Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[magpie4ever]

As opposed to the kind of person who says something and puts "not" on the end.

What a f**king genius.

:lol:, I sure can get the gimp to bite.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Well done. It's called trolling. You should put that on your CV. Not that disability pensioners need them.

 

[magpie4ever]

Losing count of the number of times you've ducked the issue, now.

Whenever you're confronted with a logical argument, you and your buddies take to hiding, or wheeling out fallacies.

Everything I've said about post-concussion treatment is bang on the money. You can bring in as many rules as you like to try and prevent concussions before they happen, but unless you're prepared to deal with them properly after they happen, then the effort is futile.

The doctors that are being fallaciously(appeal to authority) used by people like Usain Bolt to end the argument, yes, they're the same doctors who won't stand up and protect players. Yes, some of them are the same doctors who'll have administered illegal substance to players if initial reports on the drug scandal are anything to go by.

The doctors are passing the buck and their support of the shoulder charge ban is not an argument ender. They support a change of the rules, of course they support a change of the rules, because that's easier than them having some moral fibre and doing their job.

You know as well as me that club doctors will be turning a blind eye to concussed players in 2013, just as they do every other year.

Now if you have some sort of counter-argument or disagreement with that then by all means please make it, because you haven't yet.

FFS, take your gimp (ECT) down to the cellar and do some shoulder charges, it, I hope, will satisfy your lust.

It is not coming back, you heard it here first.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And the genius sidesteps the issue yet again. That's what happens when you're a troll with nothing to add. What's even funnier is the mong trying to punctuate with a million commas but doesn't know how to use them.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

FFS, take your gimp (ECT) down to the cellar and do some shoulder charges, it, I hope, will satisfy your lust.

It is not coming back, you heard it here first.

That's what I thought.

 

[magpie4ever]

And the genius sidesteps the issue yet again. That's what happens when you're a troll with nothing to add. What's even funnier is the mong trying to punctuate with a million commas but doesn't know how to use them.

OK dickweed, please point out my errors with grammar. Read it carefully - then close the door on your way to the cellar.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I said punctuation, not grammar. Do you know the difference? I'm thinking not. But I will give you a tip. If you want to sarcastically call people intellectual (and I use the term sarcastically loosely because just putting the word "not" on the end of a sentence is so lame it shouldn't even qualify) you should consider using proper English conventions or risk looking like a complete twat.

 

[adamkungl]

Not a single valid argument posted in favour of the ban, just shit talk from renowned dribblers.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

"But but but what about law suits?!?!?!?!?"

Oh I see you said "valid" argumants. My mistake.

 

[adamkungl]

You're obviously forgetting that some NFL players have long term medical issues. So obviously we should ban shoulder charges in the NRL. Even though they are't even banned in the NFL.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

No, we should definitely ban them. The quarterback MUST be protected.

 

[magpie4ever]

I said punctuation, not grammar. Do you know the difference? I'm thinking not. But I will give you a tip. If you want to sarcastically call people intellectual (and I use the term sarcastically loosely because just putting the word "not" on the end of a sentence is so lame it shouldn't even qualify) you should consider using proper English conventions or risk looking like a complete twat.

I was not going to continue this diatribe with you; but please note punctuation is part of grammar. That is year 6 stuff.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Year six stuff eh? Like putting "not" at the end of a sentence and thinking you're funny? I'm starting to think year six might be a couple of years off for you. Your reply doesn't even make sense.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Not a single valid argument posted in favour of the ban, just shit talk from renowned dribblers.

Sure thing. The NRL's concerns about being sued by players who suffer brain injuries is not a valid argument.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Correct. It's not valid because ANY tackle could cause any kind of injury. AND no player has been proven to have suffered a brain injury from a shoulder charge, nor has anyone even claimed to have suffered a brain injury from a shoulder charge. Therefore it is not a valid threat.

 

[adamkungl]

Sure thing. The NRL's concerns about being sued by players who suffer brain injuries is not a valid argument.

Glad we agree. It's fairytale stuff.

 

[CrazyTiger]

Glad we agree. It's fairytale stuff.

It is why the shoulder charge has been outlawed. Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant. The NRL doesn't agree with you and that is all that matters.

 

[Lambretta]

Glad we agree. It's fairytale stuff.

Of course it's bullshit - and we all hate it, but BM has a point.

How many ridiculous law suits are filed that end up in court and with a seemingly insane decision getting the win? It happens all the time. Eventually some git with bills to pay and no money to pay them with will look to make some more money out of suing the code claiming brain damage.

Of course, it's not just shoulder charging that can lead to potential brain damage - any form of heavy contact has the potential to do this, so what is Rugby League to do? Look at banning tackling round the waist in case you get your head in the wrong place? Look at banning taking players to ground in case the bang their heads in the ground? Look at banning tackles altogether?

The only thing that saved Rugby League in the past is that the public just assumed they were all as dumb as dog shit and already semi brain damaged for wanting to play a sport where you choose to run full tilt at a gorilla that tries to rip your head off.

Now the clubs want all their players to be University educated so of course they must have brains that need protecting, so the NRL is doing just that.

You know, we were better off when players were expected to be able down 50 schooners of cheap piss and gang root some bimbo as part of team bonding. At least no one cared if they lost a few brain cells if their heads rattled with high level impacts.

 

[reanimate]

And again with another stupid argument. THE ISSUE ISN'T JUST CONTACT TO THE HEAD FFS. You people have been told this a million times.

LEGAL shoulder charges are dangerous by themselves. The increase in g forces affects your head similar to whiplash from a serious car accident.

Doctors have advised that there is a link between shoulder charges and brain damage. Lawyers have advised that this would expose the NRL to million dollar lawsuits in the future if it did not act on this advice.

Nothing the mouthbreathing heroes against the ban can say changes the above paragraph. That is the end of the issue.

The ban isn't there by choice, it is there by necessity.

What about the dangers that lie in tackling low around the hips and legs? I've seen far, far, far more people get knocked out from a tackle around the hips/legs area than from shoulder charges (of which I've seen very few). Better ban tackling low, right? Personally, I know the couple of concussions I've had from playing league all came from low tackles gone awry. You're arguing about the g-forces in tackles etc, yet how many shoulder charges would actually hit with enough force to do damage in the way you're arguing? I'd hazard a guess that very few actually enter that range and that the majority aren't going to do anything damaging in the long term. It's very hard to say without any actual data from RL, not just rehashed stuff from the NFL (which doesn't apply directly to us, they aren't the same sport). Banning it without fully researching the impacts it has in RL, not NFL, and without fully explaining how they reached their conclusions and how they obtained the data they used to reach that conclusion is just poor science. If you tried to pull what the ARLC's done with the ban (I.e. use the evidence from other studies to support a ban, without conducting a full study or gathering evidence of their own) in a submission to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it'd be rejected instantly (it could get accepted as a review article, but then the most that the ARLC would be able to conclude is that based on the evidence gathered from other sports, a study needs to be undertaken to determine the effects of shoulder charges in league). It's a bit hard to take the ban seriously for safety reasons when you've got guys like Dallas Johnson who regularly knock themselves out going for low tackles, yet hits like George Rose's last night get penalised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IeO5qOYXPM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0yYiAwXf5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a--Zx2dGCDY

 

[adamkungl]

lol the G force of a car crash claim is such bullshit