Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[magpie4ever]

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.

Heard of people being winded from a solid waist tackle. I suggest you have a CT scan to see if your brain has not relocated in your body from head to stomach.

 

[magpie4ever]

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.

Just like a boxer would find it hard to win a compo case for brain damage due to punches to the head being an integral part of that sport. An ex-league player would find it hard to win a case, say for my injuries due to tackling and being tackled is an integral part of rugby league. The participants accept the risks.

While boxing is a full contact sport from the waist up, league is not. Therefore, the possiblity of brain damage is not an accepted risk, it was the only action they could have taken give the medical studies and legal cases coming out of the States.

 

[Bengal]

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

If the commission is dead serious about player welfare then touch and probably a very decelerated version of that game is the way to go. Must minimize all life-affecting, long-term injuries and not just the one's that are the fashions of the day.

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.

To be fair, I don't constitute shoulder charges with putting one's body on the line.

While boxing is a full contact sport from the waist up, league is not. Therefore, the possiblity of brain damage is not an accepted risk, it was the only action they could have taken give the medical studies and legal cases coming out of the States.

Will then, we need to make League a full contact sport from the waist up - for legal reasons - while continuing to police the game in the same manner as we have been doing.

 

[magpie4ever]

If the commission is dead serious about player welfare then touch and probably a very decelerated version of that game is the way to go. Must minimize all life-affecting, long-term injuries and not just the one's that are the fashions of the day.

To be fair, I don't constitute shoulder charges with putting one's body on the line.


Will then, we need to make League a full contact sport from the waist up - for legal reasons - while continuing to police the game in the same manner as we have been doing.[/QUOTE]

Are you for making tackles to the head legal - c'mon be serious.

 

[Perth Red]

Why do people keep going on about the NFL cases? it has nothing at all to do with shoulder charges. It is based on A) helmet to helmet contact and B) alleged covering up of some research that is arguably inconclusive at this time about the long term effects of repeated concussions from brain trauma. The shoulder charge is still very much allowed in NFL rules!

Anyway it is gone and will never return sadly. Only hope is the rfl, frl, pngrl etc tell the arlc to f*** off and we get to keep it at international level.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Brain damage is a risk in rugby league, be it from legal or illegal tackles. The players must and by the looks of things do accept this risk. How is this any different from boxing?

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

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.

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.

That's the logical conclusion, isn't it. If you take the argument against shoulder charges to it's logical conclusion then wholesale changes needed applying to the game to eradicate every other dangerous aspect of it.

Of course, logic is a bit too much to ask for these hypocrites and spineless media-slaves.

Wouldn't surprise me if concussions go up next year as more textbook tackling is encouraged and more players are KO'd in collecting a hip or knee, certainly we'll see more ligament damage as the wrestle increases

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

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.

Preach brother.

People die in Rugby Union scrums and none of their media or governing bodies even think of banning the scrum, the thought doesn't enter their mind.

Exactly as you say, it's a matter of image. League is victim to bias, anti-League media and they're reacting to it.

In League we say "Oh my god, nobody has died yet in the last few decades, but somebody might well die or be seriously injured in the future!"

Meanwhile in Union, blokes are walking, I say walking, they're paralysed from the neck down, those that aren't dead that is, and there is no media demanding a ban, no thuggish image of the game etc

This was a perfect opportunity for League powers to confront head on the media double standards and bullshit and show clearly that their reporting was reactionary nonsense without real grounding in fact. Instead they pussied out.

All these litigation myths and what not, how come they only apply to League?

There isn't a convincing argument I've heard in favour of banning the shoulder charges, even if the arguments are accepted when you then logically apply the same standards of health and image paranoia to other aspects of the game, you have to say kick returns need banning(the media mentioned this one part through the year, so hold on to that because it's coming soon), gang tackles, etc, tackling itself

 

[Bengal]

Are you for making tackles to the head legal - c'mon be serious.

I'm simple rejigging the legal speak to cover our arse while keeping the on-field aspect of the game as is. Tackles to the head is still an offence but this offence now falls under the "poor sportsmanship" banner (V8 Supercars have a poor sportsmanship code that they use to punish drivers) rather than the actual rulebook. Point is, if boxing can cover its arse then what's stopping League from doing the same thing!

 

[Slackboy72]

This thread is getting kinda hilarious in a 2012-is-the-end-of-the-world-we're-all-doomed kind of way.

 

[bottle]

Lost the plot a while ago.
Got to the point now where people are saying no one can have an opposing view because, well, just because.
I think the lunatics have not only taken over the asylum, they've franchised the whole operation.

 

[RWB]

Surely they can't go through with this, the outcry from fans and players (your two most important stakeholders) is surely enough at the least to re-think this decision.

I hope common sense prevails.

 

[hitman82]

This thread is getting kinda hilarious in a 2012-is-the-end-of-the-world-we're-all-doomed kind of way.

Now the shoulder charge is gone, rugby league is f**ked, and I feel totally indifferent to the impending apocalypse.

 

[hitman82]

There should be a few of these petitions floating around, but still...
http://www.nzwarriorsfans.com/threads/unban-the-shoulder-charge-petition.9025/page-3

 

[Seti]

I'm not a passionate supporter of banning it but I can accpet it as its such a minor part of the game. Some musings to some of the points raised -

NFL comparison is irrelevant - The NFL dwarfs the NRL by virtually every measure but there are obvious similarities between the two – certain amount of plays to get so far, having ball runners being tackled, many with shoulder charges. Unlike the NRL there have been large, long term studies done on the effects of repeated concussions in the NFL. There was a strong correlation with repeat concussions and FATAL brain diseases and suicides later in life. Not a 30% or 50% increase but 300-400% more likely.

Back in 2011 intentional helmet-to-helmet collision were banned. Not only this but defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck with the shoulder or forearm. A defenseless player includes passers, kickers, receivers without time to avoid contact, ball carrier whose progress stopped etc.

Is there much difference between padded helmet-to-helmet collisions and non-padded head-to-shoulder collisions and far as trauma goes?

NFL still allows shoulder charges - Aside from a defenseless player, yes, the NFL still allows shoulder charges as a legitimate tackling technique. Would they, however, if there were no helmets or huge shoulder pads?

What about other injuries? Do they not matter? - You can’t compare a knee injury, even a serious career ending one which could also be surgically corrected later, with a FATAL brain disease. There is a difference between injuries likely to inconvenience your life and those likely to kill you. It’s the reason spear tackles are banned. Has anyone died from a spear tackle in the NRL? No? Then why are they banned? You can’t even go beyond horizontal now. Risk mitigation, along with dangerous throws, tripping, crusher tackles etc.

Boxing/MMA is allowed - There is a difference in liability which rests with the insurance companies rather then the governing body. Generally speaking boxing club membership has a reasonably high premium component, which then skyrocket on the individual for pro fights, as well as ironclad waivers. And as others have said the whole raison d’etre is taking head shots. No one plays league for that.

More concussions come from the knee/hip - The onus here is on the defender’s technique. Accidents will always happen with tackles gone wrong but the big difference is intent. A defender doesn’t go into the tackle trying to inflict concussion on himself, but rather the ball carrier. Maybe concussion is not the intent but trying to whack the guy as hard as possible with the shoulder and knowing that concussion is a distinct possibility. The ball carrier doesn’t have much of a say, unlike the tackler.

The Jarrod McCraken incident players were sued, not the NRL - Only because spear tackles were contrary to the rules and deemed foul play.


All 16 doctors supported the proposal. Not a single dissenting voice. Not one. To suggest the ARLC then ignore it is non-sensical. There would’ve been an injunction before the season starts by some medical body or safety advocate now the word is out.

(NLF) Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke at the Harvard School of Public Health, where he trumpeted the league’s efforts to increase the safety of its players and proclaimed that “medical decisions override everything else.”

Thousands of ex-players are suing the NFL. Compensation may still be sought from the NRL as well in future but if they didn’t draw a line in the sand, in light of the club doctors support, it would be open season, potentially bankrupting the game.

Three retired NFL players received at least $2 million in disability payments as a result of brain trauma injuries from their playing days, according to an article by ESPN and the PBS series “Frontline.”
The payments were made in the 1990s and early 2000s by the Bell/Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, a committee comprising representatives of the owners, players and NFL commissioner.

As there is currently no such benevolent fund in league the buck will stop with the NRL.

Civilisation is inexorably moving to remove risk and promote safety in all facets of life. It is unavoidable. People may vote with their feet next season, and so be it, but it won’t change this decision. It is done. Time to move on.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...have-a-say-on-rule-change-20121121-29qb0.html

Players ignored the chance to have a say on rule change

Date
November 22, 2012

Glenn Jackson
Rugby League Writer

THEY rose almost as one to vent their anger about the outlawing of the shoulder charge, while some expressed their frustration that they were not asked first.

The truth is, they were.

In the embryonic stages of the report that eventually convinced the ARLC to abolish the shoulder charge at a meeting on Tuesday, NRL players were emailed and asked for their opinions on the tackling technique. Brian Canavan, who put together the independent report, received only one emailed response and a telephone call.

''The committee who ran this process for us went through a process with the RLPA [the Rugby League Players' Association],'' the NRL's director of football operations, Nathan McGuirk, said. ''They obviously set a brief of what the research was, including the terms of reference, asking for feedback, either written or verbal, on the review.

''I believe the result of that totalled one written summary from a player, along with I believe one verbal conversation with Brian Canavan. They also received written feedback from one club.''

The sheer number of players expressing their disapproval of the commission's decision, which followed a recommendation from management, including McGuirk, will have surprised the NRL. And officials there were not taking it lightly. The same can be said for RLPA boss David Garnsey, who confirmed that the process by which the ARLC banned the tackle was due to be discussed in depth at a scheduled board meeting on Wednesday night.

''Clearly, it will be discussed there,'' Garnsey said. ''It needs to be something the board looks at. The views of the players [on Tuesday and Wednesday], they are respected and a matter of some significance.

''Certainly, there was an invitation at the very outset of the review, to offer their view on the shoulder charge. I don't know how many did because the responses were to be forwarded directly to Brian Canavan - but there was certainly no consultation once the review had been finalised.

''This is obviously a matter of enormous interest to the players, given the way they've reacted. And regardless of how many responded, players have been expressing views [about the shoulder charge] publicly for some time. It's not been a secret [how they feel].''
Cricket ... Banned since Charles Bannerman took block against Alfred Shaw in the first Test in 1877. However Andrew Symonds received the man of the match award for cleaning up a streaker at the Gabba in 2008.

McGuirk maintained he was comfortable with the level of consultation given to the players, despite the chorus of disapproval. ''We felt it was important that we properly consulted the playing group,'' McGuirk said. ''The research committee thought it was best to go through the association, and that process had to be formal as well. We were comfortable with that process.''

The report did not recommend that the shoulder charge be banned. ''The players and the clubs were given the opportunity to present their information,'' Canavan said. ''But this was a research-based review, therefore evidence was found and findings were presented.''

Opinions had been sought from medical staff, sports scientists and with the NRL Competition Committee, which included Wayne Bennett, Daniel Anderson, Brian Smith, Ivan Cleary, Bill Harrigan, Stuart Raper and Darren Lockyer.

Canavan consulted the NZRL, which had banned the shoulder charge domestically in 2006.

''We gave Brian our feedback from our medical council and explained to them that we had had some very positive results from an injury perspective and from [reduced insurance] claims in the domestic game,'' chief executive Jim Doyle said.

McGuirk will now consult the competition committee to finalise proposed rule amendments, which will be put to the commission next month.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

"It’s the reason spear tackles are banned. Has anyone died from a spear tackle in the NRL? No? Then why are they banned? You can’t even go beyond horizontal now."

You can still lift people though, can't you. The crucial point is that shoulder charges aren't a legitimate danger, anymore than a normal tackle, unless it goes wrong, just like lifting. Shoulder charges only become a problem when they go high, just as lifting tackles only become a problem when they go past the horizontal. These doctors and suits aren't making the distinction for shoulder charges, but they make it for lifting tackles. The distinction is vitally important. Without high contact, which are illegal as they are, there is no grave danger.

So the solution is not to say ban shoulder charges outright, ban lifting outright. The mature, reasoned solution is ban shoulder charges that are dangerous(above the shoulders) just as the reasoned solution is to ban tackles past the horizontal, and not lifting tackles fullstop.

The biggest problem is the conclusion is drawn from bullshit figures, the bullshit figures being that there are only 0.3 shoulder charges a game. Whoever was behind this test has categorised shoulder charges in a narrow sense to reach the conclusion they wanted.

In any other walk of life a study with such glaring errors would be dismissed.

Lets see if Rugby bans the scrum and the ruck. Bet it doesn't happen. Still at a loss as to the difference.

Lastly, there's a difference between promoting safety and enforcing safety. Society is moving towards totalitarianism in which individual choice and freedom is denied because the state claims to know better, to amend your statement. Promoting safety is a government saying "Hey, don't eat that it's not good for you", which is a far cry from "Hey, you can't eat that, we won't allow it"

Until legitimate study is done into the dangers of the shoulder charge, nobody of sane mind will take this move seriously. They've acted upon farcical findings.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...er-charge-review/story-fnca0von-1226521554496

Players, clubs ignored shoulder charge review

by: Stuart Honeysett
From: The Australian
November 22, 2012 12:00AM

THE ARL Commission has revealed that only two players responded to a request to provide input into the shoulder charge after the move to outlaw the dangerous technique continued to cause uproar across the code yesterday.

Players, officials and fans yesterday continued to voice their disgust through social media following the commission's decision to outlaw the shoulder charge from all forms of the game from next season.

The move comes after a formal review was conducted by the NRL's research board following several ugly incidents this year. The NRL is now in the process of tinkering with its rules to enforce the ban, with the commission expected to sign off on them next month.

NRL football operations director Nathan McGuirk yesterday said players and clubs had been asked to provide input into the matter when the review was being conducted, but the response had been minimal.

"We received one written response from a player and (NRL research review committee's) Brian Canavan received one phone call from a player," McGuirk said.

"We received direct feedback from one particular club.

"I wanted it known that we did go through a proper process of consultation with both the playing group and also our clubs in giving them the opportunity to have direct feedback into this review process."

Rugby League Players Association chief executive David Garnsey confirmed that players had been invited to provide their views on the shoulder charge at the outset of the review and that he had sent emails to about 350 players. He was unsure whether it had also been posted on the website.

Garnsey said the RLPA was having a board meeting last night to determine its position.

"I'm not going to pre-empt anything that will be discussed there but obviously some senior players have made their opinions known in the media," he said.

The issue continued to be a hot topic for players and officials on social media yesterday, with Penrith general manager Phil Gould tweeting, "I don't think they properly thought this through. Or maybe they didn't get the right people to properly think this through."

Former Queensland prop Jacob Lillyman tweeted, "What an absolute joke banning the shoulder charge. Why not just make the ramifications for making contact with the head a lot more harsh."

Sydney Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves, who was on the receiving end of a sickening hit from Wests Tigers forward Simon Dwyer in a 2010 final, tweeted, "Can't believe they've completely banned the shoulder charge from our game! Surely there were other options!"

One of the best exponents of the shoulder charge, new Sydney Roosters recruit Sonny Bill Williams, tweeted, "You need good timing and technique to pull off a shoulder charge" and added: "Simply put, if you can't do it don't try -- this is league not tiddlywinks!"

McGuirk said the commission would not be deterred by either the players' backlash or public opinion that they were doing the wrong thing.

There are also moves under way to ensure that the new rules are adopted and implemented on a worldwide basis.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Lillyman is bang on the money. They've gone further than they needed to. All that was required to limit risk of seriously injury is to properly enforce the high tackle rule - That's it. People hit high, ban them for numerous weeks at a time.

The ban on the shoulder charge is basically a response to the NRLs own incompetence in refusing to enforce an already existing rule. That's what's profound in all of this.

If they just laid down the f**king law with high tackles there would be no rhyme or reason to get rid of the shoulder charge, because it's only a problem when high as reiterated throughout the thread and by many of the players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wq_PL-GDTI

this is the refereeing we can expect in a few years. The fans are going to make sure that it turns into Rugby like refereeing, as all teams coaches and fans, whether they agree with the ban or not, will be putting every tackle under the microscope and calling for bans and punishment for tackles like the above

^ Listen to the commentators. That's the NRL in 5 years. Players being banned for not "wrapping"(ie hugging)

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

In saying that, if the NRL is so soft on already existing rules(high tackles), maybe we are kicking up a fuss about nothing.

There's no evidence, looking at the NRLs track record, to say they'll enforce this new shoulder charge rule they're bringing in!