Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[kmav23]

Lol some people like to be outraged !

Upset over shoulder charges?

How can I live no shoulder charges in my life.

if you love shoulder charges then go shoulder charge your friends.

 

[BunniesMan]

I agree with kmav

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Suck shit kmav.

 

[kmav23]

fmd the game is more then shoulder charges.

skill and attacking play are more exciting to the general fans.

It only happens like twice a game on average.

you can't have a professional game if all 16 club doctors are opposed to it.

 

[kmav23]

i agree with your opinion. there is a reason why when you type rugby league into youtube it comes up with the big hits. shoulder charges may represent a small part of the game but they are the hook in the song, the spring in springfield.

I hear there are already underground shoulder charge websites. Some sick people are exchanging shoulder charge clips, under 20, shoulder charges and even euro shoulder charges.

Sick

 

[Miller was a legend]

I wish someone would shoulder charge KMAV into oblivion. I have a feeling he is really Paul Mellor.

 

[Perth Red]

Shoulder charge club, what happens there stays there.

Shit decision that will be a blight on the game forever more. Thankfully the English players are more proactive and have already voiced their opposition to any ban over there. Int's should be fun!

 

[Knownothing]

Shoulder charge club, what happens there stays there.

Shit decision that will be a blight on the game forever more. Thankfully the English players are more proactive and have already voiced their opposition to any ban over there. Int's should be fun!

Players don't run the game. Fortunately.

 

[Bengal]

fmd the game is more then shoulder charges

No one is suggesting it is

skill and attacking play are more exciting to the general fans.

Tackling is a skill. The shoulder charge is a tackle. Defence trumps attack, more often than not, in most football codes.

This code sells itself on its big hits; this code differentiates itself from all other football codes through its big hits. Every football code has exciting attack, but only one code perennially dines out on its big (no pads, no helmets) hits. Depending on what is deemed an illegal tackle, if they take the Union route for instance, then the long-term implications for this code are dire. The people in charge do not understand the long term implications of this decision. Few people actually do. As far as entertainment value is concerned, there is now no point of difference between League and its bigger (in international terms) brother ? Rugby Union. Union has the money, Union has the numbers and Union has the administrative structure and now?.Union finally has the product to supersede Rugby League. It is all over bar the shouting now for Rugby League although most people won?t realize that until it?s far too late.

It only happens like twice a game on average.
you can't have a professional game if all 16 club doctors are opposed to it.

But if it only happens on average twice a game then what exactly are the Doctors opposed to? What NRL based medical evidence are they using to base their opposition on?

 

[kmav23]

Doctors know more about brain damage then you or me.

If all 16 if your own club doctors say it then game over.

 

[Frailty]

Doctors know more about brain damage then you or me.

If all 16 if your own club doctors say it then game over.

Logical fallacy - Appeal to Authority.

There is no scientific or medical evidence that is related to a rugby league shoulder charge, nor any historical evidence that has demonstrated a significant risk of brain damage as result from a shoulder charge than any other tackle.

 

[Springs]

Please provide a player that has brain damage or any serious ongoing effects solely from shoulder charges kmav.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If the club doctors said ban tackles altogether do you think it would happen?

The fact is the ARLC has looked at "evidence" from a completely different sport to justify this decision, and from a completely different culture in which litigation is common. They have done no research into rugby league, only NFL. And at the end of the day, even forgeting about medical evidence, the rules of the sport already prohibit contact with the head, so a shoulder charge rule is a complete nonsense. Not only that but contact with the head remains.

 

[chrisD]

Perhaps the commission are playing the game. Come out tough talking, ban this ban that, don't care what anyone says wank wank. Then when the shit eating papers and kmavs have gone back to eating shit, hand over the definition over to uncle Wayne to come up with something that makes no sense, can't be enforced, will be forgotten and basically have no impact on anything.

Everyone happy.

 

[Knownothing]

It is banned in rugby union, on medical grounds. It would be a brave administrator in a similar code who would continue to allow it.

Spear tackles used to be okay, until somebody was nearly killed in one. Ditto for head high tackles - when I played they were okay, maybe you would get a penalty, but nothing more.

If you want a fully professional sport, with properly qualified and educated directors who are personally liable if they breach their duty of care, you have to accept that unnecessary risks to player health will be banned, sooner rather than later.

Perhaps they are erring on the side of caution. If you think you can do a better job than the commissioners, put your name forward, and lots of luck. Otherwise, accept the fact that they might know better than you what the real risks are, financial and otherwise, of continuing to allow dangerous play.

 

[Frailty]

It is banned in rugby union, on medical grounds. It would be a brave administrator in a similar code who would continue to allow it.

Spear tackles used to be okay, until somebody was nearly killed in one. Ditto for head high tackles - when I played they were okay, maybe you would get a penalty, but nothing more.

If you want a fully professional sport, with properly qualified and educated directors who are personally liable if they breach their duty of care, you have to accept that unnecessary risks to player health will be banned, sooner rather than later.

Perhaps they are erring on the side of caution. If you think you can do a better job than the commissioners, put your name forward, and lots of luck. Otherwise, accept the fact that they might know better than you what the real risks are, financial and otherwise, of continuing to allow dangerous play.

Another logical fallacy. Because they are commissioners they must know the truth.

For all the arguments that it is dangerous and the game risks liability - NOT ONE PIECE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN.

High tackles were never OK.

 

[Bengal]

If you want a fully professional sport, with properly qualified and educated directors who are personally liable if they breach their duty of care, you have to accept that unnecessary risks to player health will be banned, sooner rather than later.

I can except this if "necessary" risk, aka the act of tackling was banned also. Tackling, in general, is far more dangerous than one aspect of tackling alone, thus, if they are consistent, or more to the point, if this really was about player welfare, then the whole tackling process would be outlawed. Player welfare though, this is not about.

Perhaps they are erring on the side of caution. If you think you can do a better job than the commissioners, put your name forward, and lots of luck. Otherwise, accept the fact that they might know better than you what the real risks are, financial and otherwise, of continuing to allow dangerous play.

I'd put my name forward, if I really thought that everyone concerned was in this for the game of Rugby League and not just for their little slice of the Rugby League pie. Together, this game should be the number one code in Australia (and move outwards from there). But alas, this is a forever divided code. More to the point - I do know more than the lot of them.

 

[chrisD]

Perhaps they are erring on the side of caution. If you think you can do a better job than the commissioners, put your name forward, and lots of luck. Otherwise, accept the fact that they might know better than you what the real risks are, financial and otherwise, of continuing to allow dangerous play.

Without doubt I could have done a better job pulling an argument out my ass than they have done, but then there was no incentive for them to do so as the whole thing is in the first a reaction to the do gooding anti-league media sentiment and the only real scrutiny they were ever going to get was from around here.

 

[Billythekid]

It is banned in rugby union, on medical grounds. It would be a brave administrator in a similar code who would continue to allow it.

Spear tackles used to be okay, until somebody was nearly killed in one. Ditto for head high tackles - when I played they were okay, maybe you would get a penalty, but nothing more.

If you want a fully professional sport, with properly qualified and educated directors who are personally liable if they breach their duty of care, you have to accept that unnecessary risks to player health will be banned, sooner rather than later.

Perhaps they are erring on the side of caution. If you think you can do a better job than the commissioners, put your name forward, and lots of luck. Otherwise, accept the fact that they might know better than you what the real risks are, financial and otherwise, of continuing to allow dangerous play.

As has been mentioned countless times in this thread (which you clearly haven't bothered to read) the game of rugby league itself is really dangerous. The main thing they are talking about with this ban is concussions and brain injuries. You pretty much never see concussions come from shoulder charges, they pretty much all come from regular tackles gone wrong.

Your appeal to authority is essentially you saying you don't have an actual argument. You don't have to be on the ARLC commission to be able to comment on what's going on. It is amazing the way people in this thread just assume anyone in a position of authority has to be right. It's even more stunning to see people just cop it on the chin when it is affecting the sport they so enjoy to watch.

 

[Danish]

If anyone needed further evidence that the shoulder charge ban is geniused, one only needs to highlight that its biggest supporters are mental heavyweights like Bunniesman, kmav and Usain Bolt (the poster, not the fastest man on earth)