121 replies to this topic

[Blotto]

Playing into the hands of Union?

http://www.nrl.com/r...98/default.aspx

Sod Hall rear end lickers will be following suit listen out for slurping tongues!

Edited by John Drake, 21 February 2013 - 12:19 PM.
thread title amended to avoid this becoming a troll-beacon

[hindle xiii]

http://www.nrl.com/r...98/default.aspx

Sod Hall rear end lickers will be following suit listen out for slurping tongues!

That's the most disturbing line I've ever read on here.

[gingerjon]

That's the most disturbing line I've ever read on here.

I'm just devestated to learn that we've got rid of the play-the-ball, added two extra players, put in line outs and insisted that none of our players are trained in the art of 'catching a football' and must instead learn about 'dark arts', subtle nuancies and the biscuit game.

[roughyedspud]

the ARLC,NRL or now the RLIF still have'nt told us what constitutes a "shoulder charge"

[Blotto]

the ARLC,NRL or now the RLIF still have'nt told us what constitutes a "shoulder charge"

To overcome this the Sports Administrators have allowed sneering at your opponent instead, but if the opponent burst into tears the perpertrator is yellow carded!

[gingerjon]

the ARLC,NRL or now the RLIF still have'nt told us what constitutes a "shoulder charge"

Yes, apart from this bit of the new rules they are being totally silent.

The definition of an illegal shoulder charge is: “Where a defender, without attempting to tackle, grabs or holds the ball-carrier (or any opposing player) using the arms or hands, makes direct physical contact using the shoulder or the upper arm (tucked into the side)”

[roughyedspud]

you got a link to that???

[Wolford6]

I think the shoulder charge should be banned because it causes an extra risk of injury to both the tackler and the tackled player. That overrides any concerns about whether or not we are following RU's lead by banning it.

[Dave T]

Tbh there have been a couple of challenges already this year which have made it more difficult to argue against a ban.

[markleeds]

The World Cup is months away and the Aussies are already stacking the deck in there favour.

[Dave T]

The World Cup is months away and the Aussies are already stacking the deck in there favour.

i suggest we ban it in sl.

If it is banned internatiinally we are only screwing ourselves by being stubborn.

[brooza]

Tbh there have been a couple of challenges already this year which have made it more difficult to argue against a ban.

And they've all been shots to the head. Which are already banned.

[gingerjon]

i suggest we ban it in sl.

If it is banned internatiinally we are only screwing ourselves by being stubborn.

But where will we get our moral superiority and non-whinging reasons for defeat from then?

[brooza]

But where will we get our moral superiority and non-whinging reasons for defeat from then?

All the drugs that they're all on

[Dave T]

And they've all been shots to the head. Which are already banned.

But the issue is that a shoulder charge going wrong is much worse than a 'normal' tackle going wrong in general.

The hit on O'Brien at the weekend didn't really look high - initial impact looked shoulder to shoulder and the whiplash effect caused him to be knocked out - this isn;t great. Add this to the two players knocked out with purely illegal shoulder charges in the head and there is a real issue here waiting to happen.

[hindle xiii]

So what happens if a player does a shoulder charge? Penalty or penalty and a card?

[gingerjon]

So what happens if a player does a shoulder charge? Penalty or penalty and a card?

What was it in the All Stars game? Just a penalty?

[Just to be clear]

you got a link to that???

Just to be clear, the definition gingerjon gave is not new. It has been in the ARL rule book for many years because it was already banned there for under 18s.

You can find last season's version laws on the NRL web site.

[hindle xiii]

What was it in the All Stars game? Just a penalty?

Mmmunno. I didn't watch it.

[DeadShotKeen]

I think it’s now pretty much indefensible to retain the charge. I suspect the RFL’s only real reason for steering their own course was the slightly childish desire of not wanting to face criticism for following the bigger and better NRL’s lead. There was sports science behind the NRL’s decision and the first few rounds of SL have seen some dubious hits, as did the first few rounds last year. For once Stevo has it right on his Sky page – we want to be encouraging more kids to take up RL and bigger, harder and more dubious clatters to their upper torso are not really the best way to go about that. Yes we all like a big hit but there are still legal ways to do that and ultimately it has to be about putting the safety of our lads above the blood lust of the spectators.

In general I think refs are being too lenient on dangerous tackles just now. I keep seeing numerous cases of legs being raised above the perpendicular in every game but have yet to see one sin binning. That’s a slightly different argument as it’s about implementation of adequate rulings rather than poor rulings themselves but I’m personally a bit worried about the general direction the game is taking and fear that it’ll take a bad injury before we reassess the macho tough guy stance coming out of RFL headquarters of late. Sincerely hope I’m wrong.