The shoulder charge debate thread

[bfoord]

Why is there still any debate over this ... Someone was KILLED by a shoulder charge FFS... and the shoulder charge didn't even make contact with the head.

Even SBW says to keep it banned.

I'm as big of a fan of the shoulder charge as anyone ... But as the Ackerman case showed, it is bloody dangerous and it doesn't even have to make contact with the head for there to be some gravely serious consequences.

 

[bfoord]

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

You do realise that the Storm were successfully sued by Jarrod McCraken (spelling?) for a tackle gone wrong... You can be held liable.

 

[Tinkler]

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

1. These are the clubs own doctors not the GP from Rooty Hills, thus in court their expert advice will win a lawsuit. What do you think will happen if a builder ignores the engineer who said the building is not safe and the building collapses.

2. I did not say NFL banned it. I said the brain injuries have been proven and accepted it was a result of playing in the NFL. The game settled with the players.

3. Lol do you know billion dollar compensation and litigation that happens everyday ?:crazy:
Workplace accidents happen but companies are still sued if they did not take reasonable precaution to prevent this. The Legal principal is REASONABLE ACTIONS, which means the
game could of banned the shoulder charge will little affect on the game like Rugby and
prevented brain damage and death e.g Ackerman.
NRL has a legal Duty of Care.

4. You must have no common sense. The club doctors said shoulder charge not all tackles should be banned that is what a reasonable action under the law and the view of the medical experts. Every workplace changes things to make things safer for their employees, your entertainment is not more important then kids and players welfare. He has no choice as no banning it places the game under huge financial and legal risk.

Someone just died from a shoulder charge what evidence more is needed. ?

 

[betcats]

1. These are the clubs own doctors not the GP from Rooty Hills, thus in court their expert advice will win a lawsuit. What do you think will happen if a builder ignores the engineer who said the building is not safe and the building collapses.

2. I did not say NFL banned it. I said the brain injuries have been proven and accepted it was a result of playing in the NFL. The game settled with the players.

3. Lol do you know billion dollar compensation and litigation that happens everyday ?:crazy:
Workplace accidents happen but companies are still sued if they did not take reasonable precaution to prevent this. The Legal principal is REASONABLE ACTIONS, which means the
game could of banned the shoulder charge will little affect on the game like Rugby and
prevented brain damage and death e.g Ackerman.
NRL has a legal Duty of Care.

4. You must have no common sense. The club doctors said shoulder charge not all tackles should be banned that is what a reasonable action under the law and the view of the medical experts. Every workplace changes things to make things safer for their employees, your entertainment is not more important then kids and players welfare. He has no choice as no banning it places the game under huge financial and legal risk.

Someone just died from a shoulder charge what evidence more is needed. ?

The bold bit is what people aren't getting, its like talking to brick walls.

 

[Danish]

You do realise that the Storm were successfully sued by Jarrod McCraken (spelling?) for a tackle gone wrong... You can be held liable.

Successfully sued for a tackle that was already banned, so the threat of legal liability is moot given rules or not you can still take someone to court if you so choose.

As I recall though McCracken got f**k all compared to what he was hoping for out of that court case

 

[Tinkler]

All places of employment can be liable if reasonable actions have not been taken to prevent damage or injury.

It does not matter if the employee accepts it.

The game survived and will get a billion dollar tv deal.

Players want more money more then anything !

Cleaning up the game while making it safer for them is win win.

 

[betcats]

...

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

i really feel like we should ask for a soliloquy from Jamal Idris, using all of his poetry skills, and choose a side based on his musings.

knowing that jamal is a big bitch that likes poetry, we should basically side with the no shoulder charge = good side to save us time.

 

[adamkungl]

I hope you're all comfortable agreeing with BunniesMan.

 

[Tinkler]

people who want to keep the shoulder charger are usually one or all of the below

1) Over 50

2) Love scrums

3) thinks fatty is funny

4) think players should have second jobs as bricklayers

5) think Tinder is a racehorse

6) Wonder why the 7 Eleven is still open past 11pm.

7) Urinate more then 3 times in the middle of the night

8) Want everything made in Australia, yet always buys the cheapest item.

9) Think his fart does not smell

10) Against Gay marriage but listens to Alan Jones ;-)

 

[Renowned League Expert]

Why is there still any debate over this ... Someone was KILLED by a shoulder charge FFS... and the shoulder charge didn't even make contact with the head.

Even SBW says to keep it banned.

I'm as big of a fan of the shoulder charge as anyone ... But as the Ackerman case showed, it is bloody dangerous and it doesn't even have to make contact with the head for there to be some gravely serious consequences.

Phillip Hughes was killed by a bouncer. We are still allowing bouncers.

How come?

Because bouncers are an intrinsic part of the game and to remove them would be to remove a vital part of the fabric of the game. Cricket administrators understand this.

League administrators do not or will not, understand it.

Bring back the big hits, it's what we're watching for. It's what we want.

 

[Tinkler]

Phillip Hughes was killed by a bouncer. We are still allowing bouncers.

How come?

Because bouncers are an intrinsic part of the game and to remove them would be to remove a vital part of the fabric of the game. Cricket administrators understand this.

League administrators do not or will not, understand it.

Bring back the big hits, it's what we're watching for. It's what we want.

why don't you create a website called shoulder charge porn...

you can trade shoulder charge film with others online...or meet up at night in the park

 

[Renowned League Expert]

A player is just as liable to be injured while tackling than he is while being tackled - so what's next? - penalise players for running too hard?

 

[DiegoNT]

I might be looking through red and green glasses here but there might be a small chance luke Keary doesn't get suspended next week.
A lot of confusion is around on what is and isn't a shoulder charge. A shoulder charge is where you tuck your Arm onto your body and make no attempt to wrap your arms around the opposing player. This is why Mason got suspended Even though his shoulder charge wouldn't of hurt a fly. I've only seen a few replays but it could he argued that Keary's Arm wasn't tucked into his body, and after the initial contact Keary's Arm flew up in an attempt (even if it was an incredibly poor attempt it was still an attempt) to wrap the arms around. Their are similarities between Keary's hit and a hit frim jason bukuya last round that went unpunished.
If Keary does get off it'll create a huge problem for the nrl, because everyone is still confused of the issue, it's been handled poorly and been rushed by the nrl add people already think Souths get preferential treatment.

 

[Canard]

The real issue with that play, was that the referee stopped the game to check a nothing incident on Reynolds, told the Cowboys they were going to be penalised and then changed his mind.

This was after a great return from Oneill. Killed all the momentum and got Souffs set in defence.

There should be official explanation as to what happened there, because it's virtually unprecedented.

If you were a conspiracy theorist, you could say it was engineered to take the focus of Keary

 

[betcats]

The second ref was calling out to stop the play before the shoulder charge even happened.

 

[Canard]

The second ref was calling out to stop the play before the shoulder charge even happened.

I'm not suggesting that was the reason for the stoppage.

Why was the play stopped though, even in super slo mo there wasn't anything in it

JT was hit several times later and in more dangerous positions, and there was nothing said

 

[Danish]

The little corner the NRL has painted themselves in where they will now have to suspend 2-3 players per round for innocuous shoulder charges is going to be hilarious for the rest of this season.

That "71 shoulder charges per season" stat is looking like genuine bullshit when you consider even with automatic suspensions we are still seeing more per round than what they claimed were being committed when they were 100% legal :lol:

 

[ek999]

The real issue with that play, was that the referee stopped the game to check a nothing incident on Reynolds, told the Cowboys they were going to be penalised and then changed his mind.

This was after a great return from Oneill. Killed all the momentum and got Souffs set in defence.

There should be official explanation as to what happened there, because it's virtually unprecedented.

If you were a conspiracy theorist, you could say it was engineered to take the focus of Keary

Second ref thought the contact was high, not late. He was calling out for play to be stopped well before the shoulder charge was done by Keary. After the tackle on O'Neill was completed, they stopped play to check the tackle on Reynolds. When it was deemed to be fair they played on.

It is unfortunate for the Cowboys because it killed the momentum following the great run by O'Neill but it was the correct procedure by the refs.

 

[Canard]

Second ref thought the contact was high, not late. He was calling out for play to be stopped well before the shoulder charge was done by Keary. After the tackle on O'Neill was completed, they stopped play to check the tackle on Reynolds. When it was deemed to be fair they played on.

It is unfortunate for the Cowboys because it killed the momentum following the great run by O'Neill but it was the correct procedure by the refs.

There was lots of similar shots on JT subsequent that that though, that went completely un commented on.

I personally didn't have any issues with them, but it seems that was officiated one way only