Anecdotal polls of players have universally shown they want it back, although I would be more than happy to give them the vote and final decision on it.
If the players as a majority don't want to accept it, then outlaw it. If they are willing to accept the risk, then bring it back.
How many of those polls have been done since a player died as a result of a shoulder charge? I reckon SBW and Smith aren't the only current or former players whose minds have changed as a result
Of course they aren't, but if other professions were run like rugby league, then they would be banned outright. If the NRL's legal risk from a player dying in league is so great, then it is a wonder how a sport like motor racing exists given how many people die in it every year, let alone professions like underground mining, deep sea fishing, etc.
If the way rugby league is run is so bad, why hasn't the entire sport been banned yet? Surely after McKinnon it would have been wound up? And if that didn't do it, surely Ackerman would have been the final straw?
Motor racing has constant changes to regulations to make it safer. Look at F1 and MotoGP for example. There has been the 2 well known deaths (Bianchi and Simoncelli), but apart from that, just 2 other deaths in 20 years (one in MotoGP and one in Moto2). Based on your logic, neither should take safety precautions because of the rarity of deaths in recent times.
I'm no expert in safety regulations in mining and deep sea fishing, but I assume they have long-standing regulations to try to limit the chances of injury and death.
I can't think of another sport in the world that just bans things outright based on media hysteria. The very sport whose studies the NRL used to justify the ban of the shoulder charge did not even ban it themselves FFS.
And? They still introduced a bunch of rules to make the game safer.
Contact sports inherently carry risk of serious injury. There has been no less concussions or serious injury since the introduction of the shoulder charge ban, largely because concussions have always been caused by illegal (stiff arm, shoulders to the head) or accidental (head clash, head in wrong spot making a tackle, etc) contact with the head as opposed to from whiplash by a legal hit.
Where is your proof that there is no less concussions? There is more of a focus on concussions in recent years so you hear about them all of the time. That doesn't mean they haven't been reduced.
If you aren't willing to accept the risk of being hurt then you simply can't play a collision sport. If the NRL wants to keep changing the rules to ban things that hurt players the only logical result will be flag football.
So why are there any rules? If you don't want your head speared into the ground, don't play. If you don't want a swinging arm in the face, don't play. There are rules against spear tackles and high tackles because they are dangerous, not just because they hurt. The shoulder charge is in the same boat. It isn't banned because it hurts. It's banned because it is unsafe, and can do significant damage to the brain.
This "they're going to ban tackling next" garbage is laughable. You sound like the type of person who says "If they allow gay marriage, marrying children will be allowed next"
