Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

You alright circle jazzer?

As we are yet to see a game, yet alone a season, it is impossible to tell if banning the shoulder charge will make the game 'soft'. A lot of knee jerk reaction to a rule that has yet to be enforced really.

I don`t know what happened there, I have edited out the Computer gibberish


I think hell just froze over, you and i actually agree on somthing........maybe there is hope for world peace

 

[East Coast Tiger]

What the dumb merkins don't get about this is that its a massive act of arrogance from the commission. If they can change this rule without consulting with anyone and without considering the international laws of the game then they can now do it with any other rule at any time and within a few years the NRL will be a completely different code to the one played everywhere else. We already have two referees, ruck interpretations and now this. The only good thing about this is that the World Cup will now seem better compared to the NRL because there will be shoulder charges left right and centre and the ARLC can do nothing about it, as it should be.

 

[Parra]

And administrators at other levels of the game, like the CRL and RFL, are against it and are either not going to enforce a ban or will only do so if forced to.
.

One of the selling points for the ARLC that was pushed by the touts and swallowed by many was that there would be one body. No need to listen to the "blazer wearers" in the CRL or RLIF or NSWRL or QRL or NZRL.

Not only are they not listened to, they are seen as useless fat that must be trimmed.

 

[Joker's Wild]

I'm happy to repeat myself:

This rule change is just a blatant concession (read: submission) to the naysayers, the soccer mums and the wowsers, especially in the mainstream media, who think that the onus is on the code to wrap its players in bubble wrap, not the onus is on the player to understand the risks involved in playing a full contact sport that has been going on for over 100 years, with one very clear set of rules without any major incident on field.

Come mid season next year, with all the negative press amongst footy commentators and the fans after numerous dud calls (as if the code needed more referee stuff ups giving wash ups like Phil Rothfield something to put in their columns. Wasn't Harrimerkin sacked for that??) the ARLC will already regret this decision as just flat out stupidity.

Cowardice and spinelessness are not the first things you wanna demonstrate as traits if you want to win over the supporterbase that keeps you afloat with their money. Fans will not tolerate the best players in their sides being suspended for 2-3+ games for what is a mundane, typical, run of the mill shoulder charge that is legal everywhere else except the NRL. They would have to be absolute dribblers to allow the English Super League to get one up on them like this, it is just ridiculous; and after the fans start chucking their shit around the room, the clubs and coaches will be next. Imagine if a penalty from an otherwise normal shoulder charge cost the Knights 2 points; Bennett would be spewing and in a weird way I hope that does happen to at least one club. We need as many real world examples as possible to prove just how dumb this whole fiasco is.

Roll on the shitstorm so we can finally put some vocal pressure on the ARLC to reverse this short sighted farce.

Hard tp believe this but I agree with you 100% mate

Well said

 

[Bengal]

Most fans wouldn't know or care.

You're probably right much as a suspect that attracting new fans to the game will become increasingly difficult now that the #1 attraction of this game - the big hits - will become a thing of the past. Rugby Union gets by on a few big hits here and there through their season but Union has never been known for its 'hardness' (scrummaging antics aside).

 

[Bengal]

By the way, were you in favour of spear tackles being banned? What about the coat-hanger, which was more or less legal when I played?

The spear tackle was a deliberate attempt to maim a player. The shoulder charge is not. The coat-hanger has always been illegal in the 40 years I've followed the game.

Informed medical opinion disagrees with you. The forces unleashed in a shoulder charge do have a damaging effect on the brain, of both the tackler, and the tackled player.

Informed opinion can sway whichever way anyone chooses depending on the outcome someone desires. There was only ever one outcome that the powers-that-be wanted, henceforth all information gathered danced to that tune.

Another important point to consider is that the game needs to attract more blue chip advertisers, organisations who do not want their brand associated with perceived brutality, which is what some shoulder charges are.

Advertisers and the like are all peripheries. The heart and soul of any game lies with the fans. Rugby League is known for its brutality, hence the game up to now - marketed itself along those lines. With its main selling point now heavily neutered, there is little difference now between League and Union (especially in the eyes of future newbies) and little else for newbies to get excited about that they can't get from other sports or forms of entertainment. The main point of difference to all other footballing codes - League's brutality or hardness or toughness is near an end. And sure a new muted form of these aspects will arise, but they will be not be enough to sway future fans to the game in the numbers that we're all used to seeing. As such, I see League being swallowed up by its bigger (in global terms) and always better run Union brother in the not too distant future. But that sport too will be doomed if it puts far too much emphasis on its peripheries over its fans.

 

[Billythekid]

Informed medical opinion disagrees with you. The forces unleashed in a shoulder charge do have a damaging effect on the brain, of both the tackler, and the tackled player. That is why they are banned in RU, and that precedent would be used sooner or later to sue the Commission. We are in an increasingly litigious world, like it or not.

Yet again you post this and yet again you fail to show where this informed medical opinion comes from. Every time you get asked you simply don't respond and post the same thing again later. Research based on the NFL is simply irrelevant when discussing rugby league.

Until there is actual research based on rugby league to show that they are dangerous and until someone actual sues for it this is all pie in the sky crap.

Another important point to consider is that the game needs to attract more blue chip advertisers, organisations who do not want their brand associated with perceived brutality, which is what some shoulder charges are.

Come on really? Rugby league continues to grow and is now financially better off than it has ever been in the history of the game. We reached this point on the back of this 'perceived brutality' that is one of the main selling points of the game. You can't keep watering down the game in an attempt to grab some of the soccer crowd. Even if you do it won't work because our sport is designed to be played like that. Without the big hits our game simply won't be as popular.

 

[adamkungl]

Yet again you post this and yet again you fail to show where this informed medical opinion comes from. Every time you get asked you simply don't respond and post the same thing again later. Research based on the NFL is simply irrelevant when discussing rugby league.

Until there is actual research based on rugby league to show that they are dangerous and until someone actual sues for it this is all pie in the sky crap.



Come on really? Rugby league continues to grow and is now financially better off than it has ever been in the history of the game. We reached this point on the back of this 'perceived brutality' that is one of the main selling points of the game. You can't keep watering down the game in an attempt to grab some of the soccer crowd. Even if you do it won't work because our sport is designed to be played like that. Without the big hits our game simply won't be as popular.

Knownothing's username becomes more and more apt every time he posts

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

Yet again you post this and yet again you fail to show where this informed medical opinion comes from. Every time you get asked you simply don't respond and post the same thing again later. Research based on the NFL is simply irrelevant when discussing rugby league.

Until there is actual research based on rugby league to show that they are dangerous and until someone actual sues for it this is all pie in the sky crap.



Come on really? Rugby league continues to grow and is now financially better off than it has ever been in the history of the game. We reached this point on the back of this 'perceived brutality' that is one of the main selling points of the game. You can't keep watering down the game in an attempt to grab some of the soccer crowd. Even if you do it won't work because our sport is designed to be played like that. Without the big hits our game simply won't be as popular.[/QUO

RE: the highlighted part.......how many shoulder charges are there per round ?, three or four, compare that to how many good hard tackles that are not shoulder charges, that drive the Attacker back and bury them, how many brilliant cover tackles do we see per round, how many times per round do you see a winger barrelled into touch in a brilliant try saving tackle, how many brilliant trys per round do we see.

imo, we have not reached this point on the back of this percieved brutallity, we have reached this point on the back of brilliant try scoring, good hard defence (not the three or four shoulder charges per round) and the fact that he comp is so close


if you think our game will not be as popular as before, because one aspect of the big hits are taken out, RL does not need you as a supporter.......f**k Off and watch another sport you little girls

 

[Campion]

RE: the highlighted part.......how many shoulder charges are there per round ?, three or four, compare that to how many good hard tackles that are not shoulder charges, that drive the Attacker back and bury them, how many brilliant cover tackles do we see per round, how many times per round do you see a winger barrelled into touch in a brilliant try saving tackle, how many brilliant trys per round do we see.

And how many of these technically correct brillant cover tackles make the end of year highlight reels????
The broadcasters know what sells - big f*ckoff shoulder charges.

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

And how many of these technically correct brillant cover tackles make the end of year highlight reels????
The broadcasters know what sells - big f*ckoff shoulder charges.

ah... the Scott Sattler Cover tackle from the Roosters/Penrith grand final makes the highlight reels year after year, brilliant trys make the highlight reels year after year, those barrell the wingers into touch make the highlight reels year after year.......bloody hell even that Andrew Johns Kick at Newcastle still makes the highlight reels, there is a lot more to RL than just shoulder charges........and surprise, surprise RL will survive, and be no worse off without the shoulder charge

 

[Clarke]

WHAT! :?

You are saying that the people who are complaining about Rugby League becoming slightly more softer because the removal of shoulder charges, should go and watch a different sport and is a lot more softer than Rugby League (with or without shoulder charges). Can anyone make sense from this?

ah... the Scott Sattler Cover tackle from the Roosters/Penrith grand final makes the highlight reels year after year, brilliant trys make the highlight reels year after year, those barrell the wingers into touch make the highlight reels year after year.......bloody hell even that Andrew Johns Kick at Newcastle still makes the highlight reels, there is a lot more to RL than just shoulder charges........and surprise, surprise RL will survive, and be no worse off without the shoulder charge

I'm sorry but when did Rugby League ban the shoulder charge? As far as I'm aware Shoulder chargers are allowed in Rugby League around the world, apart from one domestic competition in one country.

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

WHAT! :?

You are saying that the people who are complaining about Rugby League becoming slightly more softer because the removal of shoulder charges, should go and watch a different sport and is a lot more softer than Rugby League (with or without shoulder charges). Can anyone make sense from this?



I'm sorry but when did Rugby League ban the shoulder charge? As far as I'm aware Shoulder chargers are allowed in Rugby League around the world, apart from one domestic competition in one country.

ok now read this very, very slowly, if you are not happy and think that RL in australia will be worse off and still not the greatest game of all because one small part of it has been banned go and watch another sport wether it be AFL, soccer or anything else


as for the second part FMD use your comprehension skills

 

[Bengal]

RE: the highlighted part.......how many shoulder charges are there per round ?, three or four, compare that to how many good hard tackles that are not shoulder charges, that drive the Attacker back and bury them, how many brilliant cover tackles do we see per round, how many times per round do you see a winger barrelled into touch in a brilliant try saving tackle, how many brilliant trys per round do we see.

Hard tackles, cover tackles, try saving tackles; brilliant tries can all be seen from our nearest neighbour ? Union. What Union couldn?t do, however, to any large degree was put in the big hits. Take people totally foreign to the game, put them in front of the TV set to watch a match or take them to the game and observe what they both react to the most and remember the most. It will be the big hits ? little else matters. What sells the game first, foremost and beyond anything else is the big hit. Its League?s equivalent to Boxing?s (and other combat sports) ?KO?, to Basketballs ?slam dunk? and to Motorsport?s ?big crashes?. No one needs to know anything about League to understand and remember a big collision. Nothing else matters except to the already converted! Getting them converted has now become a heck of a lot harder to do. We have an established fan base, arguably little will change there ? its building on that, it?s the future that we will really see the full impact of this decision.

imo, we have not reached this point on the back of this percieved brutallity, we have reached this point on the back of brilliant try scoring, good hard defence (not the three or four shoulder charges per round) and the fact that he comp is so close

Brutality is the wrong word. Its hardness, its toughness, its playing on in the face of adversity ? that?s Rugby League. And there?s nothing perceived about that. This area of the game will live on albeit in weakened, less appealing form. The closeness of the competition, however, is highly attractive, there?s no doubt about that. But the competition was never built on that.

 

[Bengal]

ok now read this very, very slowly, if you are not happy and think that RL in australia will be worse off and still not the greatest game of all because one small part of it has been banned go and watch another sport wether it be AFL, soccer or anything else

Spectacle wise - it is worse off. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Not even the decision makers would disagree with that. The problem though isn't the converted fan (or the disenfranchised fan). The problem is the potential future fan and League's ability to attract them. In other words, the problem isn't the here and now, the problem is in the near future onwards. That is when we'll really start to see the full impact of this decision.

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

Hard tackles, cover tackles, try saving tackles; brilliant tries can all be seen from our nearest neighbour ? Union. What Union couldn?t do, however, to any large degree was put in the big hits. Take people totally foreign to the game, put them in front of the TV set to watch a match or take them to the game and observe what they both react to the most and remember the most. It will be the big hits ? little else matters. What sells the game first, foremost and beyond anything else is the big hit. Its League?s equivalent to Boxing?s (and other combat sports) ?KO?, to Basketballs ?slam dunk? and to Motorsport?s ?big crashes?. No one needs to know anything about League to understand and remember a big collision. Nothing else matters except to the already converted! Getting them converted has now become a heck of a lot harder to do. We have an established fan base, arguably little will change there ? its building on that, it?s the future that we will really see the full impact of this decision.

Brutality is the wrong word. Its hardness, its toughness, its playing on in the face of adversity ? that?s Rugby League. And there?s nothing perceived about that. This area of the game will live on albeit in weakened, less appealing form. The closeness of the competition, however, is highly attractive, there?s no doubt about that. But the competition was never built on that.

Thank you for actually reading what i am trying to get at......you make very good points, but i do not think that Bannining one small part of the game will stop people turning onto it.....when there is still so much more to the game that is more spectacular, than shoulder charges

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

Spectacle wise - it is worse off. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Not even the decision makers would disagree with that. The problem though isn't the converted fan (or the disenfranchised fan). The problem is the potential future fan and League's ability to attract them. In other words, the problem isn't the here and now, the problem is in the near future onwards. That is when we'll really start to see the full impact of this decision.

Mate i will put up a Lottery Ticket, that over the next 12 mnths to 5 yrs that the crowds will not drop off, but will increase


feel free to park this post somewhere on your computer, to refer back to it if need be, or PM me and i will give you my contact details

 

[Bengal]

Thank you for actually reading what i am trying to get at......you make very good points, but i do not think that Bannining one small part of the game will stop people turning onto it.....when there is still so much more to the game that is more spectacular, than shoulder charges

To the converted there's plenty more to get excited about. To the unconverted it remains to be seen. The slam dunk is only really a small aspect of Basketball and yet the game continually dines out on it. Big-arse crashes are actually relatively rare in Motorsport but they draw attention over and above everything else in that sport. The Big Mac is only one item on a Maccas menu but imagine them getting rid of that. I could go on. Bottom line is that I'm concerned about the future.

Mate i will put up a Lottery Ticket, that over the next 12 mnths to 5 yrs that the crowds will not drop off, but will increase

You'll lose this bet especially once you consider the sports and entertainment marketplace over all and not just League on its own. We're in a competitive market place where one misstep can have dire consequences. League has just stumbled badly, how that affects our competitors only time will tell. But one doesn't have to be a genius to realize that our competitors are very, very happy about this decision.

 

[Lambretta]

Knownothing's username becomes more and more apt every time he posts

I was thinking exactly the same thing

 

[hillbillyjazzer1954]

fair comments Bengal, mate you have your opinion and i have mine.....and never the twain shall meet, we shall have to agree to disagree, it is all cool

as i said feel free to park the bet post on your computer and refer back to it in the future if need be, if i lose i will pay up.......but if it is a winner we split it