Ban on Shoulder charge in 2013.

[stephenj]

i think its a very sensable move its all about nullifying sbw now hes at easts! the powers that be will stop at nothing to nullify any positve changes at easts?we will just have to come up with another play? perhaps all the forwards could join in the tackle and form a maul, then continue on from there?

[Guest]

Yep as i said mate,i love a good shoulder charge..

In the 38 years i've been old enough to watch footy it's been one of my favourite parts of the game..

But as Dylan sang "The times they are a changin'"..

The ARLC are petrified of getting sued by an ex-players victim after they go loco..

It's players going full retard 5 years after they retire that is the worry..

I will miss it,but i can see where there are coming from..

Spot on Horrie. The ARLC is protecting itself and the players long term. I think we had the Adam Ritson discussion some time ago? But you're right, that's what the ARLC is trying to prevent, having players mount multi million dollar law suits against the code years from now when they go loopy and blame head trauma as a result of shoulder charges.

Good decision imo. As much as I love someone getting smashed, Inglis's hit on Young was sickening. And besides, if it teaches players to face forward when tackling rather than sideways, that's gotta be a good thing?

Chook.

[Guest]

The issue here is not the shoulder charge, it's contact with the head.

Unfortunately for quite some time now the judiciary & referees have ignored contact with the head unless it was from a swinging arm or a spear tackle. Case in point our 2010 semi final and the famous Dwyer shoulder charge.

The disincentive of bans for players who make contact with the head of an opposition player with their shoulder only started to be continuously cited by the judiciary this year. Even then the charges and punishments handed down were inconsistent and the gradings were never explained well. This feels like an overreaction to an issue whilst serious falls under the category of being a rare outcome from a shoulder charge.

I liken it to banning Australians from drinking alcohol because a minority just can't handle it, it's not the answer.

Contact with the head has always been illegal, just enforce it and clubs, players & coaches will adapt.

We've got to this stage due to administrative incompetence and now we as the fans pay for it by having one of the greatest parts of Rugby League outlawed. Not a good day in Rugby League history.

That tackle wasn't a shoulder charge in the truest sense, Dwyer was front on and it was a great tackle, it just went high and should have been a penalty.

Chook.

[Guest]

That tackle wasn't a shoulder charge in the truest sense, Dwyer was front on and it was a great tackle, it just went high and should have been a penalty.

Chook.

So under the new rules if that type of tackle hits him in the body is that a penalty because he didn't attempt to use the arms?

I would hate for it to end up like Union where good hits are penalized.

For me it's simple don't ban them but if they hit the head it's a month out. Even fine the players like they do in other sports, they will get the message.

[Guest]

So under the new rules if that type of tackle hits him in the body is that a penalty because he didn't attempt to use the arms?

I would hate for it to end up like Union where good hits are penalized.

For me it's simple don't ban them but if they hit the head it's a month out. Even fine the players like they do in other sports, they will get the message.

No it wouldn't be a penalty because it wasn't a shoulder charge. A shoulder charge is side on, leading with the shoulder. If the player is front on, hits with his shoulder but doesn't make contact with the head it's not a shoulder charge, that's just a good tackle.

What will fark this up is the players will be instructed by the leading coaches in our game to scream "SHOULDER CHARGE" and throw their arms in the air every time someone hits someone with a shoulder.

If there is a blight on our game it's players trying to influence the ref with that shit.

Chook.

[stsae]

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...120-29o5r.html

Canavan's report said shoulder charges made up 0.05 per cent of the 142,355 tackles this year and less than 4 per cent of those resulted in injury to the attacking player, but with the average player now four kilograms heavier and 12 millimetres taller than a decade ago the injury risk was high.

The report also found the average G-force of the shoulder charge (measured from accelerometer data taken from GPS tracking) was 76 per cent greater than a conventional head-on tackle (10.682 compared with 6.056).

''We believe this is the time to eliminate a potential risk,'' NRL interim chief Shane Mattiske said.

It's always been a low percentage tackle.

It looks great on highlight reels but in reality is rarely used.

I can't remember Ray Price or Ronnie Coote pulling off a single one.

No one wants to get sued. I said it at the time and I still believe it's one of the reasons News LTD were so keen to get out of the game, they know what's the potential damage with what's happening in the US.

I loved the shoulder charge both doing them and copping them. But really the drama people are going on with that the games going soft is alarmist. I mean 0.05% of tackles banned is gonna cause the game to go soft.

Farken funny how many sheeple have fallen for the media outrage again.

[Guest]

Being the defender can you run up & hit the opposition player below the neck line & above the waist line with your shoulder?

To me you have to use your shoulder in a tackle so as long as you dont make contact with the opposition players head I dont get what the changes are about?

[stsae]

Being the defender can you run up & hit the opposition player below the neck line & above the waist line with your shoulder?

To me you have to use your shoulder in a tackle so as long as you dont make contact with the opposition players head I dont get what the changes are about?

Probably using the arms to wrap in a tackle mate. That's the difference, the arms.

I guess it will be subjective but it will be interesting to see how it's policed. One would think the reffs have enough on their plate judging by their recent efforts. And allowing the Vidiot any more power IMO would be a disaster.

I reckon it's more a legal thingy. As the stats show it's not really something that's used much at all, it's just the media use the very few each season as a promotion. If and when one goes wrong again, and someone's injured, and someone takes legal action, the ARLC will be able to show duty of care, or some other bullshit.

It's another emotional off season media storm in a teacup. The sky won't fall. The hardness won't exit the game. The ball will still have air in it. Tatts will still be the trend until they become old news.

[kurtsherlock6]

Probably using the arms to wrap in a tackle mate. That's the difference, the arms.

I guess it will be subjective but it will be interesting to see how it's policed. One would think the reffs have enough on their plate judging by their recent efforts. And allowing the Vidiot any more power IMO would be a disaster.

I reckon it's more a legal thingy. As the stats show it's not really something that's used much at all, it's just the media use the very few each season as a promotion. If and when one goes wrong again, and someone's injured, and someone takes legal action, the ARLC will be able to show duty of care, or some other bullshit.

It's another emotional off season media storm in a teacup. The sky won't fall. The hardness won't exit the game. The ball will still have air in it. Tatts will still be the trend until they become old news.

And this will be biggest probelm, what exactly will be deemed a shoulder charge & what will be deemed a legal tackle. In a lot of instances there isnt much difference so it will come down to juudgement/discrescion of the on field referee. I can see this causing alot of controversy.

Personally i reckon banning the shoulder charge is a crock of sh1t. There is risk of injury in most tackles, so what next, ban tackling too hard because someone might get injured. I think the banning is a massive over reaction, but is typical of the politically correct times we now live in.

[Guest]

Probably using the arms to wrap in a tackle mate. That's the difference, the arms.

I guess it will be subjective but it will be interesting to see how it's policed. One would think the reffs have enough on their plate judging by their recent efforts. And allowing the Vidiot any more power IMO would be a disaster.

I reckon it's more a legal thingy. As the stats show it's not really something that's used much at all, it's just the media use the very few each season as a promotion. If and when one goes wrong again, and someone's injured, and someone takes legal action, the ARLC will be able to show duty of care, or some other bullshit.

It's another emotional off season media storm in a teacup. The sky won't fall. The hardness won't exit the game. The ball will still have air in it. Tatts will still be the trend until they become old news.

It's going to be very interesting if a player makes contact with his point of a shoulder & then in the same motion wrap his arms around the guy he is hitting.

To me it's very subjective. The clear shoulder charge where the defender is facing front on & he plants his feet about 18 inches apart then lowers himself & then launches with his shoulder wont be hard to pick but if a player can get his technique spot on & hit like Gillmeister used to which is basically still a shoulder charge it be interesting to see how the media & the League react.

[stsae]

And this will be biggest probelm, what exactly will be deemed a shoulder charge & what will be deemed a legal tackle. In a lot of instances there isnt much difference so it will come down to juudgement/discrescion of the on field referee. I can see this causing alot of controversy.

Personally i reckon banning the shoulder charge is a crock of sh1t. There is risk of injury in most tackles, so what next, ban tackling too hard because someone might get injured. I think the banning is a massive over reaction, but is typical of the politically correct times we now live in.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment mate it's not a massive overreaction if you're running the very real risk of having the games arse sued off. With pending legal action in the NFL over concussions obviously our game has had to cover itself, hence why they comissioned Canavans report.

It would be irresponsible IMO if the ARLC didn't act in the way it is. Imagine they left the game open to legal action???

It just makes sense. Especially since it's banning 0.05% of tackles.

I heard the same calls, next they will be wearing skirts stuff, when they banned the spear tackle. Now it's just accepted, spear tackles are bloody dangerous and without a clear rule banning such dangerous tackles the game would just be opening itself up to be sued.

Accidents will always happen. Horrific injuries are part of the deal when you play sport, especially our game. And while there is Boxing our sport will never be fully sanitized, as it shouldn't.

IMO this rule will not make one iota of difference to the physical way the games played, as banning the spear tackle changed nothing in that regard.

I have never seen or heard of a single coach encouraging the shoulder charge be employed in my life involved in the game. It's always been known as a low percentage tackle, too often the ballcarrier can bounce off and offload or continue running, and usually involves one player rushing out of the defensive line, which is a big no-no especially when you miss.

[Guest]

Correct me if i am wrong but isn't the litigation against NFL based on the fact that they failed to disclose information re:concussions to the players?

If there is such a risk over getting sued then surely boxing would be dust by now? Surely the players accept the risks when they step onto the field?

On a side note, most of the severe concussions that i have witnessed have come as a result of a copybook tackle with the defender collecting a knee or hip. Does it mean that we will ban those tackles too?

[Guest]

I am actually quite furious that the game's spine - contact, is getting tampered with.

Administrators and doctors are trying to 'create' the perfect tackle when one does not exist. No two tackles are the same, largely due to the fact that our sport is based on instinct and quick reaction. A player who has a split second to adjust to a defender stepping into him cannot be expected to have his arms in a certain position in such a short amount of time. Some times it is a natural reaction to bring your arms closer to the body in order to brace yourself for the impact.

The fabric of our game is getting tampered with and i am gutted.

[stsae]

Correct me if i am wrong but isn't the litigation against NFL based on the fact that they failed to disclose information re:concussions to the players?

If there is such a risk over getting sued then surely boxing would be dust by now? Surely the players accept the risks when they step onto the field?

On a side note, most of the severe concussions that i have witnessed have come as a result of a copybook tackle with the defender collecting a knee or hip. Does it mean that we will ban those tackles too?

I think you will find Boxing has a mandatory period a concussed fighter has to sit out followed by testing before they are sanctioned to fight again mate.

NFL players, like players in our sport will not leave the field too often when concussed in the past.

I think that will be the next rule change, like in NFL, mandatory weeks for concussions.

I agree with what you're saying, there are many ways to get a head knock and concussion in RL.

I still think this will be looked back like the spear tackle, it won't worsen the physical nature of the game in the long run.

[Guest]

I think the 'concussion' rule from the US is fantastic and should be implemented here ASAP. It should of been step one of the process before trying to tinker with the game.

Its funny, the same NRL doctors who played a part in this report (including our own Dr.Orchard) are the same people who in the past and to this present day will send a player back out onto the field after an injury, needled up or otherwise. So much for caring about player welfare.