The shoulder charge debate thread

[AJB1102]

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

Not that ridiculous. Among others I think it was Todd Lowry (?) who got knocked for 6 by a ball runner leading with the shoulder and getting him in the melon.

Not what we define a "shoulder charge" but a shoulder to the head is a shoulder to the head.

 

[Bronco18]

This debate has taken a regrettable turn in recent times.

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/sp...ermans-brother-calls-for-shoulder-charge-ban/

[/I]


Now look, I feel for the Ackermans as much as the next person, what they're going through is horrible and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but I really can't respect using a heavily emotional issue to try and make a cheap point in a heated debate. I'm sorry but one plane crash doesn't make for a ban on planes.


James is one tragedy in over a century of football.

So what, we ignore the death caused by a shoulder charge?

Claiming something is an emotional issue is a great way of avoiding real debate.

 

[Bronco18]

There are people who think Rugby League will grow by being safer :lol:

Let's do some basic maths:

Fans lost or less enthusiastic due to safety crackdowns = Some
Fans gained or more enthusiastic due to safety crackdowns = f**king zero

Growth achieved :lol: Smith and Greenberg, crunching the numbers to a brighter future

Can the legal geniuses here explain how every other sport operates with safety concerns?

Lol, show us your marketing degree then hotshot. C'mon, apparently you've done your research better than NRL HQ.

 

[bottle]

I'm all for a mass debate, but this one is done and dusted. It's gone.

 

[umina panther]

Won't be gone in my Super League 2. Now someone lend me 10 billion to get the ball rolling

 

[adamkungl]

Lol, show us your marketing degree then hotshot. C'mon, apparently you've done your research better than NRL HQ.

Do you blindly agree with anyone in a position of power? Maybe you're a Tony Abbott fan, he has a degree and is PM so obviously everything he does is correct. Obviously the PM has done his research!

f**king clown.

 

[adamkungl]

The shoulder charge ban is completely image based and f**k all to do with safety

 

[Bronco18]

Do you blindly agree with anyone in a position of power? Maybe you're a Tony Abbott fan, he has a degree and is PM so obviously everything he does is correct. Obviously the PM has done his research!

f**king clown.

Hahaha settle down mate, surely an admin can conduct themselves with a bit more class. I'm calling you out after you say no one has the legal credentials to comment, then you pull out some uncited figure from your own head as if it's the gospel truth.

Fact is, the shoulder charge is an inessential but dangerous part of our game, that is harder to control than a normal tackle. For those arguing that the penalty should be only for those hit high:

1) Ackerman's death wasn't from a "high" shoulder charge, it didn't make initial contact with his head. The g-force from a shoulder charge is that much stronger than a front on tackle, the whip lash has a dangerous effect.

2) Sure a player may "take a risk" or perhaps if they're a skilled exponent may be better than others at it and not make a high tackle from it. Charge the tackles heavily that make high contact. You know who doesn't get an option in this? The person being tackled who cops a high shot. Statistically, as Pete Cash noted, shoulder charges result in high tackles more than your ordinary tackle. They're unnecessary to a good game and are worth removing if the League is going to get serious on concussions. It's fair enough Adamkungl for you to criticise the methodology of the report but show us how it was wrong, please.

It certainly was spectacular when it was there and I knew I'd miss it when it was initially banned but anyways, it's all irrelevant - the shoulder charge is now dead, buried and cremated ;-)

 

[betcats]

The shoulder charge ban is completely image based and f**k all to do with safety

You literally couldn't pick a worse time in Rugby league history to make this argument, someone was just killed by a shoulder charge that would of been legal before the ban.

Either show us the evidence you have to dispute the medical opinions or shut up and accept it is gone because unless you can argue what the doctors have said you have no leg to stand on.

 

[Captain Apollo]

This is literally a flat out lie from the NRL. They claimed there were 71 shoulder charges in the 2012 season. Bull f**king shit.

Percentage is a lot lower when you count it properly.

Really? You watch every game in every season do you? You know every game which has around 300-400 tackles per match (on approximate average)? So 71 shoulder charges out of approximately 48,000 odd tackles (I got that figure from 7 games x 23 round x 300 tackles/per game as a rough calculation) in a regular season is "too high" huh. So how many were there if it is a lie like you claim? Where are you getting your information from that you can make that statement?

You can dislike the change all you want. That is your right. However, until you start backing up your claims with some solid, verifiable facts without opinion and profanity then people will not take you seriously.

 

[Danish]

What evidence have doctors provided to back up their case that it needs to be banned?

Simply stating shoulder charges are dangerous is not a reason in and of itself to ban it. There are plenty of dangerous things in our game that are still legal, and must stay legal as they make up the very fabric of the sport itself.

Over and above the medical advice, I'd love to know what legal advice the NRL got that stated they had to ban it or face liability for injuries suffered from it. The NFL case kept getting bandied about like that was proof that the NRL needed to act..... but the NFL still allows shoulder charges! Their liability in that case stemmed from the NFL being handed evidence that helmet on helmet contact was causing brain damage, and they hid this instead of informing the players. It was the act of trying to cover up the reports that was the problem, not the injuries themselves.

Surely providing the NRL keeps an open and clear dialogue with the RLPA about any and all medical reports based on rugby league injuries so that they can keep the players well informed of any risk that are taking in playing the sport then they would be covered legally. There are much more dangerous sports, recreational activities, and just normal jobs than rugby league that manage to get done every day without the fear of legal destruction

 

[betcats]

What evidence have doctors provided to back up their case that it needs to be banned?

Simply stating shoulder charges are dangerous is not a reason in and of itself to ban it. There are plenty of dangerous things in our game that are still legal, and must stay legal as they make up the very fabric of the sport itself.

Over and above the medical advice, I'd love to know what legal advice the NRL got that stated they had to ban it or face liability for injuries suffered from it. The NFL case kept getting bandied about like that was proof that the NRL needed to act..... but the NFL still allows shoulder charges! Their liability in that case stemmed from the NFL being handed evidence that helmet on helmet contact was causing brain damage, and they hid this instead of informing the players. It was the act of trying to cover up the reports that was the problem, not the injuries themselves.

Surely providing the NRL keeps an open and clear dialogue with the RLPA about any and all medical reports based on rugby league injuries so that they can keep the players well informed of any risk that are taking in playing the sport then they would be covered legally. There are much more dangerous sports, recreational activities, and just normal jobs than rugby league that manage to get done every day without the fear of legal destruction

Any tackle or technique that has the potential to really damage the brain or neck is banned. Yes any tackle could go wrong and hurt or kill someone but that requires something to go wrong, some kind of freakish accident. A shoulder charge does not need anything to go wrong to potentially harm or kill. What other type of legal tackle etc can be perfectly executed and still be fatal? The more I think about it with what has happened recently it is pretty obvious why this is banned. Doctors have proven it is a more dangerous tackle with the force involved then a traditional or chest tackle and then you have to consider its higher potential for going wrong.

 

[POPEYE]

I like to think I'm a fairly tough hombre but I'd rather see James Roberts do his thing than Kasiano do his, the more the entertainers feel secure that they're protected from buffoons and their no talent required shoulder charges the better . . . risk of damage doesn't worry me I just know what kind of footy I prefer to watch

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

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

You're right, someone else thought I was Moffo, you think i'm AG or bellyache.

That reminds me, I have a question to ask.

 

[Danish]

Any tackle or technique that has the potential to really damage the brain or neck is banned. Yes any tackle could go wrong and hurt or kill someone but that requires something to go wrong, some kind of freakish accident. A shoulder charge does not need anything to go wrong to potentially harm or kill. What other type of legal tackle etc can be perfectly executed and still be fatal? The more I think about it with what has happened recently it is pretty obvious why this is banned. Doctors have proven it is a more dangerous tackle with the force involved then a traditional or chest tackle and then you have to consider its higher potential for going wrong.

See the blindside chopping in half of that souths nuffy by Steve Matai a few weeks ago. That type of tackle has just as much potential for causing a whiplash injury as a shoulder charge. The only added danger of a shoulder charge comes if it goes wrong and impacts the head.

 

[betcats]

See the blindside chopping in half of that souths nuffy by Steve Matai a few weeks ago. That type of tackle has just as much potential for causing a whiplash injury as a shoulder charge. The only added danger of a shoulder charge comes if it goes wrong and impacts the head.

How often do you see a hit like that Matai hit? Once a year? Matai sprinted from 10m to generate that force, a shoulder charge can be that hard from two steps if its timed right. How often do you see someone rocked like that from tackles other than a shoulder charge? And is that bold bit a fact? Cause I would think that the higher point of contact from a shoulder charge would place more pressure on the neck and head.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

New helmets are being introduced to cricket after Hughes death.

But players aren't forced to wear them. Do they sign a waiver freeing the game/bowler of a potential liable?

 

[Chook Norris]

The current administration truly do not care about the fans nor do they understand their fan base. This is a large reason why interest is down and fans are as apathetic as ever

 

[Penrose Warrior]

The shoulder charge ban is completely image based and f**k all to do with safety

Ironically posted by a man who appears to have suffered severe head trauma. What a f**king stupid thing to say. There's no way you believe that.

Interest in rugby league is not waning (if we are to believe it is) because of the shoulder charge and biff being banned. It's the same reason participation and attendance in golf, rugby, cricket or any other sport is down - discretionary spend, time utility, all that stuff.

Only in the rare cases is it 'urrr burrr durr me want hits and injuries urrrrr'

 

[Danish]

How often do you see a hit like that Matai hit? Once a year? Matai sprinted from 10m to generate that force, a shoulder charge can be that hard from two steps if its timed right. How often do you see someone rocked like that from tackles other than a shoulder charge? And is that bold bit a fact? Cause I would think that the higher point of contact from a shoulder charge would place more pressure on the neck and head.

There was another tackle of the same force in that same game by Taufua on Walker. The Bulldogs centre absolutely ironed out Ferguson from a hospital pass last friday as well.

If you are going to ask how how often things happen, how about asking how often a shoulder charge has caused serious injury since they banned hits to the head? You could count the amount of concussions from legal, non-head shot shoulder charges on 1 hand and still have a couple free fingers to scratch yourself.

Besides all of that, if the players are made aware of the risk, and as a playing group are willing to accept that risk, then why does it need to be banned? As I stated earlier, there are a hell of a lot more dangerous professions than rugby league in this world, yet for some reason it is only rugby league which needs to be modified. As yet I've not heard anyone explain why this is.