The shoulder charge debate thread

[umina panther]

With or without the shoulder charge someone will die playing rugby league live on tv eventually, its not a matter of if but when.

What realistically needs to happen is a billionaire starting a rebel comp and bring the shoulder charge back. I think " Super League 2" is a good name.

 

[adamkungl]

You might think I'm being a selfish brute but really we're all arguing for the future of the game.

Some people think that legal action is a serious threat to the games future. I do not feel this is a realistic scenario.

I think the Nrl watering down the sport in unnecessary safety campaigns is a far greater threat. It's not specifically about the shoulder charge, the bigger picture is the risk of the game becoming a dull affair that no one would bother paying money to watch let alone suing.

I no longer agree with the direction the game is taking, therefore I'm in the Dave Smith is a useless banker f**kwit crowd.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

there's already a precedent in the US for it. if the NRL does not outlaw anything that could bring about unnecessary impact to head that eventually results in a debilitating neurological condition, they can and will be sued. whether or not you personally think it is realistic is irrelevant

them = idea. you = none.

 

[adamkungl]

Ah so boxing survives because it has necessary contact to the head?

 

[AJB1102]

there's already a precedent in the US for it. if the NRL does not outlaw anything that could bring about unnecessary impact to head that eventually results in a debilitating neurological condition, they can and will be sued. whether or not you personally think it is realistic is irrelevant

them = idea. you = none.

Tackling - gone.
Contesting a high ball - gone.
Diving to score one of those special touchline winger tries - gone.
Diving to tap the ball back across the deadball line - gone.

I might not have more of an idea than "them" but you're f**ken clueless.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

1. the sport of boxing relies on you either knocking an opponent out, or outpointing them, both of which usually involve punching your opponent in the head. you take out hits to the head you destroy the sport of boxing - you cannot make the same correlation for nrl. also not taking into account their fists are still cushioned by gloves, they're not bareknuckle boxing. shoulders aren't padded when they're thrust into someones cranium.

2. most of the boxing commissions would have a better concussion/health and welfare policy than the NRL does - digest that, a sport where the primary objective is to punch someone in the head, has a better health and welfare policy than a sport where it is illegal to do so.

 

[adamkungl]

2 is the key point here. The NRL should improve and tighten its legal and medical protocols rather than banning things.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

Tackling - gone.
Contesting a high ball - gone.
Diving to score one of those special touchline winger tries - gone.
Diving to tap the ball back across the deadball line - gone.

I might not have more of an idea than "them" but you're f**ken clueless.

lol look at this scrub qq'ing because they outlawed shoulder charges.

unnecessary impact. considering they penalize most people now for grazing the head in any tackle, you can't argue they're not policing the 'unnecessary contact' part. you can tackle around the legs, around the torso, around the shoulders, whatever.

you shoulder charge at the upper part of the chest at the lowest point. plenty of margin for error.

the other examples are v bad and you should feel bad for trying to cite them seriously.

 

[adamkungl]

But the fact you can actually make a case with a straight face that one sport should be allowed to revolve around belting people in the head and another could be destroyed by an accidental head contact shows that you're on another planet entirely.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

2 is the key point here. The NRL should improve and tighten its legal and medical protocols rather than banning things.

they can't trust the clubs - they're still sending players out now that are clearly concussed and shoulder charges are illegal.

the clubs are as bad as the NRL in this regard, there is no regard for player safety from any side. they've been brought kicking and screaming to this point, ironically by the players that are probably concerned for their post career lifestyle.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

But the fact you can actually make a case with a straight face that one sport should be allowed to revolve around belting people in the head and another could be destroyed by an accidental head contact shows that you're on another planet entirely.

The sport wouldn't be destroyed - the professional organisation that administrates the game in its current form would be. That therein is the difference. You can't sue a sport into oblivion, it's just an activity with a bunch of rules lol.

are we seriously trying to equate the many differences between boxing and league on some sort of tenuous 'they both take blows to the head' stance?

 

[AJB1102]

lol look at this scrub qq'ing because they outlawed shoulder charges.

unnecessary impact. considering they penalize most people now for grazing the head in any tackle, you can't argue they're not policing the 'unnecessary contact' part. you can tackle around the legs, around the torso, around the shoulders, whatever.

you shoulder charge at the upper part of the chest at the lowest point. plenty of margin for error.

the other examples are v bad and you should feel bad for trying to cite them seriously.

You're the dickhead who said the NRL could and would be sued if they failed to outlaw anything that could bring about unnecessary impacts to the head.

Those could all lead to that. Don't blame me for pointing out the stupidity of your original statement with ridiculous examples.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

semantics aside, it's all about harm minimization though, isn't it? those examples could occur, but are less likely to have a greater, long term impact than someone copping a few shoulder charges into the skull. i mean there's scientific evidence surrounding 1) the impact of such blows to the head into terms of force equivalence and 2) the subsequent neurological damage it inflicts and the long term repercussions of that.

if the NRL isn't seen to be trying to make a stance on things that they know knowingly can cause these issues, then yes absolutely they are liable to be sued because of duty of care etc etc.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

This jadwat cumstain has as much cresibility as his namesake.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

lol

 

[POPEYE]

This jadwat cumstain has as much cresibility as his namesake.

He certainly has no idea how many connotations there are to 'I know who you are'

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

I just thought it was important to distinguish that I am not Moffo, as you originally thought.

 

[RazorRam0n]

Let's just not tackle any more, saving just one life will make a difference

 

[POPEYE]

I just thought it was important to distinguish that I am not Moffo, as you originally thought.

Who the f**k's Moffo, never heard of him. . . . you could be AG though. You still miss the point

 

[Nugget10]

Look I would be a lot more pliable to the opposing view on the SC if:

1. the rules were actually policed properly, not just at the ref level but at the MRC level as well.

2. You actually account for the one shoulder charge that has gone unnoticed, the one coming from the player who is hitting the ball up. If you are allowed to do it with the ball in hand, why can't defenders do it?

At least try and look like a professional organization that properly considers issues properly before they act on them, instead of having one knee jerk reaction after another to whatever the media decide to whinge about next.

That right there is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read