Eliminate risk and it will be game over

[kmav23]

the game along with society is constantly changing since 1900.

I'm sure people complained in the 1970's that the game is changing too much.

Parents complained in the 60's about Rock music being devils music.

 

[magpie4ever]

the game along with society is constantly changing since 1900.

I'm sure people complained in the 1970's that the game is changing too much.

Parents complained in the 60's about Rock music being devils music.

Hey, isn't it.:lol:

 

[magpie4ever]

Then I became interested in AFL. It was fast, skillful and bloody tough. I really liked the way you could shoulder charge someone from a 90 degree angle when they were looking the other way and clean the f**kers off their feet.

That is why AFL was always considered a a cheap shot game - "shoulder charging someone from a 90 degree angle when they were looking the other way and clean the f**kers off their feet" is not tough or hard but a gutless action.

 

[adamkungl]

Wow that was poorly written and....well...I'm not quite sure the point he was trying to get across.
In high school you're taught to structure your argument....I realise Gus is an 'ex footballer' but surely he still has an editor or someone writing for him...

A heap of sports penalize heavily on violence, they seem to be doing just fine.

Shit sports.

 

[kmav23]

eliminating risk is what humans do...

that's why we live to 70's instead of 20's

eliminating risk is what doctors/parents and police do

 

[Shorty]

I'd say the inferential and evaluative comprehension of the reader may not have been fully developed at high school.

It was a very well written piece.

:lol:
Actually it was developed at high school and that's why I can tell its poorly written.
Try again.

 

[Spot On]

Better get onto the SMH and inform them Gus isn't up to scratch as a writer and that you could do a much better job. Send them some of your best from LU. That'll knock 'em dead!

 

[firechild]

Better get onto the SMH and inform them Gus isn't up to scratch as a writer and that you could do a much better job. Send them some of your best from LU. That'll knock 'em dead!

Gus isn't up to scratch as a writer but he does a good job given what the media wants. It is an emotive piece that garners the desired reaction, just look through the comments here. The vast majority of people reading these articles lack the intellect to discern the self contradictions and logical failings of the article. As I've said, I agree with the premise of the article, I also think it is the perfect article to achieve the result he wants. That doesn't make it a good article from all perspectives.

 

[Shorty]

Better get onto the SMH and inform them Gus isn't up to scratch as a writer and that you could do a much better job. Send them some of your best from LU. That'll knock 'em dead!

lol I learned that stuff in highschool, doesn't mean I'm some writer:lol:
Come on man look at the first sentence:
'I feel we are losing something from the game of rugby league. It's not about the punching or the shoulder charge. No one goes out onto the field to intentionally do these things. It just happens. There's no point me trying to explain it, so I won't.'
He then.....goes on to explain it...and...it turns out, it is about punching and the shoulder charge.

Gus isn't up to scratch as a writer but he does a good job given what the media wants. It is an emotive piece that garners the desired reaction, just look through the comments here. The vast majority of people reading these articles lack the intellect to discern the self contradictions and logical failings of the article. As I've said, I agree with the premise of the article, I also think it is the perfect article to achieve the result he wants. That doesn't make it a good article from all perspectives.

Exactly.

At the end of the day I believe while Gus' heart is in the right place, it really isn't practical or beneficial to rant about this because whether he (or all the other gritty lovers) like it or not, punching on needs to be punished.
Shoulder charge is something I didn't agree with ruling out.

 

[Bengal]

It is an emotive piece that garners the desired reaction, just look through the comments here.

That's subjective - it is only as emotive as a person allows it to be just like how a movie or a specific sporting moment sparks differing responses/emotions in people.

The vast majority of people reading these articles lack the intellect to discern the self contradictions and logical failings of the article.

Its easy to criticize it is so much harder to justify it. Have not seen much, if any justification for said criticism and certainly haven't seen any that has stood scrutiny. Speaking of emotion - a lot of people can't get past who wrote the thing or the specific writing style he possesses. In my experience - they are just excuses. We get things, no matter how obscure when we want to and make up a crap load of excuses when we really don't.

As I've said, I agree with the premise of the article, I also think it is the perfect article to achieve the result he wants. That doesn't make it a good article from all perspectives.

One thing I've taken out of his story is that Gus, himself doesn't know exactly what the premise is! The fact is he's touched on many themes and its the readers own emotion that has let one theme cloud out the others. Some think its an ode to the old days and that colours their thinking from then on in, others think he's against change and they too have a hard time seeing past that premise. On and on it goes.

The guy has touched on many issues surrounding the game - roles, parenting, administration, junior footie, the future of the game and maybe more. Give me a person that can truly explain why they disagree with Gus - and their explanation stands scrutiny - and I'll show you someone that hasn't given in to emotion!

 

[Bengal]

At the end of the day I believe while Gus' heart is in the right place, it really isn't practical or beneficial to rant about this because whether he (or all the other gritty lovers) like it or not, punching on needs to be punished.

Punching has always been punished, dunno if he's advocating against punishment. Everything, until recently it seems, he was fine with. And I'm with him on that regarding punching. Penalize the biff, bin them if its continuous. That is how it once was. I'm with that, I assume he is too and many others as well that support his views. I am certainly not advocating against no punishment at all and I'd love someone to pick out where he suggests as much also.

 

[kmav23]

The difference is we are trying to attract the largest fans which means women and families.

Why do you think rugby afl have cleaned up violence.

Fighting appeals to men not women.

 

[Bengal]

First and foremost – there isn’t much violence (of the biff variety) in the game. The game like the other codes has already cleaned up its act. One wild moment, poorly adjudicated in one of the most watched sporting events of the year has had far greater ramifications than it warranted. Those who think biff is prevalent in the game and under-adjudicated more often than not, or even worse, not policed at all – they – have little knowledge of the game and as such, the game should not be taking any notice of them whatsoever!!

We want a broad fan base, absolutely and that has been the case ever since Tina Turner rocked our world, but we do not and should not pander to those with very little knowledge, henceforth interest in the game. There’s a difference a colossal difference between broadening the fan base and pandering to those with little interest in the sport. The game has caved in to the latter and very swiftly at that, leaving Phil Gould (and those that get this point) to ponder the shape of the game, its future appeal if similar outcomes persist.

In short, what has happened here wasn’t to attract – it was to appease!!

 

[Springs]

eliminating risk is what humans do...

that's why we live to 70's instead of 20's

eliminating risk is what doctors/parents and police do

So you are saying rugby league should be banned as a sport.

To eliminate all risk that is the only way. We'd have to first eliminate tackling, then eliminate running, kicking, training and the ball. Turn the field into a giant pillow and cover all the players in the best protective gear.

Punching was always banned. All this new rule did was open it up to massive overreactions like we saw in Origin II. All they had to do was come out with a statement saying Gallen should have been sin binned and all would have been fine.

As for the shoulder charge, the game is no safer. Any tackle can do as much damage as the shoulder charge can. Contact to the head was always banned and if you are do me consistent we this idiotic rule we have to ban everything that is higher than the waist. Otherwise shoulders, arms, heads, elbows, hands etc risk coming into contact with the head. We've seen players knocked out by swinging arms and head clashes far more than shoulder charges so everything above the waist should be banned.

Anyone who thinks we need to pander to the worrying mothers doesn't know the junior leagues. Mini footy is pretty much touch footy with arm grabs allowed. Mothers aren't going to see their kids hurt in that than in any other sport. Mod footy has tackles and the resemblance of structure but any kid who can't hack it isn't going to want to play. U12s and up is for kids who can stand contact but still isn't heavy and any kid who wants to play by now is going to play anyway. By the time of grade footy and heavy contact the mothers aren't going to have much of a say.

 

[NrlCoach]

So you are saying rugby league should be banned as a sport.

To eliminate all risk that is the only way. We'd have to first eliminate tackling, then eliminate running, kicking, training and the ball. Turn the field into a giant pillow and cover all the players in the best protective gear.

Punching was always banned. All this new rule did was open it up to massive overreactions like we saw in Origin II. All they had to do was come out with a statement saying Gallen should have been sin binned and all would have been fine.

As for the shoulder charge, the game is no safer. Any tackle can do as much damage as the shoulder charge can. Contact to the head was always banned and if you are do me consistent we this idiotic rule we have to ban everything that is higher than the waist. Otherwise shoulders, arms, heads, elbows, hands etc risk coming into contact with the head. We've seen players knocked out by swinging arms and head clashes far more than shoulder charges so everything above the waist should be banned.

Anyone who thinks we need to pander to the worrying mothers doesn't know the junior leagues. Mini footy is pretty much touch footy with arm grabs allowed. Mothers aren't going to see their kids hurt in that than in any other sport. Mod footy has tackles and the resemblance of structure but any kid who can't hack it isn't going to want to play. U12s and up is for kids who can stand contact but still isn't heavy and any kid who wants to play by now is going to play anyway. By the time of grade footy and heavy contact the mothers aren't going to have much of a say.

Dont Feed the troll.. he keeps using the AFL as a non violent sporst that attracts family, women etc Yet the AFL has the shoulder charge and no sinnbin or send of for fighting or foul play :lol: his argument is invalid

 

[Lambretta]

The difference is we are trying to attract the largest fans which means women and families.

Why do you think rugby afl have cleaned up violence.

Fighting appeals to men not women.

Rugby League has cleaned up it's game massively. The filthy tactics of the 1970's are history.

We're not saying it should be violent, we're saying that trying to make a contact sport into a non contact or minimal contact sport is fairly f**king stupid.

If you take heavy contact out of Rugby League you take away the one thing that differentiates us from the other football codes.

 

[magpie4ever]

The difference is we are trying to attract the largest fans which means women and families.

Why do you think rugby afl have cleaned up violence.

Fighting appeals to men not women.

Hey, I've seen some good cat fights in my time.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Rugby League has cleaned up it's game massively. The filthy tactics of the 1970's are history.

We're not saying it should be violent, we're saying that trying to make a contact sport into a non contact or minimal contact sport is fairly f**king stupid.

If you take heavy contact out of Rugby League you take away the one thing that differentiates us from the other football codes.

There is a lesson in the 1970's clean up of rugby league. It was done to move the image away from just a thug game and to appeal to a wider audience.

And, most importantly, one thing i can promise you is that, in the 70's, there would have been the same level of angst about the administration killing their game as there is now.

If there is one thing everyone needs to appreciate is that history does repeat, just in different contexts. In the 70's the people complaining were on the same side of the debate as most of you. But history has shown they were wrong, the game did not die and what they called "being tough" was just dumb thuggery. And, as we all know, the game has flourished without it.

Im not saying this proves you are wrong, you just have to appreciate that similar things have happened in the past and David Smith has history on his side.

 

[Bengal]

There is a lesson in the 1970's clean up of rugby league. It was done to move the image away from just a thug game and to appeal to a wider audience.

Im not saying this proves you are wrong, you just have to appreciate that similar things have happened in the past and David Smith has history on his side.

The game wasn?t cleaned up in the 70?s and neither was the impending clean up done to appeal to a wider audience. Big dust ups like the Bowden (Newtown) v Broadhurst (Manly) duel and the legendary Kevin Tamiti v Greg Dowling feud of the early 80?s attests to that. As does the likes of Benny Elias, head and torso drenched in blood splashed over the cover of RLW and (probably) newspapers in the 80's also. And those moments are just the tip of the 80's iceberg.

The emphasis for cleansing the game was the impending ?aids? epidemic, a cataclysmic issue of the 80?s and early 90?s. Blood dripping (or gushing) from players was no longer acceptable, but not because of image reasons, but because of real health fears. A little latter they dealt with the real cheap shot of the game ? the head high tackle, lazy, reckless tackling that had grown to epidemic proportions right through to the 90?s. There was a long period where most head highs were deemed acceptable where only the coat-hanger types or the ones that drew blood or actually knocked a player in a blindingly obvious way, attracting the wrath of the referee (and commentators for that matter). Funnily enough, the game was stricter on head highs in the early to mid 80?s then it was from the late 80?s to mid-90?s, in other words, the officials had gotten complacent and they duly tightened up their own act rather than change to appease this new fangled concept called ?image?. Any super rough incidents in the game induced long suspensions on the sidelines but there was no edit to change the game itself.

The first appeal to image (again, a new concept back then) the game made were the Tina Turner ads, primarily designed to appeal to a new audience, namely women. Nothing before and not a lot, soon after, was ever done in the name of ?image?.

One thing you have to hand to Phil Gould is that he was there; he actually experienced the 70?s and 80?s. A lot of people taking him or his comments to task simply weren?t around in those days and therefore have little grasp of context , as such, they?re applying modern day notions and concepts to an age where such dynamics were still very much in the embryonic stage, at best. Thus, if we?re going to quote history then I say its best that people know exactly what they?re talking about when they do so!

 

[Springs]

There is a lesson in the 1970's clean up of rugby league. It was done to move the image away from just a thug game and to appeal to a wider audience.

And, most importantly, one thing i can promise you is that, in the 70's, there would have been the same level of angst about the administration killing their game as there is now.

If there is one thing everyone needs to appreciate is that history does repeat, just in different contexts. In the 70's the people complaining were on the same side of the debate as most of you. But history has shown they were wrong, the game did not die and what they called "being tough" was just dumb thuggery. And, as we all know, the game has flourished without it.

Im not saying this proves you are wrong, you just have to appreciate that similar things have happened in the past and David Smith has history on his side.

At the moment our stupid rule changes have led to a man being punched in the face and then sin binned so our game appeals more to mothers. That's idiotic. It was fine the way it was.

And I don't recall a rule change where good heavy contact to the body was banned. To the head yes, but not to the body. And that's led to the Dugan suspension which is the worst the game has ever seen. It's nowhere near the same as getting rid of the wild 70s brawls.