121 replies to this topic

[Just Browny]

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

Yep, and the ref was almost embarrassed to give it.

We've discussed this before and my view hasn't changed. You can ban dangerous shoulder charges (and enforce it) without banning the shoulder charge. If we got rid of the pathetic 'he made contact with shoulder first' interpretation and just penalised tackles where the defender's shoulder ends up going straight through the tackler's chin (see Leuluai, or the O'Brien hit), we'd solve the problem we have.

What will happen is that we will see completely harmless tackles penalised on a technicality, and we'll all be back moaning about it after a big game.

[Dave T]

Yep, and the ref was almost embarrassed to give it.

We've discussed this before and my view hasn't changed. You can ban dangerous shoulder charges (and enforce it) without banning the shoulder charge. If we got rid of the pathetic 'he made contact with shoulder first' interpretation and just penalised tackles where the defender's shoulder ends up going straight through the tackler's chin (see Leuluai, or the O'Brien hit), we'd solve the problem we have.

What will happen is that we will see completely harmless tackles penalised on a technicality, and we'll all be back moaning about it after a big game.

The RFL really haven't helped themselves on this one.

My stance last year was to clamp down hard on these incidents and get them out of the game that way. They gave 4 weeks to the Catalan lad for a late and high hit which could have killed somebody and was pretty much as bad an incident as you could get. This should have been 8-10 games and it would have sent out a very strong message.

They then give Chase 2 matches - despite having history in the last 12months on this.

[gingerjon]

Yep, and the ref was almost embarrassed to give it.

We've discussed this before and my view hasn't changed. You can ban dangerous shoulder charges (and enforce it) without banning the shoulder charge. If we got rid of the pathetic 'he made contact with shoulder first' interpretation and just penalised tackles where the defender's shoulder ends up going straight through the tackler's chin (see Leuluai, or the O'Brien hit), we'd solve the problem we have.

What will happen is that we will see completely harmless tackles penalised on a technicality, and we'll all be back moaning about it after a big game.

Okay - very quickly, in my opinion (which also hasn't changed), a shoulder charge never properly controllable not least because of the changes in posture and direction the player about to be hit may make which can often make things worse. Banning it is simpler and fairer that arbitrarily deciding what is and is not 'dangerous'.

That said ... my opinion doesn't matter. It's banned in the colonies. It's banned in international football. How is Super League helping anybody by keeping it in its rules when it's gone everywhere else?

[brooza]

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

Which is why an incorrect shoulder charge should have a higher punishment than an incorrect tackle.

I believe the gist of what McDermott (who was all in favour of keeping them) was: It's not being policed properly so we might as well ban it

[Just Browny]

That said ... my opinion doesn't matter. It's banned in the colonies. It's banned in international football. How is Super League helping anybody by keeping it in its rules when it's gone everywhere else?

Because I think the Australians will soon realise it's a bad idea, and go to either reversing the rule change completely or decide to turn a blind eye to it unless it's a real bad one.

[hindle xiii]

Because I think the Australians will soon realise it's a bad idea, and go to either reversing the rule change completely or decide to turn a blind eye to it unless it's a real bad one.

I think they'll change it back the week before the World Cup... and not tell anyone.

[roughyedspud]

can anyone provide evidence,via youtube clips, whats illegal and what is'nt????

[gingerjon]

I think they'll change it back the week before the World Cup... and not tell anyone.

This would involve them realising there's a World Cup.

[hindle xiii]

This would involve them realising there's a World Cup.

That'll be the morning of deciding to bring back to shoulder charge, busy day for the Vauxaroos, not to mention an evening of how clean is thier p"ss.

Anyroad, so what happens when trying to barge someone into touch? Y'now like Slater epic failed on at Wembley.

[gingerjon]

what happens when trying to barge someone into touch?

Find the captain of the team with the green jersey and ask him what decision he'd like.

[roughyedspud]

Anyroad, so what happens when trying to barge someone into touch? Y'now like Slater epic failed on at Wembley.

according to this

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)”

it should be a penalty try...cos slaters arm was "tucked into the side"

[hindle xiii]

it should be a penalty try...cos slaters arm was "tucked into the side"

And then hanging by the side.

[roughyedspud]

with him crying too

[Dave T]

Which is why an incorrect shoulder charge should have a higher punishment than an incorrect tackle.

I believe the gist of what McDermott (who was all in favour of keeping them) was: It's not being policed properly so we might as well ban it

Yep - see my post just above yours, I agree with you.

[OMEGA]

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.

does it?

can you back that up with some facts, statistics and scientific data

[OMEGA]

Okay - very quickly, in my opinion (which also hasn't changed), a shoulder charge never properly controllable not least because of the changes in posture and direction the player about to be hit may make which can often make things worse. Banning it is simpler and fairer that arbitrarily deciding what is and is not 'dangerous'.

That said ... my opinion doesn't matter. It's banned in the colonies. It's banned in international football. How is Super League helping anybody by keeping it in its rules when it's gone everywhere else?

the answer is it shouldnt have been banned by anyone, the players (ex and present), coaches, pundits etc were preetty much unified in their disbeleif and condemnation of the decision to ban it down under.

There should be better policing of dangerous tackles no matter what the type and there should be harsher punishments for transgressions.

[DeadShotKeen]

does it?

can you back that up with some facts, statistics and scientific data

The NRL did. Their decision followed a detailed sports science study. Our decision was based on, well, not following theirs I suppose.

[OMEGA]

The NRL did. Their decision followed a detailed sports science study. Our decision was based on, well, not following theirs I suppose.

no they didnt because the studies done show that the shoulder charge is reponsible for a fraction of a percentage of injuries in the game.
please point me to the studies used by the NRL in proving their case, I'll stand corrected if I read the data and its irrefutable.

[southstand loiner]

so it gets banned 4 days before the wcc game thus giving melbourne a massive lift and forcing leeds to change there tackling drills at short notice .
why did they even need a short notice video conference about it they shoud have waited until there next regular meeting in june

[dhw]

no they didnt because the studies done show that the shoulder charge is reponsible for a fraction of a percentage of injuries in the game.
please point me to the studies used by the NRL in proving their case, I'll stand corrected if I read the data and its irrefutable.

Was published via the ARLC so probably still there. The reason for the banning shoulder charge was statistical data showed there was a significant greater liklihood that an injury would occur to the tackler and tacklee the study also showed there was a greater force exerted on than a conventional tackle. That information was extracted on the report commissioned. I do not believe the full report has been published publicly just the major findings and statistics/data to support those findings. You are right most injuries do not result from shoulder charges, but shoulder charges are not very common so it stands to reason the account for a minority of injuries, though they are much kliklier to cause injury. The sheer mechanics of shoulder charges should tell you that they are more likely to cause injury.