The shoulder charge debate thread

[typicalfan]

And maybe the nrl should have before banning it?

Because I have no problems with high shoulder charges being illegal, just as I have no problem with high tackles being illegal. A well executed shoulder charge is great to see and I have no problem with it, just as I have no problem with a well executed normal tackle.

There is no evidence a shoulder charge to the body is any more dangerous than a really hard arms tackle to the body such as Matais the other week. Until there, is both should be allowed.

James Ackerman died of a shoulder charge to the chest not head. This isn't cheap point scoring these are the facts.

The NRL aren't reactionary on this, they made a decision years ago about the shoulder charge and unfortunately were vindicated this year.

 

[Perth Red]

A one in a hundred year event should not be used as justification for a decision. Many more players have been seriously injured, and one at least, died from a normal tackle. Your logic would suggest any tackle should be banned if we are this risk averse. I accept we are living in an increasingly risk averse society devoid of personal responsibility and that is what has led to this decision, doesnt mean I have to like it.

 

[CSFC]

A one in a hundred year event should not be used as justification for a decision. Many more players have been seriously injured, and one at least, died from a normal tackle. Your logic would suggest any tackle should be banned if we are this risk averse. I accept we are living in an increasingly risk averse society devoid of personal responsibility and that is what has led to this decision, doesnt mean I have to like it.

+1 to this.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

It's absolutely no surprise that the force of an average shoulder is higher than an conventional front on tackle; what use is that information? I'm going to suppose that a higher than average front on tackle would roughly equal an average shoulder charge.

It's the contact with the head being more likely that is the clincher. If you combine a higher than average force shoulder charge with contact to the head you will have serious problems. And the problem with the 100 year argument is that players these days are so much more beefed up compared to even 15 years ago - yet their skulls are more or less the same. The potential for damage has increased whether we like it or not.

I say this being a big fan of the shoulder charge.

 

[Wizardman]

My opinions have changed over the last year or so. Im fine with the ban now.

 

[Perth Red]

I remember the pack weight being around 17 stone in the 80's, sure might have been more pie than steak but I'm pretty sure those big boys could deliver a hit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Murphy_(rugby_league)

 

[umina panther]

James Ackerman died of a shoulder charge to the chest not head. This isn't cheap point scoring these are the facts.

The NRL aren't reactionary on this, they made a decision years ago about the shoulder charge and unfortunately were vindicated this year.

And.someone will eventually die in a textbook tackle. Its a contact sport . The banning of this is pathetic

 

[adamkungl]

As far as I'm concerned if the NFL, after the massive litigation and research, didn't ban the shoulder charge then for me there is no legal reason to ban them. So it comes down to player safety/risk and what is deemed acceptable. RL has always worn the "toughest game in the world badge" like a medal, it's what has always attracted me to the game. the current management of the game has decided this element of it is too risky, for no reason other than level of risk it is willing to accept. This is the sad thing for me as someone who has loved the game since the late 70's. It is probably a reflection of the world today but a piece of me mourns the days when we were allowed to decide what risk each of us is willing to take in our lives. RL is dead, long live the 21st century soft version of RL!

Rugby League is no longer the toughest game in the world.

 

[adamkungl]

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.

No, 71 is far too low.

They are saying that there were less than 3 shoulder charges per round, and something like 5 caused injury, which is too high a percentage.

3 per round. The injury percentage/risk drops dramatically if you actually use a realistic number for the amount of shoulder charges. 3 per game is probably more accurate. Estimating, admittedly, but if you believe 3 per round you're delusional

 

[Penrose Warrior]

You don't think Ackermans death wasn't a freak accident? Its literally the first ever death by shoulder charge in over 100 years of league. What else could you classify it as?

The death in F1 is completely comparible. The bloke died because of his sport. It was in the wet, and he crashed into a car crane that was recovering another vehicle. There are at least a dozen major f**k ups that led to his death. Why aren't F1 being held responsible and throwing in some nice knee jerk rule changes to avoid that type of accident in future, like forcing a red flag on any race which requires a vehicle to be recovered, or banning racing in the wet? probably because they realise such things would be an unnecessary overreaction

The shoulder charge was banned before Ackerman's death, so it's actually a meaningless argument on either side. It wasn't banned to prevent death, it was banned to prevent the very likely event of injury.

Anyone attempting to shoulder charge a person below their own height is very, very likely to make contact with the head. You can't expect players to be able to make split-second decisions not to do this on the fly - so the power is taken away from them.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

And.someone will eventually die in a textbook tackle. Its a contact sport . The banning of this is pathetic

Honestly, they're banning the shoulder charge so people don't end up with head injuries and post dumb shit like this.

Can you do everyone a favour and work out that a) it's not about death, it's about serious injury - particularly to the head and brain b) textbook tackles are significantly less likely to cause serious injury than shoulder charges. People have sat down and studied football (no matter what our friend adam thinks) and worked out the percentages of head-high contact in shoulder charges and normal across the chest hits. It's unquestionably higher in shoulder charges, with a higher force exerted as well.

Anyway, no one's going to change their mind. Apparently the game's gone soft, and I bet you all watched both games last night despite the fact. Whatever.

 

[typicalfan]

It's absolutely no surprise that the force of an average shoulder is higher than an conventional front on tackle; what use is that information? I'm going to suppose that a higher than average front on tackle would roughly equal an average shoulder charge.

It's the contact with the head being more likely that is the clincher. If you combine a higher than average force shoulder charge with contact to the head you will have serious problems. And the problem with the 100 year argument is that players these days are so much more beefed up compared to even 15 years ago - yet their skulls are more or less the same. The potential for damage has increased whether we like it or not.

I say this being a big fan of the shoulder charge.

I am like you. One thing I do know is that I am not a medical expert and I have no idea of a shoulder charge vs conventional tackle in terms of potential force with or without contact with the head. There are a lot of people who know or think they know but I know I don't know.

So for me accepting this is a culture change for me.

One thing also is the players seem to be coming around to it more and more. Even SBW who was a great exponent of the shoulder charge accepts it is no longer part of the game.

 

[Parra]

Rugby League is no longer the toughest game in the world.

Never was

[youtube]kNVkXNdH2mA[/youtube]

 

[Pete Cash]

I remember the pack weight being around 17 stone in the 80's, sure might have been more pie than steak but I'm pretty sure those big boys could deliver a hit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Murphy_(rugby_league)

It's not just size its that they have kept size while vastly increasing speed.

Force is mass by acceleration after all.

There is a few problems with the traditional shoulder charge. It's difficult to not accidentally go high because of the physics involved.

The second reason is the reason they are so popular. It generates a lot of force.

Now when it was two slow huge guys doing it its probably going to be OK but two huge fast modern day props it might be a problem. Remember that the human body is actually rather frail

 

[Pete Cash]

I can only find the numbers for rugby union but I doubt its much different in league.
https://theconversation.com/not-so-gentle-giants-how-rugby-players-are-getting-bigger-23978
We know that in the wider community, people are growing taller and heavier in parallel with socioeconomic development, with each generation increasing around 2.5cm in height and 4.5kg in weight.

These trends have implications for impact sports, where it has been estimated that a 20% increase in height results in a 44% increase in strength and a 73% increase in inertia.

Over the past 25 years, the weight of rugby union players has grown three to four times faster than young men in the wider community. The nature of the game has also changed, with the ball in play for a higher proportion of the game and more contact events.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

No point bringing sense and reason to this thread. It won't fit.

 

[Joker's Wild]

There is no fundamental reason why the shoulder charge needs to be in our game, none. It's a technique used by poor defenders to slow down a bigger player.

The game is no poorer without it imo

 

[God-King Dean]

 

[Bronco18]

It's absolutely no surprise that the force of an average shoulder is higher than an conventional front on tackle; what use is that information? I'm going to suppose that a higher than average front on tackle would roughly equal an average shoulder charge.

It's because the increased g-force creates a nasty whiplash effect. 70% greater force in a tackle, it's what got Ackerman who wasn't even hit high.

 

[Packy]

If Mason's was a shoulder charge then Bakuya will be in jail.