The shoulder charge debate thread

[Renowned League Expert]

If your going to use that argument then ask the families of these guys if they think we should be playing flag instead of full tackle. Its a high contact sport with high risks, its why we love to play and watch it.

Yup. To me, that's the crux of the argument. You sign up for rugby league, you are signing up for the risks. That's why I didn't sign up - cause I wasn't prepared to take those risks. But those blokes have signed up. Same with Alex McKinnon threatening to sue the NRL. That really gives me the shits. You don't play the game and then later on when you're hurt, say, "Ohhh, someone hurt me." It doesn't work that way.

The players want the shoulder charge in the game. The fans want it. So why can't we have it? It's our game, isn't it?

There was nothing wrong with the original rule, ie. that if you make contact with the head, you'll get suspended. There was no reason to change that rule.

 

[TheVelourFog]

People that dont care will continue spending the same.

People that do care will spend less.

These were equal. Net result, less fans spending money. Are you thick?

I like how you only double your favourable result for the wider community.. ffs :crazy:

no, my point was that the community here are more likely to care than the wider community

thought it was pretty obvious

perhaps should have said "twice as many" rather than double

 

[Bronco18]

The NRL has changed the precedent from penalising dangerous tackles to penalising tackles that might risk danger.

Splitting hairs.

Why's a lifting tackle dangerous? Because it potentially causes harm, and it has more potential than a regular tackle. Yes, not every lifting tackle results in a spinal injury. Not even every person in a lifting tackle lands on their head... maybe we should only ban lifting tackles that go wrong?

It's the same principle with a shoulder charge. I'm astounded you don't see the doublethink in your post.

 

[Perth Red]

Haha so good.

Should ban it.

"Lowry did it to himself", lol nice one Gus you merkin!

 

[Bronco18]

Jeez, Paul Kent talks some crap. It's not about "player welfare" and never has been. It's about two things: 1. The threat of litigation 2. The fear that some young mother will be sitting at home, see a punch or a hard tackle, and say, "That's it, young Timmy will not be playing this game!"

That's what it's about. Dickhead lawyers in charge of the game.

Goodness me.... one would think that mothers worrying about their kids getting punched or getting hit by a hard tackle falls under the umbrella of player welfare...

Litigation also arises from "player welfare", or should I say a lack of it.

Are you actually that stupid to see that they are related?

Not protecting a player's welfare has flow on effects beyond players ending up like vegetables... I.e. mother's not letting their children play and the resulting lawsuits.

 

[Perth Red]

so the logical step given we have seen a young teenager dying from trying to make a tackle and getting his head in the wrong position is to stop tackling? Or do you want player welfare to only go so far?

What we are really talking about is amount of risk the game is willing to accept. Not the players, not the fans, not society but the people at NRLHQ. They have decided a shoulder charge is not an acceptable risk. Fair enough that is their pergotaive as custodians of the sport. Just as it is our perogative as customers/fans of the sport to disagree or walk away.
Weve seen punching taken out to sanitise the image of the game, now we've seen shoulder charges removed due to risk aversion, what comes next? we await with bated breath! I await the day it gets like some other sports and players are penalised for tackling too hard.

 

[adamkungl]

^ That's pretty much it PR.

I wish I could convince myself that this will be the end of it, but I can't. The level of acceptable risk will continue to drop. For everyone in here supporting this, there will eventually be a line crossed where they'll probably feel the same way and the airy excuses about safety and litigation won't cut it anymore.

I'm done with this, it's going in circles. The only thing proven is that no one on the internet will ever change their mind in an argument.

 

[Maximus]

People get hit in the head from legal tackles countless times every game :lol:

Even if the risk is slightly higher from a shoulder charge, the actual occurrences of head contact from legal tackles far exceed those from shoulder charges.

If head contact is unacceptable, how can we continue to allow this scenario to occur?

Slightly higher? The study found there was over 140,000 tackles made in 2012

http://www.nrl.com/commission-to-outlaw-shoulder-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/70416/default.aspx

For there to be 1% (significantly lower than 17%), you would have to say there was 1,400 high tackles that year, or approx. 7 per game (quite possible since crushers, grapples etc are counted). We all know you think the study is garbage, but are you seriously going to suggest that you think only 2-3% of shoulder charges make contact with the head?

Now lets say the study is correct, for 17% of all other types of tackle to make contact with the head, there would need to be 24,188 high tackles during 2012, or 126 per game. If that were the case, I would agree with you that all tackling should be banned.

5% of all shoulder charges as opposed to <1% non-shoulder charges make contact with the head, according to research (whether you believe the moon landing was faked or not). I said legal hits were less likely to make head-high contact (or I should've) and I'm right.

Nah the 5% was injuries. The percentage that make contact with the head is significantly worse.

In regards to injuries, the reading isn't pretty either. The larger study didn't provide an overall injury rate, however the smaller (14,000 tackles) calculated it at 0.1%. That would require a pretty significant change for the 2 percentages to be even close together.

"Lowry did it to himself", lol nice one Gus you merkin!

And yet you had no problem when Cameron Smith said the same thing.

so the logical step given we have seen a young teenager dying from trying to make a tackle and getting his head in the wrong position is to stop tackling? Or do you want player welfare to only go so far?

Why are you trying to make this about just 1 issue? Is it because considering all factors doesn't suit your agenda?

What we are really talking about is amount of risk the game is willing to accept. Not the players, not the fans, not society but the people at NRLHQ. They have decided a shoulder charge is not an acceptable risk. Fair enough that is their pergotaive as custodians of the sport. Just as it is our perogative as customers/fans of the sport to disagree or walk away.
Weve seen punching taken out to sanitise the image of the game, now we've seen shoulder charges removed due to risk aversion, what comes next? we await with bated breath! I await the day it gets like some other sports and players are penalised for tackling too hard.

What sport (apart from combat sports) allows punching? Even Ice Hockey punishes players for fighting.

 

[undertaker]

Yeah, good on Willie for having his say.

f**k the people at the NRL are stupid, this knee-jerk rule change to what amounts to 2 weeks suspension for any hint of a shoulder charge will come back so hard to bite them on the arse, it won't be funny.

Actually, it will be funny.

Will Jonathan "I'm super competitive" Thurston be also suspended if he does what Big Willie did?

 

[undertaker]

Rothfield is the man to listen to.

That' the spirit. I really want to base my RL opinions to from a guy who's face is red as an inflammed haemorrhoid from years of heavy drinking.

 

[adamkungl]

Slightly higher? The study found there was over 140,000 tackles made in 2012

http://www.nrl.com/commission-to-outlaw-shoulder-charge/tabid/10874/newsid/70416/default.aspx

For there to be 1% (significantly lower than 17%), you would have to say there was 1,400 high tackles that year, or approx. 7 per game (quite possible since crushers, grapples etc are counted). We all know you think the study is garbage, but are you seriously going to suggest that you think only 2-3% of shoulder charges make contact with the head?

Now lets say the study is correct, for 17% of all other types of tackle to make contact with the head, there would need to be 24,188 high tackles during 2012, or 126 per game. If that were the case, I would agree with you that all tackling should be banned.



Nah the 5% was injuries. The percentage that make contact with the head is significantly worse.

In regards to injuries, the reading isn't pretty either. The larger study didn't provide an overall injury rate, however the smaller (14,000 tackles) calculated it at 0.1%. That would require a pretty significant change for the 2 percentages to be even close together.

Ok I can't help myself.

My premise in regards to the study is this.

It claims they counted 71 shoulder charges in a season, and 17% (12) resulted in head contact, and 4% (3) in injury.

Aside from the fact that, percentages aside, there are far more actual incidents of head contacts and injuries from conventional tackles and accidents, I can not believe that there were 71 shoulder charges, approximately 1 every 3 games, in a season. There are more than that now, and it's banned. I don't understand how anyone can take this number in any way seriously. I believe they were only counting the most obvious 'tuck and charge' style, and they are currently penalising far more widely than that.

I am satisfied that they have counted injuries correctly as it is far more obvious and actual records are consistently kept.

Using an example conservative figure of 1 shoulder charge per game and the same amount of head contacts and injuries, the figures come to 5% head contact and 1% injury.

Using what I think is a realistic estimate of 2-3 (lets say 2.5) shoulder charges per game, the figures come to 2% for head contact and 0.5% injury.

 

[Tinkler]

SUMMARY

1) Alls 16 club doctors said it was too dangerous and should be banned

2) Scientific and medical evidence of brain injuries confirmed with lawsuits in NFL

3) NRL lawyers advise Smith the game is liable.

4) Smith has no other choice but to ban the shoulder charge

5) Some Ignorant players and fans complain without understanding the liability laws.... e.g road scholar Wilie Mason

End of story

Topic closed

 

[bileduct]

"road scholar"

lol

 

[adamkungl]

Worst thing i've ever read

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/do...y-league-players/story-fndujljl-1227480836213

THE parents of James Ackerman have pleaded with rugby league players to avoid making themselves targets of shoulder charges and stop running the ball straight and hard from kick-offs.

While forward&#8217;s thundering into the defensive line with a head of steam brings crowds to their feet, Michael and Sonya Ackerman, argue the entertainment value is not worth the safety risk.
The Ackermans lost their son six weeks ago following an illegal shoulder charge.
They were disappointed last week when league greats called for the shoulder charge to return, following a huge and illegal hit from Rooster Kane Evans on Bulldog Sam Kasiano.
However, they are glad the debate took place after NRL chief executive Dave Smith not only ignored calls to legalise the technique, but increased penalties for shoulder charges.
Five weeks worth of suspensions were handed out for shoulder charges last round, the first under the new rules.
The Ackermans watched their 25-year-old son be placed into an induced coma at Bishop Park in late June after running straight and hard at young Broncos prop Francis Molo.
Molo&#8217;s shoulder hit James&#8217; chest and the whiplash effect severed arteries in his neck.
Michael Ackerman said fans, players and the media did not fully understand how dangerous whiplash was.
Michael and Sonya cringe any time a player runs the ball back straight and hard.
KENT: Sterlo&#8217;s swing and miss on shoulder charge
MASON: I&#8217;m embarrassed to be a league player
Sonya and Michael Ackerman don&#8217;t want any more tragic accidents.
Sonya and Michael Ackerman don&#8217;t want any more tragic accidents. Source: News Corp Australia
A kick-off return is the only time in a league game where attack and defence collide with a 30m-plus run up.
&#8220;You should be able to run the ball back and not worry about someone shoulder charging you,&#8221; Michael said.
&#8220;Players need to change their techniques. The rules were put there three years ago to protect the player running the ball.
&#8220;There are better ways to tackle. A kick-off return is the time when a player is most vulnerable.
&#8220;I hope this is the good that comes out of this, that players realise it can be you ... what happened to my son can happen again.
&#8220;The game is not what it was. The players are too big and too strong. The game is good enough without the shoulder charge.
&#8220;You have to get the arms around. I have seen players like Steve Matai make good legal tackles that do not warrant a penalty.
&#8220;What if Sam Kasiano was only 100kg? The whiplash effect would have doubled.
Former Roosters star Sonny Bill Williams supports the shoulder charge crackdown.
Former Roosters star Sonny Bill Williams supports the shoulder charge crackdown. Source: News Corp Australia
&#8220;It was upsetting to hear some NRL greats calling for it to come back. Since the Bulldogs and Roosters game that weekend, it has been heartwarming to see the other side and people supporting us.
&#8220;There are fans out there who want your child to be their entertainment. It is ridiculous. It is just a sport.
One of the NRL greats who initially called for the shoulder charge to return following Evans&#8217; hit on Kasiano was Sonny Bill Williams, perhaps the greatest exponent of the technique.
Williams then backtracked after reading that Ackerman&#8217;s death was the result of a shoulder charge.
&#8220;As much as I love the shoulder charge ... Safety must come first! Such a sad story #keepitbanned,&#8221; Williams tweeted.
The Ackermans saw the tweet and wanted to thank Williams for his maturity.
&#8220;Sonny&#8217;s tweet was nice. That shows he&#8217;s able to look at it from a different perspective,&#8221; Sonya said.

 

[Perth Red]

Let's ban kick offs!

 

[NrlCoach]

"Lowry did it to himself", lol nice one Gus you merkin!

Lowry was just following the NRL "rap your arms around" advice :crazy: He just forgot the other guy could use his shoulder :roll:

 

[adamkungl]

Running straight is just to risky :lol: think of the consequences.

Emotionally distraught people should not be sought for a valid opinion on anything.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

e.g road scholar Wilie Mason

:lol:

 

[NrlCoach]

Worst thing i've ever read

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/do...y-league-players/story-fndujljl-1227480836213

how about we just ban running the ball up for player safety reasons

 

[Perth Red]

SUMMARY

1) Alls 16 club doctors said it was too dangerous and should be banned

2) Scientific and medical evidence of brain injuries confirmed with lawsuits in NFL

3) NRL lawyers advise Smith the game is liable.

4) Smith has no other choice but to ban the shoulder charge

5) Some Ignorant players and fans complain without understanding the liability laws.... e.g road scholar Wilie Mason

End of story

Topic closed

1 wow Drs having been trying to ban dangerous things forever!
2. Error no, that is why the NFL DID NOT ban shoulder charges
3. Liable for what? All tackles run a risk of injury or death. You can't be liable for something someone chooses to do knowing the risks involved.
4. Yes he did, in the same way he hasn't banned all tackles
5. Hmmm