NRL360

[PARRA_FAN]

I have found Graham to be a bit angry lately on Triple M and some podcasts but gee he was pretty good tonight. I doubt Kent will be back for a while or at all, keep Jimmy on there.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Frack me but Dean Ritchie and Phil Rothfield carried on like w@#$ers last night.

Firstly, inventing the idea that Luke Keary's announcement was specifically concussion related, which Keary said nothing about, and then double downed on it when challenged about it by Graham and Anasta who said if it was related to that, why wasn't he announcing his immediate retirement instead of at season's end?

Then their carry on about banning the kick-off. They set themselves up like concussion gurus, who when challenged, could only give stock answers. It's no wonder I don't watch this show much with those two dribblers on, and why I have such disdain for News Ltd "journalists".

 

[Hoofhearted]

Personally I think Jimmy is the final nail in Kenty's coffin, he looks like a good replacement where poor old Gordie just looked like a deer in the headlights. I'd say the producers were rubbing there hands together last night, you could see Jimmy slowly boiling internally as the Journo's were saying stupid stuff before speaking up and directly challenging them to back up their statements.
As a fan it's great to have someone on the panel that appears to have the same idea's about the game as the everyday fan, and is willing to sit there and challenge these journo's who just talk rubbish half the time and make out they are some sort of expert.

 

[Penrith fan]

Hopefully we never see Kenty again, but the bloke seems to have more lives than a Chesire cat.

 

[wittyfan]

At least with Kenty you don’t need to put the subtitles on.

 

[Pumpkin]

My idea or solution for the kick off returns, where we see some pretty bad knock outs from time to time, is to limit it to just two tacklers. My reasoning is it always seems to be the third player who clashes heads because he has no space.

 

[Perth Red]

Enjoying Graham being on and challenging the muppets. He does look like at any moment hes about to leap over the desk and bite someones ear off though lol.

 

[Penrith fan]

Wait till Graham has to interview Billy Slater.

 

[wittyfan]

Lol at the frosty interview tonight with Braith and Blake Silly Solly.

 

[yobbo84]

Lol at the frosty interview tonight with Braith and Blake Silly Solly.

I legitimately laughed out loud when Braith outed himself as Sam Burgess' media leak last year and Solly calling him on it

All because his client is Ilias.

They then immediately switch to, without any sense of irony, bitching about Gould's dual roles in the game.

Morons, the lot of 'em.

 

[Pumpkin]

We see some really bad knockouts from kick returns. My solution is to retain it but limit it to two tacklers. Reason being, it's often that third tackler that has nowhere to put his head and ends up clashing heads.

 

[Chimp]

My idea or solution for the kick off returns, where we see some pretty bad knock outs from time to time, is to limit it to just two tacklers. My reasoning is it always seems to be the third player who clashes heads because he has no space.

For me, a version of the shoulder charge has to be allowed to prevent defensive concussions.
The safest way to stop momentum of a typical kick off run is to turn side on, tuck your arm in tight and brace for the impact. Having to complete a ‘wrap tackle’ puts your head and face directly in the contact zone - whether you go high or low. Go high, you’ll cop an elbow/forearm or a head clash (from the attacker or another defender), go low and you risk late footwork and having your head on the wrong side, or cop a hip or knee.
Similarly, look at when Tedesco got cleaned out by Kikau when Teddy was rushing across to try get Kikau in tough - simple physics suggests the only way he could ever have enough momentum/power to put Kikau in touch and not get knocked out himself would have been to lead with the shoulder.
But to re-introduce leading with the shoulder/bracing for contact with the shoulder, the rules would have to be made in a way that any risk of high contact is minimised, and anyone going high is hung, drawn and quartered at disciplinary. They’d probably also need to find a way of stopping the forecful/blindside shoulder charges that cause whiplash and can go very wrong if contact is also high.

 

[Pumpkin]

For me, a version of the shoulder charge has to be allowed to prevent defensive concussions.
The safest way to stop momentum of a typical kick off run is to turn side on, tuck your arm in tight and brace for the impact. Having to complete a ‘wrap tackle’ puts your head and face directly in the contact zone - whether you go high or low. Go high, you’ll cop an elbow/forearm or a head clash (from the attacker or another defender), go low and you risk late footwork and having your head on the wrong side, or cop a hip or knee.
Similarly, look at when Tedesco got cleaned out by Kikau when Teddy was rushing across to try get Kikau in tough - simple physics suggests the only way he could ever have enough momentum/power to put Kikau in touch and not get knocked out himself would have been to lead with the shoulder.
But to re-introduce leading with the shoulder/bracing for contact with the shoulder, the rules would have to be made in a way that any risk of high contact is minimised, and anyone going high is hung, drawn and quartered at disciplinary. They’d probably also need to find a way of stopping the forecful/blindside shoulder charges that cause whiplash and can go very wrong if contact is also high.

I was a critic of the shoulder charge because of many injuries I saw as a result of it. But I kind of get your point. You are advocating the use of the shoulder charge in certain situations which may actually promote safety.

OK. So you have players running towards each other at full speed. Two tacklers wrap their arms in a conventional tackle style. The third tackler.has an issue. There's often no space or way of him making a conventional tackle. It's impossible for him to wrap his arms around the ball runner. But there is room for a shoulder charge. I see your point. It's a plausible solution.

 

[Chimp]

I was a critic of the shoulder charge because of many injuries I saw as a result of it. But I kind of get your point. You are advocating the use of the shoulder charge in certain situations which may actually promote safety.

OK. So you have players running towards each other at full speed. Two tacklers wrap their arms in a conventional tackle style. The third tackler.has an issue. There's often no space or way of him making a conventional tackle. It's impossible for him to wrap his arms around the ball runner. But there is room for a shoulder charge. I see your point. It's a plausible solution.

I suspect the terminology ‘shoulder charge’ would need to be avoided, as that brings up images of blokes flying off the line, from the blindside, tucking their arm in and absolutely smashing the runner.
What I’m talking about is more bracing for contact, takes the sting out of the impact (whilst keeping their head out of the way), slows the attackers momentum and allows 2nd and 3rd man to wrap them up.
Also, at the moment, there’s no deterrent/fear to the runner of the ball - if you’re a big bloke, you can run dead straight, upright and 100 miles an hour kamikaze into contact, as you no longer have to protect your head, you don’t have to be worried about a ‘shooter’ hitting you with a blindside shoulder charge, you don’t have to worry that the bloke you’re charging at will cock his shoulder and meet force with force - as things stand, it’s all in favour of the attacker. They’d maybe think twice about the kamikaze run if there’s a chance they get belted back.

 

[Perth Red]

I suspect the terminology ‘shoulder charge’ would need to be avoided, as that brings up images of blokes flying off the line, from the blindside, tucking their arm in and absolutely smashing the runner.
What I’m talking about is more bracing for contact, takes the sting out of the impact (whilst keeping their head out of the way), slows the attackers momentum and allows 2nd and 3rd man to wrap them up.
Also, at the moment, there’s no deterrent/fear to the runner of the ball - if you’re a big bloke, you can run dead straight, upright and 100 miles an hour kamikaze into contact, as you no longer have to protect your head, you don’t have to be worried about a ‘shooter’ hitting you with a blindside shoulder charge, you don’t have to worry that the bloke you’re charging at will cock his shoulder and meet force with force - as things stand, it’s all in favour of the attacker. They’d maybe think twice about the kamikaze run if there’s a chance they get belted back.

They never have, or the good ones at least. I say take the emotion out of it and look at the data. If its a very rare occurrence at kick off then dont change something the fans enjoy for something that is a low risk, if its a common issue then change it for the welfare of the players. They will have the data surely on how many HIA's occur from kick offs?