NRL vs NFL

[shiznit]

:lol: Look at this self loathing garbage. I honestly wonder if we would be getting this rot from Dean in September if the Dragons weren't looking more and more like road kill waiting to be splattered on the dash every day.

It's easy to start thinking about the NRL as insignificant or for weaker minded people compared to other sports when the club you naturally support is on their way to mad monday in a hurry and you've already switched off and changed over to the other sport which is just getting started. Take your jaded shit elsewhere and come back in February next year like we all know you will anyway with a better attitude because those of us who still have a team to support playing footy right now don't want or need to hear it.

NRL??

Never heard of the f**ker...

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Its actually quite amusing that dean considers himself 'intelligent' and 'cultured' because he watches NFL

I think it's quite amusing that a few people in this thread don't realise GKD is taking the piss.

They're different sports, I hate baseball, but a bucketload of people enjoy it.

NFL and NRL are very different sports, you get what you take out of it. Personally, there is nothing better in terms of sports than sitting in a pub on a sunday with 7 or 8 games going at once and jumping between the games on each play. NFL is made for TV, it's made for highlight reels, every play is about maximum impact... League is a war of attrition between everyone on the field. Give me the highlights of the NFL or multiple games going on at once any day over watching anything but the Dragons or the top 2 or 3 teams playing in the NRL.

If you're sitting down and watching one game of NFL with two teams you don't care about from start to finish, you're doing it wrong. If you're at the game, it puts anything the NRL can do to shame.

 

[Lambretta]

If you think the contact by Papalli was soft, look at the contact on quarterbacks and kickers that is penalised in the NFL......

You could get a highlights reel from the NRL and play it up against penalties in NFL and claim the reverse, that the NFL is soft and Rugby League is a tough game.

The truth is, both codes are wrestling with ideas about what contact is acceptable and what is not

In the NFL, pad on pad contact is allowed by certain players in certain situations. It's not a free for all and there is protection there against injury

The brain injuries suffered by most players in the NFL have eventuated because of helmet to helmet contact or players leading into the torso's of padded players using their heads as a battering ram.

These sorts of tackling techniques were bound to lead to brain damage and the NFL needed to take a stance. Brain damage is not generally caused by players colliding shoulder to shoulder and they haven't outlawed this.



Now let's look at league. Player safety today and fear of players suing the NRL in the future has led the game to ban tackles that they deem dangerous. Lifting beyond the horizontal, smashing people in the head, pile driving people's heads into the ground. All these tackles can lead to damage to the head and neck and are rightly banned.

However, shoulder charges are far less dangerous. After all, a decent shoulder charge, done correctly, has virtually no chance of damaging anyone's brain. The danger lies in the tackle going wrong and a player being hit in the side of their head with the point of someone's shoulder.

Doctors cited NFL brain damage as their reason for wanting shoulder charges banned - but comparing helmet to helmet contact with players torso's being hit by shoulders kind of misses the point completely.

The NFL over-reacted in banning the shoulder charge - what they needed to do was ensure the penalty for hitting someone's head with the point of your shoulder in a charging motion was harsh enough that players wouldn't do it recklessly. The fact the NRL made a terrible error of judgement on the advice of people who were talking about a different issue altogether should have given them pause for thought.

The NRL then compounded this error of judgement, but deciding that the motion of a shoulder charge had to be so wide that almost any contact, no matter how insignificant, or even if completely accidental would be penalised and lead to a player being banned unless they had their arms away from their body "in a wrapping motion". Please!

The NRL needs to look at the decision to ban the shoulder charge and their definition of what consists of a shoulder charge before the game becomes a complete laughing stock and the fans that love this game and have loved this game for years turn off in disgust forever.

I have gone from being someone who watched 5 games every single weekend - giving them all my complete attention to someone who is trying hard to decide if I should bother watching anything other than my own teams games.

I'm not lost to the game yet - but I'm on my way. If I can give it up, being so entrenched in the game itself, you only have to wonder how many fans there are out there who have already stopped bothering.

Dear NRL - Messers Smith and Greenberg - you're killing our game. Please stop.

 

[betcats]

If you think the contact by Papalli was soft, look at the contact on quarterbacks and kickers that is penalised in the NFL......

You could get a highlights reel from the NRL and play it up against penalties in NFL and claim the reverse, that the NFL is soft and Rugby League is a tough game.

The truth is, both codes are wrestling with ideas about what contact is acceptable and what is not

In the NFL, pad on pad contact is allowed by certain players in certain situations. It's not a free for all and there is protection there against injury

The brain injuries suffered by most players in the NFL have eventuated because of helmet to helmet contact or players leading into the torso's of padded players using their heads as a battering ram.

These sorts of tackling techniques were bound to lead to brain damage and the NFL needed to take a stance. Brain damage is not generally caused by players colliding shoulder to shoulder and they haven't outlawed this.



Now let's look at league. Player safety today and fear of players suing the NRL in the future has led the game to ban tackles that they deem dangerous. Lifting beyond the horizontal, smashing people in the head, pile driving people's heads into the ground. All these tackles can lead to damage to the head and neck and are rightly banned.

However, shoulder charges are far less dangerous. After all, a decent shoulder charge, done correctly, has virtually no chance of damaging anyone's brain. The danger lies in the tackle going wrong and a player being hit in the side of their head with the point of someone's shoulder.

Doctors cited NFL brain damage as their reason for wanting shoulder charges banned - but comparing helmet to helmet contact with players torso's being hit by shoulders kind of misses the point completely.

The NFL over-reacted in banning the shoulder charge - what they needed to do was ensure the penalty for hitting someone's head with the point of your shoulder in a charging motion was harsh enough that players wouldn't do it recklessly. The fact the NRL made a terrible error of judgement on the advice of people who were talking about a different issue altogether should have given them pause for thought.

The NRL then compounded this error of judgement, but deciding that the motion of a shoulder charge had to be so wide that almost any contact, no matter how insignificant, or even if completely accidental would be penalised and lead to a player being banned unless they had their arms away from their body "in a wrapping motion". Please!

The NRL needs to look at the decision to ban the shoulder charge and their definition of what consists of a shoulder charge before the game becomes a complete laughing stock and the fans that love this game and have loved this game for years turn off in disgust forever.

I have gone from being someone who watched 5 games every single weekend - giving them all my complete attention to someone who is trying hard to decide if I should bother watching anything other than my own teams games.

I'm not lost to the game yet - but I'm on my way. If I can give it up, being so entrenched in the game itself, you only have to wonder how many fans there are out there who have already stopped bothering.

Dear NRL - Messers Smith and Greenberg - you're killing our game. Please stop.

Nice post but that bold is wrong. A well executed shoulder charge with no head contact killed someone recently in the QLD cup. Now while that is the only example anyone can find like that and it is extreme its pretty obvious shoulder charges can have a significant effect on the brain even without high contact.

 

[RoosTah]

NFL is better

But I can see why Australians wouldn't like it - it requires them to think, rather than the bashing and barge simple nature of League. League easier for the working class man (average or below intelligence) to understand, so American Football would confuse them, and make them go into a Tall Poppy Syndrome rant about how much they hate Americans, despite knowing full well that the U.S. Is superior to us in everyway

People who like foreign sports almost always say this... soccer fans are among the worst, but union zealots are also guilty of it. I follow Union as well as League and grew up playing both, but Union zealots from private schools shit me to tears precisely because they employ almost identical rhetoric to what you have with regard to Union over League. The worst are soccer fans though... they carry on like following some stupid pommy soccer club makes them cultured and sophisticated.

Ultimately, sport everywhere is tribal and not terribly rational. Die-hard fans of all football codes will find reason to belittle others. I read plenty of comments from Americans on Hayne's NRL highlights videos saying he'd get destroyed in the NFL because he wouldn't just be up against "slow white dudes who don't hit hard."

Personally, I rather enjoy American Football, but because it's a foreign League I just don't care enough about any of the teams to become invested in it. If Hayne makes the 53 man roster for the 49ers however, that will likely change.

 

[roostersrule2]

NFL is better

But I can see why Australians wouldn't like it - it requires them to think, rather than the bashing and barge simple nature of League. League easier for the working class man (average or below intelligence) to understand, so American Football would confuse them, and make them go into a Tall Poppy Syndrome rant about how much they hate Americans, despite knowing full well that the U.S. Is superior to us in everyway

This works everytime, it's brilliant.

 

[adamkungl]

Well. NRL used to be the toughest contact sport going around.

And now it ranks somewhere around AFL. Thanks Todd and Dave

 

[SBD82]

Nice post but that bold is wrong. A well executed shoulder charge with no head contact killed someone recently in the QLD cup. Now while that is the only example anyone can find like that and it is extreme its pretty obvious shoulder charges can have a significant effect on the brain even without high contact.

The player that was killed was tragic. But I still disagree that banning shoulder charge is the answer.

I enjoy watching a sport that has shoulder charges. I used to enjoy playing a sport that had shoulder charges. I knew there were risks to playing the game. But I still chose to do it. In our increasingly wrapped in cotton wool world it was a great outlet.

The answer is not to ban everything that is dangerous. The answer is to give people information about the potential risks, and allow them to make their own decisions about whether they choose to engage in a sport that is potentially dangerous.

There are alternative sports with less risk for people who want to make the choice not to play. But people should still be given the choice.

I guess the real point of my opening post was that I'm a rugby league fan, and I always have been. But as we continually erode the things in our game that make it what it is, I find myself looking to other sports to find the things that are now lacking in the nrl - something I never imagined I would have to do.

 

[ellskimore]

Its actually quite amusing that dean considers himself 'intelligent' and 'cultured' because he watches NFL

I lived in the USA for a year and attended a few games. I didn't spot many top hats or monocles. But I can't prove that the sleeveless dudes chugging Coors and Budd in the carparks weren't scholars.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

The player that was killed was tragic. But I still disagree that banning shoulder charge is the answer.

I enjoy watching a sport that has shoulder charges. I used to enjoy playing a sport that had shoulder charges. I knew there were risks to playing the game. But I still chose to do it. In our increasingly wrapped in cotton wool world it was a great outlet.

The answer is not to ban everything that is dangerous. The answer is to give people information about the potential risks, and allow them to make their own decisions about whether they choose to engage in a sport that is potentially dangerous.

There are alternative sports with less risk for people who want to make the choice not to play. But people should still be given the choice.

I guess the real point of my opening post was that I'm a rugby league fan, and I always have been. But as we continually erode the things in our game that make it what it is, I find myself looking to other sports to find the things that are now lacking in the nrl - something I never imagined I would have to do.

Bullshit. I'm sure Alex McKinnon 'knew the risks', but do you think that denies his right to sue?

The removal of the shoulder charge was to reduce the liability in the event of an incident. NRL is a business, the shoulder charge is something that can go horribly wrong, and the amount of knowledge we've learnt from concussions impact on someone later in life now is irrefutable. The NRL doesn't have the income that something like the NFL does, a few major incidents could bankrupt the sport. So a softer rugby league is probably better than no rugby league.

 

[adamkungl]

The player that was killed was tragic. But I still disagree that banning shoulder charge is the answer.

I enjoy watching a sport that has shoulder charges. I used to enjoy playing a sport that had shoulder charges. I knew there were risks to playing the game. But I still chose to do it. In our increasingly wrapped in cotton wool world it was a great outlet.

The answer is not to ban everything that is dangerous. The answer is to give people information about the potential risks, and allow them to make their own decisions about whether they choose to engage in a sport that is potentially dangerous.

There are alternative sports with less risk for people who want to make the choice not to play. But people should still be given the choice.

I guess the real point of my opening post was that I'm a rugby league fan, and I always have been. But as we continually erode the things in our game that make it what it is, I find myself looking to other sports to find the things that are now lacking in the nrl - something I never imagined I would have to do.

Exactly.

 

[Valheru]

I've been learning/following NFL since Hayne went to America too. I've come to appreciate it. Still, I can't deal with the stoppages. I'm not sure I'm a fan of the "platoon" system either.

The stoppages are prolonged for TV unfortunately. A really good way to get into NFL, or more correctly, American Football is by watching College games and possibly streaming high school games if you can. The big college games have the same problem as the NFL but there are plenty of others where they just let the game flow and it makes for a better spectacle to newly introduced fans.

 

[SBD82]

Bullshit. I'm sure Alex McKinnon 'knew the risks', but do you think that denies his right to sue?

The removal of the shoulder charge was to reduce the liability in the event of an incident. NRL is a business, the shoulder charge is something that can go horribly wrong, and the amount of knowledge we've learnt from concussions impact on someone later in life now is irrefutable. The NRL doesn't have the income that something like the NFL does, a few major incidents could bankrupt the sport. So a softer rugby league is probably better than no rugby league.

Alex's situation is not relevant to shoulder charges except insofar as it demonstrates risk in rugby league. I think it is cruel to raise his name to elicit an emotional response and prove your point.

Engaging in a risky sport and knowing the risks may not negate the right to sue, but I think it should.

And why should I accept that the only two options are a softer league or no league? If it continues to soften should I stay loyal to a game that is no longer recognisable as rugby league? Why should I meekly allow my life to be dictated by those who wish to impose rules for my own protection?

If we are changing the laws of our game to protect us against litigation maybe we are changing the wrong laws.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Alex's situation is not relevant to shoulder charges except insofar as it demonstrates risk in rugby league. I think it is cruel to raise his name to elicit an emotional response and prove your point.

I'm not trying to elicit any emotional response. I'm saying that simply suggesting that because a sport comes with a disclaimer that it is dangerous does not diminish ones right to seek remuneration if something goes wrong. Reducing the risk of the said injuries, reduces the risk for the administration of the sport.

Engaging in a risky sport and knowing the risks may not negate the right to sue, but I think it should.

Then perhaps you are the one who is cruel, not myself. A construction worker carries the same risk showing up to work, but they have workers insurance, and have strict rules to reduce the risk of injury.

And why should I accept that the only two options are a softer league or no league? If it continues to soften should I stay loyal to a game that is no longer recognisable as rugby league? Why should I meekly allow my life to be dictated by those who wish to impose rules for my own protection?

If we are changing the laws of our game to protect us against litigation maybe we are changing the wrong laws.

What you accept is irrelevant. Such rules pose significant and unavoidable financial risk to the sport, any industry has a responsibility to reduce the risk of proven dangers to its employees. You can't just sign a disclaimer and be done with it.

 

[adamkungl]

I don't think it should negate the right to sue, I think the game should protect its players and itself with adequate insurance and clear communication of risks to minimise legal damage, rather than butchering its rules.

Fwiw I don't believe for a second the line that it's about legal protection or even player safety - it's all about image and avoiding a repeat of the Dean Young media circus.

 

[chrisD]

It's about appeasing Phil Rothfield.

 

[betcats]

I'm not trying to elicit any emotional response. I'm saying that simply suggesting that because a sport comes with a disclaimer that it is dangerous does not diminish ones right to seek remuneration if something goes wrong. Reducing the risk of the said injuries, reduces the risk for the administration of the sport.


Then perhaps you are the one who is cruel, not myself. A construction worker carries the same risk showing up to work, but they have workers insurance, and have strict rules to reduce the risk of injury.


What you accept is irrelevant. Such rules pose significant and unavoidable financial risk to the sport, any industry has a responsibility to reduce the risk of proven dangers to its employees. You can't just sign a disclaimer and be done with it.

Very well summed up.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

It's about appeasing Phil Rothfield.

Not really... At best in a season you'd have 5-10 awesome shoulder charges. Is it worth the risk of killing someone, giving them a concussion (which can lead to depression, suicide, memory loss and a whole range of mental issues), or giving them neck injuries? That's dependent on the person.

Personally, good shoulder charges are few and far between, and usually just a method of a smaller guy trying flatten someone bigger than them... Concussion is a serious matter, and we've learnt a lot about it in the last decade. The administration of decisions around the shoulder charge needs work, no doubt about it... But I have no issue with it being gone from the sport.

 

[Pete Cash]

Your logic that I'm only belittling NRL because Dragons suck is flawed, considering I'm a Detroit fan....

Look, it's not my fault you don't have the high intelligence required to enjoy Anmricsn Football, along with most below intelligence working class people. Uncultured, basically.

League is.... Well.... Dumb.

They don't even wear helmets for Chirsts sake. And of course all the uneducated bogans are up in tattoo'd arms, spittle throthing out of their gapped teeth, screaming 'bring back da shoulder charge!'

Gkd if I can catch you being serious for a moment why the lions. I got into NFL because of my brother in law who supports the lions. I went with the niners because I spent a bit of time in the bay area and already half followed the giants in baseball.

But like I ask him why the lions. He has no affiliation with Detroit and they are such a random team to follow.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Gkd if I can catch you being serious for a moment why the lions. I got into NFL because of my brother in law who supports the lions. I went with the niners because I spent a bit of time in the bay area and already half followed the giants in baseball.

But like I ask him why the lions. He has no affiliation with Detroit and they are such a random team to follow.

Because despite Deans best efforts to troll the Aussie working class into proving his point, he can't yet muster the strength to move past traits that typically make up an Aussie sports fan, namely rooting for the underdog.