Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[Lambretta]

Just to keep everyone abreast of happenings in the NFL:



To all those people that would say the only reason the NFL was sued was due to people thinking they knew the effects and have been negligent, just how serious are concussions now viewed in the game (just 3 days ago):



It is chalk and cheese to how we view them, we now know the potential serious effects, yet for the most part turn a blind eye. This is the same kind of negligence the NFL was originally guilty of.The additional force placed upon the body of the shoulder charge recipient has shown the ARLC made the right choice for the future of the game.

Bufallo are just as likely to have realised they made a mistake signing Kolb and gave him every reason to retire

I hate the banning of the shoulder charge - for a myriad of reasons - but I understand the reasons why the NRL have taken the stance they have

From their point of view it better for the code to do something pro-active now rather than get sued for millions later on. Because it would have happened.

Have to agree with Pauly that setting fire to Lawyers is the solution I would have preferred - but apparently that's illegal too. What is the World coming to?

 

[Billythekid]

Rugby league and NFL are completely different sports, you imply can't compare them. Either do these studies based in what actually happens in league or stop making knee jerk changes based on studies which are meaningless in our sport.

It's all bullsh*t anyway. You now see tackles which aren't dangerous at all being penalised because the player didn't use his arm. Then the next run Sam burgess (or some other big f*cker) absolutely wrecks a player making a hit up legally. It's clearly the more dangerous tackle but it's allowed because he used his arm.

The tackles haven't been banned based on making the game safer, it's meant to have the illusion of making the game safer.

Until i see clear cut evidence that shoulder charges that don't make contact with the head are causing long term brain damage (above and beyond that of a regular big hit) i won't agree with this ruling.

Bringing up the NFL which has far bigger collisions and FAR more contact with players heads (because of helmets) isn't a convincing argument at all.

As is we have just made the game softer are getting stupid worthless penalties and the game is as dangerous as ever.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The study is important because it is the worlds largest study in the general long term effects of multiple concussions on an idividual.

"...dementia, depression or Alzheimer's"

Accepting that, then the NRL has an obligation to, in their own way, reduce instances of concusion wherever they can.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Until i see clear cut evidence that shoulder charges that don't make contact with the head are causing long term brain damage (above and beyond that of a regular big hit) i won't agree with this ruling.

Its not really dangerous to shoulder charge a player in the chest, but the ban was brought in because any attempted tackle in which a player uses a shoulder charge is more likely to contact the head accidentally, just because of the poor technique.

 

[Billythekid]

The study is important because it is the worlds largest study in the general long term effects of multiple concussions on an idividual.

"...dementia, depression or Alzheimer's"

Accepting that, then the NRL has an obligation to, in their own way, reduce instances of concusion wherever they can.

The vast majority of concussions come from tackles that aren't shoulder charges. I don't know how many times that can possibly be repeated. If the problem is concussions banning shoulder charges solves nothing. There is a reason Dallas Johnson has probably had more concussions than any other player (except maybe Lang lol) and it isn't because he has been on the receiving end of shoulder charges.

Its not really dangerous to shoulder charge a player in the chest, but the ban was brought in because any attempted tackle in which a player uses a shoulder charge is more likely to contact the head accidentally, just because of the poor technique.

Then the problem is reckless tackles NOT shoulder charges. So many of the shoulder charges penalised this year aren't really reckless at all. I can put up with reckless tackles being given extremely harsh penalties but just outright banning people leading with the shoulder is bullsh*t.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Then the problem is reckless tackles NOT shoulder charges. So many of the shoulder charges penalised this year aren't really reckless at all. I can put up with reckless tackles being given extremely harsh penalties but just outright banning people leading with the shoulder is bullsh*t.

But a shoulder charge is a reckless tackle. A player uses a shoulder chare to inflict the most damage possible (not a terrible thing in the context), but they sacrifice technique for power to do this.

Using a shoulder charge takes less technique than a standard tackle, and this is where the problem is. Because of this, a shoulder charge is, by nature, more likely to ACCIDENTALLY hit another player in the head. Yes, they could just make hitting a guy in the face illegal, but HQ decided to get proactive on it and eliminate the risk.

 

[Billythekid]

But a shoulder charge is a reckless tackle. A player uses a shoulder chare to inflict the most damage possible (not a terrible thing in the context), but they sacrifice technique for power to do this.

Using a shoulder charge takes less technique than a standard tackle, and this is where the problem is. Because of this, a shoulder charge is, by nature, more likely to ACCIDENTALLY hit another player in the head. Yes, they could just make hitting a guy in the face illegal, but HQ decided to get proactive on it and eliminate the risk.

That's what i disagree with. SOME shoulder chargers are reckless, some regular tackles are reckless. My problem is we are constantly seeing penalties for tackles that are neither.

Also what do you mean they could just make hitting someone in the face illegal? IT IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ILLEGAL. They already had the appropriate solution in place they just should have enforced it better. If you go in for a reckless tackle and make contact with the head you should be met with huge penalties.

The problem is all these discussion are talking about those tackles where a player rushes out the line and blindly smashes into an opposition player with his shoulder. That is incredibly dangerous and i have no problem with it being banned. I have a problem with banning every tackle where the arm is even slightly straight (no matter how soft it is).

Like when a player is standing on his heels and has a big prop running at him so he uses his shoulder to defend himself. Those are the situations where it annoys me.

 

[adamkungl]

Rugby league and NFL are completely different sports, you imply can't compare them. Either do these studies based in what actually happens in league or stop making knee jerk changes based on studies which are meaningless in our sport.

It's all bullsh*t anyway. You now see tackles which aren't dangerous at all being penalised because the player didn't use his arm. Then the next run Sam burgess (or some other big f*cker) absolutely wrecks a player making a hit up legally. It's clearly the more dangerous tackle but it's allowed because he used his arm.

The tackles haven't been banned based on making the game safer, it's meant to have the illusion of making the game safer.

Until i see clear cut evidence that shoulder charges that don't make contact with the head are causing long term brain damage (above and beyond that of a regular big hit) i won't agree with this ruling.

Bringing up the NFL which has far bigger collisions and FAR more contact with players heads (because of helmets) isn't a convincing argument at all.

As is we have just made the game softer are getting stupid worthless penalties and the game is as dangerous as ever.

Agree with everything you've said.

If the NRL has an obligation to protect players against concussions, the only valid solution is to shut up shop here and now.

 

[BunniesMan]

Every club doctor unanimously said the shoulder charge should go for medical reasons.

The NRL then consulted its lawyers and the lawyers said this warning meant the NRL had no choice but to ban shoulder charges. Not banning them directly risked the future of the NRL.

The NRL has a fraction of the money the NFL does. A major lawsuit would be the death of the game.

Not banning the shoulder charge could have resulted in our grandchildren not knowing what the NRL is. That is how serious this situation was.

People need to understand the shoulder charge was outlawed out of necessity. Legal and medical experts gave the Commission absolutely no choice.

 

[adamkungl]

Doctors and lawyers are precious f**kwits, as are you.

 

[NrlCoach]

Ban tackling as it causes broken legs ribs head clash broken jaw eye sockets. ban steping as it can go wrong a cause knee reconstruction. Touch Football is the future :crazy:

 

[BunniesMan]

Doctors and lawyers are precious f**kwits, as are you.

Some people think I'm arrogant but I actually think 16 qualified doctors know more about medicine than I do. And I think the highly paid lawyers the NRL has know more about law than I do.

As a result I believe continuing to allow shoulder charges would have been medically dangerous. Also as a result I believe continuing to allow shoulder charges would have been legally dangerous to the game.

 

[Lambretta]

Agree with everything you've said.

If the NRL has an obligation to protect players against concussions, the only valid solution is to shut up shop here and now.

No, to avoid litigation you have to demonstrate a duty of care was considered. If the NRL can show they acted on medical advice rather than covering up stuff like the NFL did they have no case to answer

Once doctors started saying there was a problem with a type of tackle they banned it.

I don't like the ban and I don't agree with them doing it. I feel that protecting against high shots was enough - but once the medical profession starts questioning something you're f**ked.

This is why they are getting so much more careful with concussions aswell

 

[adamkungl]

No, to avoid litigation you have to demonstrate a duty of care was considered. If the NRL can show they acted on medical advice rather than covering up stuff like the NFL did they have no case to answer

The studies/advice weren't worth the tabloid trash paper they were written on. Data was at best not applicable to the NRL and in some cases completely falsified (the amount of shoulder charges per season, for example).

This is why they are getting so much more careful with concussions aswell

They are? Each and every club doctor is a hypocrite. If they cared so much they'd resign in protest about contact sports being played at all.

 

[Perth Red]

If you was to do a genuine risk assessment on what causes concussion in RL it wouldn't be shoulder charges that are the #1 cause. The NFL case has zero relevance as it was based on not acting on evidence and the fact helmet to helmet contact remained as a legal part of the game despite the evidence the NFL had.

If there is a study that shows shoulder charges not contacting the head causes significant head trauma can you post the reference to the peer reviewed journal it was published in please then I will change my view.

As for dr's these are the same guys that are happy to see concussed players staying on the field and backing up the week after because the coach wants them on the field.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

*taptap* Hello *ahem* Is...Is this thing on?....Yes? Good.

THE RULE IS NOT WORKING.

 

[NrlCoach]

Some people think I'm arrogant but I actually think 16 qualified doctors know more about medicine than I do. And I think the highly paid lawyers the NRL has know more about law than I do.

As a result I believe continuing to allow shoulder charges would have been medically dangerous. Also as a result I believe continuing to allow shoulder charges would have been legally dangerous to the game.

Tell me how the AFL & NFL a sporting organizations that are way ahead of the NRL regarding safty of players still havent banned shoulder charge from the competitions.


Fact: shoulder charge is allowed in the NFL
Fact: shoulder charge is allowed in the AFL

 

[adamkungl]

If you was to do a genuine risk assessment on what causes concussion in RL it wouldn't be shoulder charges that are the #1 cause. The NFL case has zero relevance as it was based on not acting on evidence and the fact helmet to helmet contact remained as a legal part of the game despite the evidence the NFL had.

If there is a study that shows shoulder charges not contacting the head causes significant head trauma can you post the reference to the peer reviewed journal it was published in please then I will change my view.

As for dr's these are the same guys that are happy to see concussed players staying on the field and backing up the week after because the coach wants them on the field.

qft

 

[Lambretta]

They are? Each and every club doctor is a hypocrite. If they cared so much they'd resign in protest about contact sports being played at all.

Yes they are - in previous times they waved salts under their noses and pushed them back out there

Today players leave the field and sometimes have two weeks off before being allowed to play again.

 

[BunniesMan]

Tell me how the AFL & NFL a sporting organizations that are way ahead of the NRL regarding safty of players still havent banned shoulder charge from the competitions.


Fact: shoulder charge is allowed in the NFL
Fact: shoulder charge is allowed in the AFL

The NFL has just been f**ked to the tune of almost a billion dollars because of it.

And as someone who also follows the AFL I hope the AFL follows the NRLs lead on this in the near future or they will have the same legal risks the NRL has managed to avoid.