Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Shoulder charge now banned in Australia and NZ


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic

#21 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:28 AM

Both are obscene hits to the head. Would be happy to see the players who do it serve lengthy bans.


The problem is shades of grey and they are open to different views.
Take the uncertainty of challenges away from the eye of the beholder and it will be a good decision.
I still think Sam Burgess challenge on Fui Fui Moi Moi was wrong but it is held up as an example of hard play and pay back.

#22 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,380 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:36 AM

The problem is shades of grey and they are open to different views.
Take the uncertainty of challenges away from the eye of the beholder and it will be a good decision.
I still think Sam Burgess challenge on Fui Fui Moi Moi was wrong but it is held up as an example of hard play and pay back.


I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#23 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?


Badum tish!

#24 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:42 AM

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?


No, I am with you.
Maybe I was vague in what I posted. Did you think Burgess hit on Moi Moi was a fair tackle?
Get rid of the rubbish and high shots and the game will get more juniors.

Edited by AndyCapp, 20 November 2012 - 11:45 AM.


#25 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 3,232 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:43 AM

Badum tish!

What does that mean?

#26 clement

clement
  • Coach
  • 567 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:46 AM

RL will end up like soccer.

#27 marklaspalmas

marklaspalmas
  • Coach
  • 11,572 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:54 AM

What does that mean?


http://www.badum-tish.com/

#28 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 678 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:17 PM

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.

As for the shoulder charge: tackle without using your arms and you've broken the rules.

Now, any more shades of grey I need to work through?


I believe the shoulder charge should be banned; it is dangerous, has little skill attached to it and is a very small and insignificant part of the game apart from greater liklihood of injury.

Though as for "tackling without using arms" this will still be open to interpretation proably as much as illegal high tackles are.

#29 dhw

dhw
  • Coach
  • 678 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:22 PM

RL will end up like soccer.


You mean largely banishing thuggish behaviour, with a greater emphasis on skills?

Edited by dhw, 20 November 2012 - 12:22 PM.


#30 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:24 PM

I know it puts me out on a limb but I'd be happy to remove the shades of grey. Make it an automatic assumption that if you hit the head what just happened was illegal and a straight red. Only if the refs and touch judges can be 100% sure it wasn't deliberate (i.e. if the player did genuinely fall) then it's a mere sin-bin.


Thats already the case.

Shoulder charges that hit the head are already illegal.

Any contact with the head is already illegal.

A straight red is too harsh for some tackles and is warranted for others. It can never be black and white.

#31 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,723 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

Whilst I enjoy a legal shoulder-charge - I don;t have to be on the end of them!

If the experts (players, coaches etc) are recommending that these be banned (and they have some science behind the decision) then who am I to argue?

#32 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,453 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

define "shoulder charge" ??

Posted Image

that type of shoulder charge,the type that you use when trying to break down a door,should be banned...not got a problem in that..


but this type of hit,by simon dwyer on JWH

Posted Image

dwyer is square on,arms out ready to "action the tackle"..then boom......perfectly fine big hit...imo....

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?
St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#33 Southstander13

Southstander13
  • Coach
  • 1,288 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?


Exactly. Head high shot is illegal. Done.

#34 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,043 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:02 PM

I'd say ban the high tackle in the first pic and keep the perfectly fine tackle in the second. Oh wait, that's how it already works?



aye........but both have used the shoulder...and both tackles knocked the other guy out.....so what have the ARLC outlawed?? lol

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#35 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,208 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:05 PM

RL has always moved to protect players - this is just another step on that path.

They are a tiny and dangerous part of the game so its no loss to see them gone IMO.

#36 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,380 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:17 PM

aye........but both have used the shoulder...and both tackles knocked the other guy out.....so what have the ARLC outlawed?? lol


If they've outlawed nothing why all the rage from English fans about how the international rules are now different?
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#37 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,043 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:24 PM

they've outlawed something.....they've just not said whats ok and what is'nt lol

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#38 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,723 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:28 PM

If they've outlawed nothing why all the rage from English fans about how the international rules are now different?

My assumption is that the rule would now be more like RU's.

#39 Tonka

Tonka
  • Coach
  • 710 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:36 PM

I'm gutted I love a good shoulder charge.

My two favourite things are:

1. A good shoulder charge;
2. Done by a GB player on an Aussie or Kiwi.

I may never witness this again.

#40 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,823 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:51 PM

I agree with the other posters on the need to have the RLIF be the authority to institute rules changes.

The rights and wrongs of shoulder charges are irrelevant to this point. If the Aussies wanted it outlawed they should have had to bring it before the RLIF rules committee and have it voted on and passed or not.

They should not be allowed to unilaterly change the rules and expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Suppose they wanted to change to a 5 tackle game or a 7 tackle game or go to 12 players. These would be changes that would fundamentally change the character of the game and they think they can do this on their own without the rest of the RL world having an input.

This problem has been festering for some time and previous anomalies taken up soley by the Australians were interchange rules, two referees and the corner flag in bounds matter.

The games powers, mostly Aus, NZ and England need to confer and give these rule changing decisions to the RLIF and decide on the procedures for any implementation of suggested changes.

The present situation is ludicrous, we will end up with fundamentally different games in different countries if nothing is done. The Australians might be the best, biggest and richest RL country in the world but they are not the sole arbiters for rule changes. There must be world wide conformity on rules/laws and the RLIF is the obvious choice to be the co ordinating body. The arrogance of the Australian leadership thinking they speak for the world game must be curbed or the game will end up as an international laughing stock.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users