Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Perth Red]

I don't get how people think that every shoulder charge by definition is not aimed at the head, and that every "shoulder charge gone wrong" is somehow not really a high shot.

Te'o intended to make initial contact with his shoulder. His shoulder was at the level of Groat's chin. How is that anything other than a bad high shot?

Sometimes the attacking player slips. Sometimes the defender intends to make first contact with the arm at chest level, but the shoulder ends up making incidental contact with the head area of the attacking player. This is accidental contact and therefore should not be illegal because the tackler did nothing wrong.

There is nothing inconsistent about this and it's really not that complicated. You look at the part of the body the defender is leading with and you see where it makes impact. If it's high it's a high tackle. If there's other high contact for some other reason, there's no fault on the part of the defender and it's not a high tackle. How complicated is it really?

If both players are the same height then it is the attacker going in at a lower height that causes the problem as the shoulder charger is hitting at slightly lower than normal running height (unless he is leaping in the air!). If a player slips and his head hits the defenders hip or knee should it be a penalty and suspension? How about if the defenders head clashes with the ball carriers head? Unless it looks like a deliberate shoulder charge to the head it should be a penalty at worse.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

If both players are the same height then it is the attacker going in at a lower height that causes the problem as the shoulder charger is hitting at slightly lower than normal running height (unless he is leaping in the air!). If a player slips and his head hits the defenders hip or knee should it be a penalty and suspension? How about if the defenders head clashes with the ball carriers head? Unless it looks like a deliberate shoulder charge to the head it should be a penalty at worse.

I agree with what you're saying, maybe you've misread my post as you are basically agreeing with my point.

If a shoulder charge is attempted and the shoulder is at head level, it's a high tackle. If an arm tackle is attempted and the arm is at head level, it's a high tackle. If the attacking player lowers his level and the defender doesn't have time to adjust, there's no fault and no penalty.

 

[docbrown]

If anything I want more shoulder charges!

 

[Snappy]

NRL comfortable with shoulder charge


Steve Jancetic AAP Sun, Apr 08, 2012 - 6:39 PM

The NRL says it is comfortable with its rules regarding the shoulder charge amid growing calls for the intimidatory tactic to be banned.

A simmering issue since Frank Pritchard's knockout blow on Penrith winger David Simmons in the opening round of the season, the shoulder charge was again in the spotlight with Brisbane back-rower Ben Te'o flooring Wests Tigers prop Matt Groat on Friday night.

Te'o was placed on report for the tackle, while a concussed Groat took no further part in the game and is considered an unlikely starter in next week's game against Penrith.

Former longtime Canterbury and Australian doctor Hugh Hazard called on the league to ban the tackle - as is the case in rugby union.

But NRL director of football operations Nathan McGuirk claimed deterrents already in place were strong enough.

"We made some pretty important changes to our rules five years ago ... where if a player is deemed to have made at least careless contact with his shoulder to the head of an opponents, then there's the possibility they may face further action from the league," McGuirk told ABC radio on Sunday.

"We're quite comfortable with the changes to the rules that we made.

"If it comes to a position where our clubs or the rugby league players' association come to us and want to review our current policy on the issue, then we're happy to have that conversation.

"At this stage we haven't had that."

The incident involving Te'o opened up another can of worms, with Groat's concussion leaving the Tigers down a player for more than half of the contest.

New rules brought in at the start of the year mean any player determined by the club doctor to have suffered a concussion is not permitted to return to the game.

Tigers coach Tim Sheens suggested teams should have the option of bringing in an 18th man in such cases, especially where the concussion is deemed to be a result of foul play.

McGuirk said the the option had been canvassed by the rules committee prior to the season, but admitted it would likely come up for discussion again.

"It is a rather large change and how it is played and that is probably one thing we would look at this season," McGuirk said.

"We'll probably talk to our clubs and the competition committee and see potentially how something like that could work.

"But there are a lot of ramifications around how that change could impact the game."

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-comfortable-with-shoulder-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/66766/default.aspx

 

[innerwestrabbit]

Cannot see a valid reason, why they could not bring a reserve replacement for a player that has been taken out of the game illiegally. I'd go one step further and send the player off( if it warrants it).It's a 17 man game why don't they leave it at 13 on 13 on field but with one less player on the bench. That way there is fair punishment to the offending team. It would put the onus on those who like to shoulder charge to get it right as well.

 

[kia ora storm]

Harden up People...the shoulder charge is part of this game.

 

[Snappy]

Well the current poll results showing 86% say dont ban the shoulder charge, shows that as usual the small minority of wingers stir up these types of issues.

 

[Spanner in the works]

Half-a-second is all it takes to go from a great shot to a suspension. Don't ban it because of half-a-second.

 

[Fordy20]

Cannot see a valid reason, why they could not bring a reserve replacement for a player that has been taken out of the game illiegally. I'd go one step further and send the player off( if it warrants it).It's a 17 man game why don't they leave it at 13 on 13 on field but with one less player on the bench. That way there is fair punishment to the offending team. It would put the onus on those who like to shoulder charge to get it right as well.

Agreed. Any shoulder charge where the defender makes contact with the head should be a send off offense. Then there would no need for an 18th man as both teams have their side reduced by one with the offending team being punished by losing an on field player. High shots as a result of shoulder charges would decline naturally as a result.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

To be honest, the shoulder charge can cause a lot of damage even if it doesn't connect with the head. Into the ribs, sternum. Due to the attackers momentum and then from the opposite direction a pointed, forceful contact. A heavy shoulder charge will cause more injury than a punch. One is illegal, the other is not.

 

[Dresden Dan]

Ignore the fans and players that are in the majority but react to the sooks and doctors.

 

[Springs]

To be honest, the shoulder charge can cause a lot of damage even if it doesn't connect with the head. Into the ribs, sternum. Due to the attackers momentum and then from the opposite direction a pointed, forceful contact. A heavy shoulder charge will cause more injury than a punch. One is illegal, the other is not.

A heavy tackle will do the same thing. Ban them?

 

[Frailty]

Arguing to ban the shoulder charge is like arguing to ban tackling...

If they hit high, they are illegal.

This is overblown bullshit.

 

[Burrzz]

I am going to stop following this Thread!
It's going no where

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

A heavy tackle will do the same thing. Ban them?

Wrong. The reason punching, kicking, elbowing etc are illegal is because of the pointed impact. A normal arms tackle connects with the body on a larger surface area so impact is spread out. Rugby league is not a contact but a collision sport, the difference is the lack of pointed impact.

 

[DB10]

I dont think they should ban the shoulder charge.

I think we just need to raise the suspension, for when it comes off wrong.

This.

 

[Newcastle Cow]

Agree with the general consensus here, love seeing them and would be mighty pissed off were they to be banned like in that other boring-ass soft code. But obviously contact with the head, especially when it robs the other team of that player for the rest of the game, has to be dealt with pretty seriously when it happens.

To be fair I've seen nothing indicating that they will be banned, in fact I've heard Gallop/Harrigan there are no plans to ban and they are comfortable with the current approach. Maybe it’s just wishful thinking but I would think, especially now with the Commission that they realise it’s important to keep it and are just waiting for the media to move on to the next ‘big issue’ (that they’ve invented).

As for Warren Ryan - the bloke has one of the best league brains and is a great caller- far better than most of the hacks on commercial tv & radio but yeah when he gets a bee in his bonnet about something he can be a pretty big pain in the arse.

 

[Valheru]

I don’t want to see a blanket ban on the shoulder charge but what I do want to see is complete onus on the person making the shoulder charge to not contact the head. If a non-conventional tackle is attempted and it goes wrong regardless of the attacker falling etc. than a 3-4 week suspension should be the punishment.

Make it abundantly clear of the risks of trying one.

 

[Springs]

Wrong. The reason punching, kicking, elbowing etc are illegal is because of the pointed impact. A normal arms tackle connects with the body on a larger surface area so impact is spread out. Rugby league is not a contact but a collision sport, the difference is the lack of pointed impact.

No. Not wrong. From juniors players are taught to tackle with the SHOULDER. A heavy tackle will have the point of the shoulder going right into the players chest and stomach and if performed right they hurt a hell of a lot more than shoulder charges.

The reason punching, kicking, elbowing are illegal is because they are dirty tactics. A swinging arm to the head will do just as much damage as a punch on occasion.

 

[Dresden Dan]

The stupid part is watching The Beast penalised for hitting Tonga in the head even though everyone knew and saw that Tonga slipped. What did The Beast and Warriors do wrong to be penalised? Nothing. But Tonga half knocked out was a bad look and someone had to be blamed so the soccer mums wouldn't spew.