Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Shoulder charge banned (merged threads)

RFL media release

  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#101 manofthematch

manofthematch
  • Coach
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:38 AM

I can't believe some of you lot think the Theo Fages incident was not a shoulder charge. If you watch the video carefully the shoulder hits him in the head then a split second after the arm is raised to add further impact to the collision.



If the game is being 'diluted' into a game of tick and pass then whoever thinks that I would like to invite you down to a couple of tackling drills at my local amatuer club. I'll give you six hit ups and I know you would change your mind then.

#102 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,161 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:09 PM

I do like this outrage though it is quite amusing, all the players complaining and saying they should bring netball skirts to training, some (Mark Bryant) should probably learn to tackle full stop. Yes, it's been done the wrong way, but also, in the 7 (?) matches I've seen in SL this year, I can remember 1 proper square on "hit", Scruton on Poore in Round 1 (that's just my immediate memory). These things don't exactly come around often though, they're effectively complaining about taking the horses hoof thing off the swiss army knife. There, traditional, but rarely used. If it means the likes of Sam Burgess have to hit big with a proper tackle, then so be it.

I understand the upset, but it's not like these correct big hits are common place, hence their "special status". Plenty of big hits are proper tackles, super Keith Lulia, Thomas Leuluai on Maurie Fa'asavalu, for example.

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#103 tigersfan

tigersfan
  • Coach
  • 114 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:24 PM

How much of an issue is this in games. I am a union fan who enjoys league, I like the contact and the big hits, but a properly executed tackle is as impressive to watch as a shoulder charge. The potential for injury is obviously less when arms are involved, and with the increasing size and strength of players, plus playing on hard summer grounds, this ban makes sense to me

#104 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

I can't believe some of you lot think the Theo Fages incident was not a shoulder charge. If you watch the video carefully the shoulder hits him in the head then a split second after the arm is raised to add further impact to the collision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DbinqvovpU

If the game is being 'diluted' into a game of tick and pass then whoever thinks that I would like to invite you down to a couple of tackling drills at my local amatuer club. I'll give you six hit ups and I know you would change your mind then.


It was also an incredibly cowardly shot that was already illegal.

If he had ran in with the arm and knocked him out that way, what would the answer be, banning tackles above the waist?

As for your offer, if they hurt as much as you say they do, what happens if I get seriously injured from one of those tackles?

Should they then be banned as well?

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 21 February 2013 - 12:30 PM.


#105 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:29 PM

Double post

Edited by Maximus Decimus, 21 February 2013 - 12:29 PM.


#106 DeadShotKeen

DeadShotKeen
  • Coach
  • 1,397 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Wilkin’s comment is interesting. I’m not sure though that asking players is likely to be that beneficial. It’s a macho sport and who wants to show their hand that they don’t like a certain kind of hit? I value players’ opinions on most matters but player safety is really best left in the hands of medical experts. Most RL lads (or any tough sportsmen) would probably run through a brick wall if asked and if others were watching – that doesn’t make it safe or sensible.

#107 EastLondonMike

EastLondonMike
  • Coach
  • 4,300 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:37 PM

SSN kept showing footage of the Fages/Bousquet incident and commenting 'tackles like this will now be illegal in Rugby League'.. idiots. they always have been!!..

Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk


#108 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 21,161 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

SSN kept showing footage of the Fages/Bousquet incident and commenting 'tackles like this will now be illegal in Rugby League'.. idiots. they always have been!!..

They alway have been illegal or idiots?! :P

If you use "should of", "would of" or "could of", you are a moron.

On Odsal Top baht 'at.

 


#109 HappyDave

HappyDave
  • Coach
  • 3,236 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:19 PM

I think its a shame it has been outlawed as legitimate shots were a great part of the game. However anyone who walks away from the game due to the banning is a complete loser. What they really should be looking into is more serve punishments for shots to the head and neck. Plus as much as I respect Tomkins as a player, players of his ilk bringing football-esq play acting into the game looking for a penalty by going to ground if they feel a slight touch as they're getting up to play the ball, or wrapping their legs in the tacklers so it looks like they are preventing them from playing the ball.
"I've never seen a woman with hairy ears... And I've been to St Helens" - John Bishop

#110 roughyedspud

roughyedspud
  • Coach
  • 4,045 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 01:31 PM

legitimate shots are still legal...like this



its when a player tucks his arm into his side and hits the other guy like he's breaking down a door....like this



thats been outlawed

OLDHAM RLFC
the 8TH most successful team in british RL


#111 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,453 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:02 PM

I can't believe some of you lot think the Theo Fages incident was not a shoulder charge.

Is anyone saying it wasn't a shoulder charge?

I think the debate is more around what was bad about it: The fact that it was a shoulder charge or the fact that it was late and high (which was illegal anyway)
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

#112 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:32 PM

legitimate shots are still legal...like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9qkkEZGG80

its when a player tucks his arm into his side and hits the other guy like he's breaking down a door....like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdtb-_3MTE

thats been outlawed


I understand this, I'm just skeptical of how it is going to be policed. It comes back to the figure of 0.05% of tackles being a shoulder charge or there only being one in 20% of games. I suspect we'll see a rash of penalties for anything that looks remotely like a shoulder charge, whether it uses the arm or it doesn't and as a result we will see far fewer instances of forwards putting a shot on even if they are legitimate. After all why take the risk of the penalty?

If it truly is such a small number it makes you wonder why they would bother with the banning. If it's only 0.05% of tackles then the number of dangerous tackles must be far less and dwarfed by dangerous spear tackles or high shots. It has been on both sides of the world, a bit of a PR disaster and will inevitably cause another grey area for referees that I suspect will lead to far fewer shots all round.

#113 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,599 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:52 PM

yes I want them to die. At least two players a game, one a side.

Pathetic.
Cannibal chiefs chew Camembert cheese,cos chewing keeps them cheeky.

#114 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,599 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 02:53 PM

It's my guess that generally, those calling for the abolishment of the shoulder charge, are people who have never set foot on a rugby league field. Some current Super League coaches keep being referred to as being opposed to the shoulder charge; however I wouldn't be surprised if their viewpoints were simply based on the fact that they are not medical practitioners and thus feel unqualified to challenge the ban and/or the research performed by Aussies.

Personally I would like to examine the medical data/report. Those in favour of the ban are hiding behind "player safety" and the heralded medical data. This article by the Brisbane Times certainly raises a few eyebrows and as a sport we need to examine the medical data and the report's concluding arguments very carefully.

http://www.brisbanet...1123-29ypk.html

Ah the old chestnut,people calling for it to be banned have never played the game.
Cannibal chiefs chew Camembert cheese,cos chewing keeps them cheeky.

#115 manofthematch

manofthematch
  • Coach
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:14 PM

Is anyone saying it wasn't a shoulder charge?

Yes - yourself and Omega - keep up old boy! ;)

#116 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,453 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:20 PM

Yes - yourself and Omega - keep up old boy! ;)

I never said it wasn't a shoulder charge, I was saying the problem was that it was high. If it had been a normal tackle and hit the same place, it would have also been illegal
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

#117 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 21,575 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:24 PM

They alway have been illegal or idiots?! :P


Yes. HTH. :D

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#118 manofthematch

manofthematch
  • Coach
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:29 PM

As for your offer, if they hurt as much as you say they do, what happens if I get seriously injured from one of those tackles?

Should they then be banned as well?


My point was that you say the game is turning into a game of tick & pass which is pure nonsence. My offer was to prove that this is not so the game is tough enough without the SC. I don't know if you ever played the game Mike but it's a well known thing amongst former players (at whatever level) when watching the game they wonder why they ever played this sport in the first place!? It's brutal enough even when it's played fairly.

#119 manofthematch

manofthematch
  • Coach
  • 191 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

I never said it wasn't a shoulder charge, I was saying the problem was that it was high. If it had been a normal tackle and hit the same place, it would have also been illegal

It certainly looks like you were implying that when you replied to Terrywebbisgod's post of

We've almost had one fatality this season,Theo Fages stopped breathing from a poorly timed shoulder charge.Would you prefer it if someone actually died.

A poorly timed high shot

Does it not?

#120 Maximus Decimus

Maximus Decimus
  • Coach
  • 7,712 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 04:58 PM

My point was that you say the game is turning into a game of tick & pass which is pure nonsence. My offer was to prove that this is not so the game is tough enough without the SC. I don't know if you ever played the game Mike but it's a well known thing amongst former players (at whatever level) when watching the game they wonder why they ever played this sport in the first place!? It's brutal enough even when it's played fairly.


I don't dispute that and I doubt there are many people that think the game isn't still tough. Of course there have been sarcastic comments but I think these are more based on the idea that the game is going soft rather than gone soft.

There has been a shift change with this rule. It's almost like we've accepted that the game has got too tough and are trying to restrict how tough it is. It isn't on a par with banning high tackles, chicken wings or spear tackles which cannot be used effectively and are only likely to cause injury.

I know I couldn't take 6 tackles against an organised team although that said I wouldn't fancy doing it against the Rugby Union lot either. This is one of the things that frustrates me about this decision. One of the appeals of RL for many is the fact that it has set itself up as the toughest sport and that includes big shots from things like SC. Without it, our shots are no bigger than the ones you would get in Rugby Union. It's like we've lost a little something that made us unique.

I'm glad you didn't go for the Martyn Sadler fallacy. He spoke about this last year by making out that anybody who wants it should take a shot himself and see how they feel after it. The obvious flaw to this was your Greg Inglis example, I'd rather not take that perfectly legal example either!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users