Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

Shoulder charge now banned in Australia and NZ

138 posts in this topic

Tangi Ropati missed about four months (15 games IIRC) this season after a "shoulder charge" from Chase which got him a 3 match ban.

Your comment is stupid. Players are injured by them. One ended Ian Lucas's career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ranges first tackle above is great, he attempted to use his arms, which would be fine after a rule changa probably. second clip is just being a dirty b@5tard.

personally I liked it when head shots were allowed, however, I believe it was the right decision to ban them due to safety issues. I think the same is true of shoulder charges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This London fan thinks it was too.

Unfortunately, as is often the way here, your opinion is dictated by who you support and we all get ring-fenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont ru play with different rules in different comps at times?

Yes, same goes for cricket and football.

RU and Football has used it to trial new rules usually in lower lower competitions. RU has used it where the NH and SH elite level competitions played significantly different rules. Cricket has had a fairly long history of different countries and regions playing under different rules. The difference here the RLIF has no responsibility of difining internation rules as far as I am aware the rules are chielfy dictated by AUS/ENG/NZ. The other sports mentioned all have governing bodies that are responsible for defining and maintaining rules for internationals and have a say in whether certain countries can have competitions under different rules..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many players have been injured by a shoulder charge in last 5 years who have gone on to miss games?

The report in the original link clearly shows and much greater risk of injury from a shoulder charge as opposed to a tackle with the use of the arms. That report is a lot more scientific than the anecdotal evidence and blind prejudice being provided on here by many supporters of the shoulder charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We discussed this at length during the season, and I am firmly in the camp of keep it in the game but make the punishment for getting it wrong a lot higher. IMHO it is much worse than a high tackle that goes wrong, but often it has incurred bans that are lower than a high tackle.

4-6 matches for one of these in the face will soon stop the reckless ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tangi Ropati missed about four months (15 games IIRC) this season after a "shoulder charge" from Chase which got him a 3 match ban.

Your comment is stupid. Players are injured by them. One ended Ian Lucas's career.

That was an illegal high tackle not a legitimate shoulder charge. I think that's the point I'm trying to make. Stiffer sentancing for illegal tackles are required I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was an illegal high tackle not a legitimate shoulder charge. I think that's the point I'm trying to make. Stiffer sentancing for illegal tackles are required I think

Thats my thought too, make an illegal shoulder charge carry a larger penalty, this may help restrict those attempting them to be more controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't you detect sarcasm?

My sarcasm scanner exploded after I watched X Factor comments on twitter for 37 seconds one evening.

I apologise if I misunderstood your point. I will not however be paying you £185,000 in damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A player carrying the ball drops his shoulder to try and bump a defender in front of him, looking to make a legitimate tackle, out of the way and the attackers shoulder hits the defenders head. Is that a shoulder charge? A defender looking to put a big hit on an attacker by use of a shoulder charge has a similar intention as the attacker in the scenario above, i.e. to knock the other player out of the way or stop his progress. Is one any more dangerous than the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report in the original link clearly shows and much greater risk of injury from a shoulder charge as opposed to a tackle with the use of the arms. That report is a lot more scientific than the anecdotal evidence and blind prejudice being provided on here by many supporters of the shoulder charge.

True, but sport is about those anecdotal moments. If the players are educated and are still willing to run that risk of injury then who is actually benefiting from this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A player carrying the ball drops his shoulder to try and bump a defender in front of him, looking to make a legitimate tackle, out of the way and the attackers shoulder hits the defenders head. Is that a shoulder charge? A defender looking to put a big hit on an attacker by use of a shoulder charge has a similar intention as the attacker in the scenario above, i.e. to knock the other player out of the way or stop his progress. Is one any more dangerous than the other?

Excellent point Mr T.

Are the Aussies opening up a can of worms here. The ref has now the added dilema of trying to determine if the tackler is attempting to wrap his arms around the attacker or not, another grey area. Lets just clamp down on all contact with the head, coaches will soon drill into players their responsibilities if their key men are sat in the stands all the time.

I heard on MMM Sydney radio that the Aussie report on this issue stated that:

  • Of all the tackles in the NRL last year (142,000) only 0.05% were shoulder charges which equated to about 70 tackles.
  • Of these shoulder charges 17% involved contact with the head.
  • Less than 4% of shoulder charge tackles resulted in injury to the attacking player.
  • Less than 1% of shoulder charge tackles resulted in injury to the defending player.

So the type of dangerous tackle to be outlawed contributed less then 0.01% of all tackles, around 12 a season.

In addition the report indicated that a shoulder charge can impart up to 70% more "G Force" on the body of the ball carrier than a conventional tackle.

Don't ask me how they worked all this lot out, just thought I would throw it into the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to hear the views of someone with a good knowledge of the NZ domestic leagues where the shoulder charge was banned in 2006. Did the rule change have any significant impact on the game over there?

Interestingly, Dean Young the player on the end of the Greg Ingis' shoulder charge that seemed to set the wheels in motion for the Aussies reviewing this type of tackle, is against the ban.

http://www.smh.com.a...1121-29qba.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sarcasm scanner exploded after I watched X Factor comments on twitter for 37 seconds one evening.

I apologise if I misunderstood your point. I will not however be paying you £185,000 in damages.

I will accept £3.50 out of court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Dean Young the player on the end of the Greg Ingis' shoulder charge that seemed to set the wheels in motion for the Aussies reviewing this type of tackle, is against the ban.

Its these views that interest me. A player on the receiving end of the biggest shoulder charge I saw last year (and it was an illegal one too) does not want it to be outlawed. Ive still not seen a player in favour of the ban.

It seems that during the furore over them last year, and the clamour to stamp it out, it was only those that wanted it banned that made a load of noise. Those that were fine with it kept quiet. Now that the ARL have banned it, they are seeing that the majority of the game, including its players, seem happy for it to be legal. The high and illegal shoulder charges should carry at least a 4-6 match ban, which should encourage fewer attempts, but would not rub out the controlled and successful charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the players are educated and are still willing to run that risk of injury then who is actually benefiting from this?

“We ought not to allow people to be destroyed -- either all at once, or one concussion at a time -- for our amusement. Doing so makes us amoral. Hell, it makes us vampires.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the type of dangerous tackle to be outlawed contributed less then 0.01% of all tackles, around 12 a season.

And all it will take is one to be a life-destroying injury for the NRL to be bankrupt for eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all it will take is one to be a life-destroying injury for the NRL to be bankrupt for eternity.

A life destroying injury could happen in any form of tackle on a rugby pitch. Shall we just revert to a touch and pass league.

If the threat of litigation against them is the major concern maybe they should speak to the boxing authorities and learn how they manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the threat of litigation against them is the major concern maybe they should speak to the boxing authorities and learn how they manage.

Boxing has upped its game in terms of stopping fights since the 90s. Any ideas why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boxing has upped its game in terms of stopping fights since the 90s. Any ideas why?

Lots of head high shots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of head high shots?

In all seriousness, compare ringside medicine and how long fights went on prior to the 1990s and what happens now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017