Former Kangaroos star Ian Roberts will reveal rugby league has left him with brain da

[Perth Red]

Maybe you can explain how the nrl will handle the future lawsuit after they ignored doctors orders. As soon as every team doctor united in recommending it be outlawed it was doomed. No point crying about it. I was opposed at first myself but players coming out of rugby league with brain injuries is hugely problematic.

Also the nfl is being sued because they went of their way to ignore advice such as the nrl was given.

So you really think given the legal storm they are in that if there were any risk of the shoulder charge being a cause for future litigation they wouldn't have banned it along with helmet spear tackles and hits to the helmet?

I'm sure your right and they have decided to ignore this risk and take the chance they might get sued for hundreds of millions again!:crazy:

The NFL ignored evidence hits to the head was causing damage. We've known this for a hundred years, hence why it has always been outlawed in the game. Tell me how many concussed players have you ever seen from a legal shoulder charge? How many from a legal tackle around the legs/waist? Which do you think causes more concussions?

I'm sure if you asked dr's if a 110kg man running full pelt into three other 100kg+ men a dozen times was a health risk they would say it is. Maybe we should just shut up shop?

 

[magpie4ever]

So you really think given the legal storm they are in that if there were any risk of the shoulder charge being a cause for future litigation they wouldn't have banned it along with helmet spear tackles and hits to the helmet?

I'm sure your right and they have decided to ignore this risk and take the chance they might get sued for hundreds of millions again!:crazy:

The NFL ignored evidence hits to the head was causing damage. We've known this for a hundred years, hence why it has always been outlawed in the game. Tell me how many concussed players have you ever seen from a legal shoulder charge? How many from a legal tackle around the legs/waist? Which do you think causes more concussions?

I'm sure if you asked dr's if a 110kg man running full pelt into three other 100kg+ men a dozen times was a health risk they would say it is. Maybe we should just shut up shop?

Over the years, hundreds. It happens in all contact sports but even with what was a legal shoulder charge, it created the whiplash action of the head (therefore, brain bouncing against the skull - subconcussions).

That is why it is banned and not other forms of non-head high tackles, Simples - OK.

 

[Perth Red]

If that's the reason we had better ban Nigel plum from the game. Next we'll be bringing in a "too hard" tackle penalty going by your justification.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

If that's the reason we had better ban Nigel plum from the game. Next we'll be bringing in a "too hard" tackle penalty going by your justification.

That's already happened in the NRL

 

[Perth Red]

The evidence is incredibly weak around cte and cause. There has been no peer reviewed research into if legal shoulder charges cause a greater risk of concussion than a hard two man front on tackle. Even the sma in concussion edition state their is no proven cause and effect between concussion and cte in athletes. I understand why the NRL are being risk averse but it is a dangerous slippery slope for the fabric of what makes RL the game it is. And as I have said numerous times if it was that big a risk the NFl would have banned it.

 

[Bengal]

The evidence is incredibly weak around cte and cause.

Indeed, the evidence is lacking. It can?t even tell us how many players have brain damage, the level of damage, the core influence(s) for this damage and how this damage affects their quality of life. And it can?t compare all this to other sports, pursuits or jobs nor can it compare it to the wear and tear of a so-called normal brain In short, there is a severe lack of context on this issue and of course that is due to the limited availability of real information to base informed decisions on.

Instead, the powers-that-be rely on second hand information ? what has transpired in a different code, the NFL, a code that anyone who has ever sat down and watched a season of will quickly come to realize is on a different level, a far harsher level of body contact than League deals with. Then there are the health professionals where uniformity of view is a foreign concept to them. Add to this the media where much is written but almost all based on just a small slice of an underdone pie. All of this adds up to making game breaking decisions based on ?house of cards? type limited information.

We are well down the 'Steve Morris' hillside and there?s no coming back for the game from that, especially when you factor in the speed at all costs, speed at the diminishing expense of skill and vision, nature of the sport.

 

[Seti]

And as I have said numerous times if it was that big a risk the NFl would have banned it.

The NFL don?t have to ban the shoulder charge because there is sufficient impact absorption in the foam and plastic composition of the shoulder pads, as well as from helmets. The dimensions of the shoulder pads also tend to deflect impacts to the head. NRL players don?t enjoy such safeguards.

There is also a significant difference in the number of tackles in both sports. American Football typically has around 60 tackles in a game, although there are other collisions off the ball, however many of those are at the line of scrimmage involving little momentum. Compare that to NRL where there are approx. 600 tackles per game, so there is a higher probability of a collision injury.

 

[betcats]

So you really think given the legal storm they are in that if there were any risk of the shoulder charge being a cause for future litigation they wouldn't have banned it along with helmet spear tackles and hits to the helmet?

I'm sure your right and they have decided to ignore this risk and take the chance they might get sued for hundreds of millions again!:crazy:

The NFL ignored evidence hits to the head was causing damage. We've known this for a hundred years, hence why it has always been outlawed in the game. Tell me how many concussed players have you ever seen from a legal shoulder charge? How many from a legal tackle around the legs/waist? Which do you think causes more concussions?

I'm sure if you asked dr's if a 110kg man running full pelt into three other 100kg+ men a dozen times was a health risk they would say it is. Maybe we should just shut up shop?

The NFL has changed plenty of rules in regard to the contact they are allowed to have. There main though problem was caused from helmet to helmet contact, which is now banned. They were even talking about removing kick offs completely from the games as they are seen as more dangerous.

 

[Perth Red]

The NFL don?t have to ban the shoulder charge because there is sufficient impact absorption in the foam and plastic composition of the shoulder pads, as well as from helmets. The dimensions of the shoulder pads also tend to deflect impacts to the head. NRL players don?t enjoy such safeguards.

There is also a significant difference in the number of tackles in both sports. American Football typically has around 60 tackles in a game, although there are other collisions off the ball, however many of those are at the line of scrimmage involving little momentum. Compare that to NRL where there are approx. 600 tackles per game, so there is a higher probability of a collision injury.

But we haven't banned tackles, we've banned shoulder charges of which there was less than 3 a game avg.

Your argument re helmets is also void as the crux of the argument against shoulder charges is impact causing whiplash causing non direct contact concussion. Trust me a shoulder charge from a linebacker causes just as much momentum change and violent whiplash action as two forwards in RL coming together.

 

[Bengal]

Compare that to NRL where there are approx. 600 tackles per game, so there is a higher probability of a collision injury.

Yes, 600 odd tackles per game and the percentage of head-high shoulder charges or head high tackles per 600 is barely 1%. A heck of a lot of fuss over such a tiny percentage!

The NFL has changed plenty of rules in regard to the contact they are allowed to have. There main though problem was caused from helmet to helmet contact, which is now banned. They were even talking about removing kick offs completely from the games as they are seen as more dangerous.

The helmet contact is only half their problem. The freshness of their players is the overwhelming reason for their injuries. Those helmets would soon weigh them down and become an absolute burden if they had to run just half the distance of a typical NRL player and tackle barely a third as much and stay on the field a lot longer than they currently do.

The forwards just have to block and tackle and the backs just run, block and decoy with not a lot else in between except breaks, breaks and more breaks.The players are as fresh as a daisy relative to other codes and this is the prime reason why they hit so hard and "still" hit so hard.

Nonetheless, it is a damn fine sport and my new love now that the game I once lived for has now become a shadow of its former self.

 

[Pete Cash]

So you really think given the legal storm they are in that if there were any risk of the shoulder charge being a cause for future litigation they wouldn't have banned it along with helmet spear tackles and hits to the helmet?

I'm sure your right and they have decided to ignore this risk and take the chance they might get sued for hundreds of millions again!:crazy:

The NFL ignored evidence hits to the head was causing damage. We've known this for a hundred years, hence why it has always been outlawed in the game. Tell me how many concussed players have you ever seen from a legal shoulder charge? How many from a legal tackle around the legs/waist? Which do you think causes more concussions?

I'm sure if you asked dr's if a 110kg man running full pelt into three other 100kg+ men a dozen times was a health risk they would say it is. Maybe we should just shut up shop?

Again you are ignoring the main point. It does not matter if shoulder charges are more likely to cause concussions what matters is the nrl received expert advice that it should be banned. The nfl got sued for ignoring such advice. If they kept the shoulder charge in place that would be a contentious issue in any future lawsuit. I miss the shoulder charge too but in this day and age when an organisation gets information that something is dangerous they need to act.

And as for your last paragraph over the next twenty years that might be a very real thing that contact sports face.

 

[Pete Cash]

The nfl still has problems with concussions with regards to keeping players out of action. One has to wonder how effective the concussion tests are when just as an example 49ers safety Eric Reid was concussed three times last year. As mentioned in this thread doctors recommend you retire after three concussions in a career he picked up that many in a season. (note:it might have been two or three but it was more than one)

 

[Plumplechook]

From the Historical Pictures archive, testing American football helmets - 1912. Wonder how this guy ended up?

 

[magpie4ever]

From the Historical Pictures archive, testing American football helmets - 1912. Wonder how this guy ended up?

:lol: at a guess - dead

 

[El Diablo]

that's Bunniesmong

 

[betcats]

From the Historical Pictures archive, testing American football helmets - 1912. Wonder how this guy ended up?

Haha thats f**king good.

 

[Springs]

Again you are ignoring the main point. It does not matter if shoulder charges are more likely to cause concussions what matters is the nrl received expert advice that it should be banned. The nfl got sued for ignoring such advice. If they kept the shoulder charge in place that would be a contentious issue in any future lawsuit. I miss the shoulder charge too but in this day and age when an organisation gets information that something is dangerous they need to act.

And as for your last paragraph over the next twenty years that might be a very real thing that contact sports face.

If they did the same study on different types of tackles they would get the same results:
- Front on-hits e.g. JWH on Luke Kelly Saturday night
- Hard-driving tackles into the ground
- Pick up and drive tackles
- Low tackles sticking your head near the knees or hip of a player (causes the most concussions)
- Arm hits (sticking the arm out and belting someone)
- Attacking shoulder barges e.g. Frank Pritchard on Todd Lowrie

Now if you tell me that shoulder charges need to be banned but these tackles are ok then you are a hypocrite.

To say that the game is safer because shoulder charges are banned, yet all you have to do it stick and arm out like JWH did the other night for a hit to be safe, is f**king ridiculous.

The study results were very weak anyway.

 

[Pete Cash]

The nrl to my knowledge has not received advice to ban those tackles springs. Again the nfl was not sued because nfl is a dangerous game but because they ignored (and hid) advice into player safety. It (ignoring the advice of ALL the club doctors) would be a giant problem for the nrl in any future litigation.

The nrl needs to protect itself from any future legal action springs.

 

[Perth Red]

Again you are ignoring the main point. It does not matter if shoulder charges are more likely to cause concussions what matters is the nrl received expert advice that it should be banned. The nfl got sued for ignoring such advice. If they kept the shoulder charge in place that would be a contentious issue in any future lawsuit. I miss the shoulder charge too but in this day and age when an organisation gets information that something is dangerous they need to act.

And as for your last paragraph over the next twenty years that might be a very real thing that contact sports face.

Massive difference, the NFL had empirical data and research about concussion and blows to the head caused buy using helmets to tackle and hits to helmets in the tackle and long term effects (though this is still to be conclusively proven as cause and effect in regards to dementia) and chose to ignore it. Our "expert" advice was a group of Dr's saying illegal shoulder charges to the head could possibly cause long term damage and therefore there should be no risk of it ever happening and banned totally. it was opinion not fact. They chose an element of the game they knew they could sanitise without uproar.

If they had the evidence that concussion = dementia then they should have come out and said all blows to the head regardless of cause are contributing factors but where would that have put the game? They took the soft option and ignored all the majority of concussions that happen from head high tackles, badly timed tackles, accidental head clashes, hips to the head, runner using their forearm to fend off to the head etc etc.

If a Dr or group comes out next week and says all tackles should be banned due to risk of injury do you think the NRL would be equally obliged to listen them for fear of future litigation? Sure there is a duty of care but there is also inherent risk in any contact sport and as long as that is understood and informed choice by the participant is given then it is highly unlikely a legal case would be succesful as long as it can be shown that reasonable steps had been taken ie punishing heavily ANY tackle or hit to the head.

 

[magpie4ever]

that's Bunniesmong

Maybe, grandpa bunny.

PS: the shoulder charge is banned and is not coming back, so why all the angst? If you pro-shoulder charge posters keep going on about concussions from other forms of contact and someone (in power) listens to you; than the end result will be the game will disappear.

So, what do you want - a game without the shoulder charge or no game at all?