paralysed.

 

[adamkungl]

So you're body's a wreck from years of Rugby League. Looking back, would you have rathered it be safer? Why limit it to head injuries? The biggest long term damage from Rugby League is joint and bone damage. Any decent long-term RL player is going to have some level of long term damage as a result, particularly forwards.

The ARLC could take out any number of possible long term health risks, but it would be a fundamental change to the game.

Back to the highlighted part though, "Putting your body on the line" is a core value of Rugby League. It is one of the deepest traits of Rugby League. This decision takes a huge shit on that.