Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

[in.tro]

If your going to ban them.. ban contact to the head only.. you can still put plenty of awesome charges on below the kneck. Even the AFL have shoulder charges.. they are below the head.

shoulder contact in afl happens all the time.. heck, you can even shoulder to shoulder in soccer.

 

[magpie4ever]

Originally Posted by in.tro
[QUOTE=in.tro;8326898]your as much a lounge chair critic as i am, so maybe dont make false assumptions next time and try to belittle me, because we have both played the game. i appreciate the fact you have sons playing and obviously are concerned for their wellbeing, however i;d be more concerned about them doing a knee or ankle with the way 3 men enter the tackle these days..

most times shoulder charges are 1 on 1... its fair game..

would you ban lifting your arm up to make a tackle because it MAY come in contact with someones facE? ofcourse not.. its all about technique and application. same with shoulder chargers. they can be used effectively... those who mess up and make high shots should be punished and rubbed out of the game accordingly... its simple..

if we rule out the shoulder charge, allow the wrestle, before you know it we are going to be having rucks and mauls...[/QUOTE]

Please read my comments on subconcussions, that is my concern with shoulder charges. You will never completely eliminate concussions (and subconcussions) from any contact sports - it is a matter of trying to minimize it; but I still believe banning the shoulder charge will have a significant effect on subconcussions in league.

Let's face it the wrestle is a tactic that is turning a once great game into something akin to a version of WWF and UFC. History shows that the wrestle came into vogue as a tactic to slow the play the ball when the 5 metre rule went to 10 metres, so the defensive side could get back the ten; it has now evolved into a tactic of winning the ruck and using defense as a form of offense. This is a different subject but action needs to be taken so that the low tackle becomes the norm again in rugby league - possible ideas - have a 7 metre rule, reduce the number of interchanges etc.

The fitness and size of the current players is totally different from my days and possible yours. Terry Randall - one of the hard men of the 70s probably weighed around the 90-94kg mark, I was considered a big half/five eight and at my heaviest weighed in at 85kg - I would be considered a midget now. So given the professionalism, size and fitness of the current footballer (or athletic - as some are not natural footballers) rule changes are required to limit the damage of these high speed contacts. I have suggested one - goodbye, the shoulder charge.

As a sideline, for all those that got half a stiffy from the Ben Tio (who I like as player and don't believe the intent was there) shoulder charge on Matt Groat; wonder how Matt's mum and dad felt seeing that occur to their son. As a parent, I reckon sick in the pit of their stomachs.

I'm waiting for it -the - if you don't like it don't play it comment. Come on someone raise your IQ above ground level and at least argue with some logic and reasoning.

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

I'm bored now of the Unionites saying shoulder charges pose significant injury risk, without offering anything to back it up, so I decided I'll go on a rant. Even journos and league fans seem to be buying into it, worryingly the NRL themselves, the mantra that shoulder charges are the root cause of concussion. What the journos and scum don't tell you is that there is fewer serious injuries in League than Rugby, by a long way, but we never hear about all the rugby injuries caused by arm-tackling gayness.

It's just assumed that it must be true(that there is a proven link between legal shoulder charges and concussions) because it's said by so many other people. But where is the evidence? All the evidence seems to be that shoulder charges to the face concuss people, therefore shoulder charges to the shoulder and below are a big risk? That's what I'm actually reading, oh well a shoulder charge in your head will KO you, so a shoulder charge anywhere else is going to be just as dangerous by extension?

Can anyone provide evidence that shoulder charges are notably more dangerous and likely to cause injury than wrapping tackles? Not illegal high tackles, but legal shoulder charges. All the shoulder charges we've seen have had shoulder to face contact, have they not? I notice people looking at Rugby Union and seeing or perceiving less concussions, all the while not taking into account the differences in play. So here are some questions and facets of the game I believe are behind the number of concussions, something to ponder:

In Union do they have a 10 metre line? The 10 metre line in League is conductive for big collisions and therefore concussions. More distance, more momentum

Do they have a no-strip rule? The strip rules in League are conductive to big collisions and concussions. Players with the ball will try to steamroll through defenders, while defenders will try to smash attackers. In Rugby this isn't the case. Because of the capacity of defenders to strip the ball, the defender is likely to try and steal the ball or prepare himself for the ruck, while the attacker, rather than trying to run through the defensive line as League players do, will opt to partially surrender and drive to the floor, - eliminating risk of a stripped ball, stolen ruck ball and producing a quick play the ball for his team. Look at Gareth Thomas and his first run in League, and how soft it was, that's a Rugby run, head down and to the floor, shying away from contact.

Do they kick-off in the same manner as League teams? No they don't. In Rugby, teams more often than not will take a short kick off, and the team being kicked to do not usually need to worry about being tackled as player A will lift player B, making it illegal for the defending team to tackle said players. There is very limited contact when rugby teams kick to restart play. By the time the team has caught the kick off, the other team is already stationary, waiting for the soft merkins to get to the floor. Video demo below

Do they have goal line drop outs? No. And the goal line drop-out, like the kick-off, is one of the most ferocious aspects of League.

Do they have 6 tackles? Nope. Unlimited phases in Rugby means that there is less urgency, teamed with the strip rules in Rugby this makes it rare to see any sort of running at defenders with purpose, limiting big collisions. The few that do run at the line hard are almost always shunned for it, as they get the ball stolen... Andy Powell for example. In League the 6 tackle rule encourages hard running and urgency. The soft running cowardice you find in many Rugby games is not allowed in League, nor is the soft tackling cowardice, irrespective of whether you use your arms or not.

What else? Well, an average Rugby game only has about 200 tackles(on the whole, for both teams!!!!). In the League the ball is in play for over 60 minutes, compared to 30 minutes in Rugby

So many people seem to look to Rugby and think that the defining factor in their lower concussion rate, or perceived lower concussion rate(I'm not even sure if there's much of a difference, though it's hard to tell because I can't find any stats), is that Rugby doesn't have shoulder charges. But it's not that. The reason rugby tackles are soft is because the game is designed soft, it's because they only make 200 tackles and only play for 31 minutes, the amount of running and tackling in league SHAMES rugby(700-800 a game), no wonder you don't notice as many concussions in rugby, you would need a MINIMUM of 3 rugby games to make it a fair comparison!

I put it to you that - excluding high shots - the difference between a shoulder charge and a wrapping tackle is mostly superficial, there is little change in probability of concussion. The force required to ko someone without hitting them above the shoulders is ridiculously high. The main point of difference is that League is a game that welcomes and encourages ferocity, and has 3-4 times the number of tackles a game as Rugby. Maybe that's why we see more concussions, because we have more tackles? I wonder.

So I propose, to get to the bottom of the concussion issue, that we:

a) Extend the 6 tackle rule to 20 tackles
b) Reduce the 10 metre line to 2 metre
c) Let defenders strip the ball whenever they like, regardless of numbers in the tackle
d) Make players wear a blindfold and spin round on the spot several times before taking the kick-off
e) Remove the goal-line drop-out
f) Shorten the game to 20 minutes long
g) Rename the game 'topball'

These changes will be effective and minimise notably the number of concussions. Getting rid of shoulder charges, however, avoids the actual root cause, the root cause being League is a tough f**king sport with 110kg human beings running into each other at high speeds, 800 times a game.

So journos and rugby twats, put up some evidence that legal SC's are worse than the alternative or don't speak to me. Your old boy rugby doctrines are worthless

 

[adamkungl]

*applause*
So sick of the 'softcocking up' of Rugby League.
It's a joke.
Seen so many penalties for what should be legitimately good tackles, challenges on kicking halves, etc.

f**k off sooks, everyone who plays the game knows what they're getting themselves into.

 

[innerwestrabbit]

I think Rugby has more safety issue than league. There are far more spinal injuries in union than in league each year. I agree due to te fact there are more collisions in league than in union that will lead to more concussions. It would be great to see the following

1) reduce interchange , bring fatigue back into game( for the big boys)

2) bring the teams closer 5 meters

3)allow for more completion for the ball, too much advantage to the team with the ball.

But you have to admit Kasiano owned Masoe a few weeks back though!

 

[adamkungl]

I think Rugby has more safety issue than league. There are far more spinal injuries in union than in league each year. I agree due to te fact there are more collisions in league than in union that will lead to more concussions. It would be great to see the following

1) reduce interchange , bring fatigue back into game( for the big boys)

2) bring the teams closer 5 meters

3)allow for more completion for the ball, too much advantage to the team with the ball.

But you have to admit Kasiano owned Masoe a few weeks back though!

1 yes
2 no
3 no

 

[dogslife]

:lol:

Lol@The dipsticks on his team who just stand there and look at him

 

[innerwestrabbit]

1 yes
2 no
3 no

Interested on why you disagree with 2 and 3.

 

[some11]

Just cancel Rugby League altogether - journos out of business.

 

[Loudstrat]

Even the f*cking opposition want to help. :lol:

God I want to see Adrian Morley in that shot - that would be TWO blokes in that black team in the ambulance!

BTW - top post Masoe :thumn:

 

[Loudstrat]

Just cancel Rugby League altogether - journos out of business.

Well there's always Lindsay Lohan and the Queen..........

 

[adamkungl]

Interested on why you disagree with 2 and 3.

Actually, 3 is a tricky one. Although I think more contest for the ball would result in a messier game, I'm also sick of seeing loose carries awarded with underserved penalties for "hand on the ball" strips.

Overall though I think it would have a negative effect on the game, increasing scrappy play and decreasing collisions and offloads.

On 2 - I just don't see the point. We moved away from the 5m rule a long time ago, what reason is there to go back? The fitness of the players now would turn most matches into a pretty dour defensive struggle I think.

Sorry, should have elaborated more in the first place.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Five metres is simply out of the question.

However there is a genuine case for eight metres. It has become too easy for Rugby League teams at the professional level to move the ball downfield. Allowing such ample space promotes a lower quality of football and teams are not given incentive to move the ball when no closer than forty metres from the opposition tryline. Knowing also that one penalty is all that is required to get deep within the opposition's half, ball security is not respected and the tackled player often looks for the penalty, by any means.

It is not an attractive set of circumstances.

Bringing the defensive line closer will prompt less focus on wrestling maneuovres in the ruck and more ambitious play from the side with the ball in hand. This promotion of ball skills will encourage and nurture creative play. Not only this, at an amateur level it would make the game a more attractive option to play, in bush areas especially.

I do not foresee the measuring of eight metres being a problem for referees, as the ten metre markings would make it fairly easy, especially with enough experience. A move to eight metres would most definitely need to be made in conjunction with a reduction in interchange. Six or even four would be ideal. Lastly of course it would need to be made worldwide and ratified by the RLIF.

That is my argument.

 

[Desert Qlder]

I also completely agree with the OP regarding shoulder charges and find the focus on them quite ridiculous.

Wrestling moves are a more potent worry for the game at this time.

 

[Usain Bolt]

Reason shoulder charges cause more concussions than swinging arms is simple, The point of your shoulder is much stronger then a swinging arm. How many times have you seen someone knocked out cold with a swinging arm compared to a shoulder charge?

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Reason shoulder charges cause more concussions than swinging arms is simple, The point of your shoulder is much stronger then a swinging arm. How many times have you seen someone knocked out cold with a swinging arm compared to a shoulder charge?

The same amount of times, give or take. People assume one causes more damage than the other because they don't identify the 2 tackles properly.

When you see a high swinging arm you classify it as a high swinging arm, you don't say to yourself, "another concussion caused by a wrapping tackle", nobody does that!

However, when you see a shoulder charge to the face, that's exactly what you do, you blame the shoulder charge, and discount the fact it was f**king high!

Whenever a shoulder charge goes wrong(high) shoulder charges on a whole(even legal ones) come under attack. Nobody attacks wrapping tackles when they go wrong, and they go wrong just as often! I don't even think you realise your systematic, ingrained bias.

Same thing happens with tip tackles, nobody in their right mind would say "lets ban players from lifting, look what happens when it goes wrong, we need to ban tacklers from lifting their opponents of the floor"....... nobody f**king says that! But shoulder charges are gone after when they go wrong.

FuiFui knocked out last week with a swinging arm, Cooper Cronk in Origin knocked out with a swinging arm. That's 2 in about 3 weeks, and they're just the ones that come to mind, I'm sure there's more! I don't hear any journos calling for a ban of tackles with arms, on the basis that 2 tackles using the arms led to 2 concussions in 2/3 weeks.

If you hit someone in the chest/shoulder with the point of your shoulder, the likelihood of concussion is extremely small. Tell me the last time someone was ko'd without being hit in the face. Every shoulder charge concussion I can think of, whether people like it or not, had contact with the face. Making it, whether people like it or not(and I don't)

 

[Parra Pride]

Multiball would solve all League's problems.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Very interesting post

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

It's a tactic media also use for political issues.

For example, in Britain the news narrative a few years ago was "Is Britain spending enough on the war in Iraq". There is a science behind asking this question, the reason you ask the question is because the reader makes the assumption that the original question has been asked and answered and agreed upon, the original and most important question being "Should we be having any part of the war in Iraq"

They didn't ask that and don't ask that, what they do is ask whether enough is being spent on the war. Ask if enough is being spent on the war people subconsciously assume the war is agreed upon, so now to the issue of finance

In America the same happens "is the media too liberal". As if it's a given fact that the media in America is liberal, when by objective measures it is not. Nobody asks "is the media too conservative"

I see the same thing happening with shoulder charges. Nobody asks or wants to discuss whether shoulder charges are notably more dangerous, the media skip that part and assume the answer is yes, and go straight for "should shoulder charges be removed from the game", well the reason you ask that question is because if you ask that question people think you've already asked the first question and gotten your result

But to my knowledge nobody has put forward any objective factual study which so much as hints at legal shoulder charges being a serious concern. Am I not right?

Has anybody on this forum seen actual evidence that LEGAL shoulder charges are worth a shit more harmful than LEGAL arm tackles? I'm really interested to know, because I certainly haven't, nobody has shown me it

keep your eye on the snake media at all time. Even the sentence structure and words they choose to use is carefully coordinated to evoke emotion and prompt assosciation

 

[Knownothing]

If legal shoulder charges are "okay", why are they banned in the other code? From memory, they were allowed until the mid to late nineties, then they were banned on medical grounds.


Spear tackles were allowed in both codes for many years, until they were also banned on medical grounds.


Player safety should be paramount. Rugby league is a tougher, more professional game now than it was, say, 20 years ago, and yet some players from that era have significant physical damage - who is to say what effects current players will experience?