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

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

I see your point and agree boxing has upped its game with regard to fighter welfare.

It is still a sport that promotes punching to the head though and it only takes one punch as they say.... Everybody at all levels of rugby league who lace up a boot knows the risks involved. The head high shoulder charges we are talking about here are mainly the result of poor technique or the attacker ducking into the tackle at the last moment. Done correctly the shoulder charge benefits our game and sets us apart from other codes.

I'll say it again, lets heavily increase the tariff for the bad shots, but don't penalise those players who can use this skill well (and yes I do believe the well timed shoulder charge is a skill).

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?

Better player welfare, less thuggish behaviour and fewer injuries and reduced risk of serious head/spinal injuries.

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.

Well it is not intetresting is it, just supporting your viewpoint. Of greater significance was the view of the medical staff who were concerned about possible damage to his neck.

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

No you have misunderstood what information was supplied. Shoulder charges are more like to cause a serious injury over a regular tackle by an order of magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is not intetresting is it, just supporting your viewpoint. Of greater significance was the view of the medical staff who were concerned about possible damage to his neck.

It's an interesting point to me! I've yet to hear any player agree with the ban and I can understand why. As an ex amateur player myself who took his fair shot of shoulder charges, I would never want it to be removed from the game.

Obviously pre-meditated attacks to the head have no place in our game. Of the high profile incidents last season though, I can't think of any where I thought that they were deliberate "thuggish" acts. Thats why I believe we should reduce the number of these incidents by increasing the punishment period, even to the point of three strikes and your out for habitual offenders.

This all strikes me as a "nanny state" situation. The players are happy with the game but their opinion does not seem to count.

Also, the medical staff were so concerned about Dean Young that they allowed him to play the following week. It may have been that their opinion was over-ruled by St George and the player himself, in which case should the ARLC not be concentrating on how clubs deal with injury rehabilitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting point to me! I've yet to hear any player agree with the ban and I can understand why. As an ex amateur player myself who took his fair shot of shoulder charges, I would never want it to be removed from the game.

Obviously pre-meditated attacks to the head have no place in our game. Of the high profile incidents last season though, I can't think of any where I thought that they were deliberate "thuggish" acts. Thats why I believe we should reduce the number of these incidents by increasing the punishment period, even to the point of three strikes and your out for habitual offenders.

This all strikes me as a "nanny state" situation. The players are happy with the game but their opinion does not seem to count.

It's an interesting and relevant point and I don't see how dhw can claim otherwise. Players have been presented with the risks involved with shoulder charges and from what I can see are universally in favour of retaining them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I would argue that a 10m rule is not a strong "part of the game" and in fact is a good reason why the shoulder charge is being banned. A 10m rule allows more time for defenders to race in with much more momentum on a shoulder charge making it more dangerous.

Lets get rid of the 10m rule (to a 5-7m rule) and retain the showder charge

Hell no!

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

How is it more dangerous than spear tackles which seem to happen more frequently in RU than RL? If a moron gave another player brain damage from contact with the head, how would it be different from players who have died and been crippled in RU due to the dangers of competitive scrums?

How are shoulder charges more dangerous than boxing and MMA (e.g. Suplexes)?

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.

I agree with you there. I think 6 - 8 game ban for contact with the head with shoulder. Although I'd make an example of 'headhunters' like Chase by banning them for 10 - 12 for malicious play, including forearms and elbows to the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that there will be many people who have actually played the game that will want it banned. Some of the best moments, the most memorable moments and always the bits used in highlight reels are the shoulder hits. Let's not lose them, but more importantly let's not let an Aussie domestic decision affect ours or the international choice.

In years to come international rugby will be like summer conference - a big shoulder goes in during the summer and all the union boys are up in arms until you explain it's allowed, union boys will just be replaced by Aussies in internationals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'the players want it kept' 'the players are happy with it', etc.

How do we know this? Have they been asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'the players want it kept' 'the players are happy with it', etc.

How do we know this? Have they been asked?

The wonders of modern technology i.e. Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wonders of modern technology i.e. Twitter.

Straight from all the horses mouths!

Probably one of the best things about Twitter is getting immediate reactions from players when big stories break. I follow a large number of players and most have commented and all have been against a ban, and thats players in Aus and over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players are happy with the game but their opinion does not seem to count.

The players were asked.

One responded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players were asked.

One responded.

They were emailed apparently. I dont believe that the players imagined it would get outlawed without further discussions, but if you want to get an answer from the players you wouldnt email them individually, do they not have a players union or association that could have responded after speaking to players? Much more likely to get a response that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were emailed apparently. I dont believe that the players imagined it would get outlawed without further discussions, but if you want to get an answer from the players you wouldnt email them individually, do they not have a players union or association that could have responded after speaking to players? Much more likely to get a response that way!

The RLPA will be meeting with the ARLC to have an acronym based chat some time in the future apparently.

Their argument will be that despite their opinions being actively sought the players have been hit too many times in the head to know how and when to respond to basic question-based stimuli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that the players don't seem to have been consulted in a well-structured way, my original thought was that they had.

One point on the twitter thing though, is that naturally the ones who are unhappy with something are going to be vocal on there. I wouldn't expect a player to say 'thank God they are banned, they really hurt!'.

Also, are players really the best people to ask in these instances - I'm not 100% sure. There are medical experts who are better suited. The boxing example has been used, so it's probably relevant to talk about that, but I suspect that if you relaxed some of the rules there then the actual fighters would be supportive, but is that the right decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point on the twitter thing though, is that naturally the ones who are unhappy with something are going to be vocal on there. I wouldn't expect a player to say 'thank God they are banned, they really hurt!'.

Thats what I meant earlier. They were talking about banning it during last season and those making all the noise were those wanting it banned, there weren't too many voicing alternative views. Now its actually been banned, the opposite is true.

Maybe the NRL will be surprised by the strong response against the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were emailed apparently. I dont believe that the players imagined it would get outlawed without further discussions, but if you want to get an answer from the players you wouldnt email them individually, do they not have a players union or association that could have responded after speaking to players? Much more likely to get a response that way!

NOt sure a twitter sample really constitutes an adequete replacement for proper consultation. Perhaps players were reluctant to broadcast their support of the ban for how that would be perceived among their fellow pro's.

On a side point of genuine interest, of the 350 or so SL players and 400 or so NRL first graders, how many are twitterers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, are players really the best people to ask in these instances - I'm not 100% sure. There are medical experts who are better suited.

I wouldn't take all medical opinion either. You could probably find a doctor who would want to ban contact in all sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOt sure a twitter sample really constitutes an adequete replacement for proper consultation. Perhaps players were reluctant to broadcast their support of the ban for how that would be perceived among their fellow pro's.

On a side point of genuine interest, of the 350 or so SL players and 400 or so NRL first graders, how many are twitterers?

Im not saying they should just read twitter and overturn it, but the number of players against it means that its something that should be discussed. Now the ban is in place, id imagine you'd get the players attention when discussing it now!

There are too many to count on twitter, just as an example, having looked at last years Leeds first team players, of the 29 players listed in the first team squad, 22 are on twitter. I have no idea how that compares across all teams as i tend to follow a few from other teams but not the same number as I do Leeds.

As a rough estimate it must be at least half, and that may be a bit conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not saying they should just read twitter and overturn it, but the number of players against it means that its something that should be discussed. Now the ban is in place, id imagine you'd get the players attention when discussing it now!

The ban is not officially in place until they update their laws in early December I believe.

If the ARLC wanted proper consultation from the players why would they not contact the RLPA to arrange an anonymous vote amongst all its members. That only one player in the whole of the NRL responded to the initial e-mail indicates the players true feelings have not been registered, which ever way they may vote.

I believe the decision has now been taken anyway and its unlikely the ARLC would back down now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason American Footballers and Ice Hockey player gain hellish brain injuries is due to taking loads of huge blows to their heads during their careers. Especially 'enforcers' in Ice Hockey who get punched in the head virtually every game they play.

American Footballers ['Gridiron'] players often clash helmets which are apparently like car crashes so the brain rattles around their cranium and in the '60s and '70s concussion was seen as something to laugh about.

"The NFL star and the brain injuries that destroyed him"

http://www.guardian....uries-destroyed

"Are ice hockey 'enforcers' the toughest guys in sport?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-16383129

What is CTE?
  • Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive brain trauma
  • CTE has been known to affect boxers since the 1920s
  • Recent reports have been published of neuropathologically-confirmed CTE in retired professional football players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma

Source: Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy

"The deaths of three hockey “enforcers:” The tragic contradictions of professional sports"

http://www.wsws.org/.../hock-s26.shtml

"They banned the shoulder charge to avoid a negligence charge"

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226522236147

Hmmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason American Footballers and Ice Hockey player gain hellish brain injuries is due to taking loads of huge blows to their heads during their careers. Especially 'enforcers' in Ice Hockey who get punched in the head virtually every game they play.

American Footballers ['Gridiron'] players often clash helmets which are apparently like car crashes so the brain rattles around their cranium and in the '60s and '70s concussion was seen as something to laugh about.

"The NFL star and the brain injuries that destroyed him"

http://www.guardian....uries-destroyed

"Are ice hockey 'enforcers' the toughest guys in sport?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-16383129

"The deaths of three hockey “enforcers:” The tragic contradictions of professional sports"

http://www.wsws.org/.../hock-s26.shtml

"They banned the shoulder charge to avoid a negligence charge"

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226522236147

Hmmm....

But contact to the head is already banned. Are the forces from shoulder charges that excessive compared to more standard tackling techniques?

And comparing it to hockey is slightly unfair as you're effectively comparing it to bare knuckle boxing. Did I read somewhere that the NHL are clamping down on fights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concussions and head injuries are no rare thing in ice hockey for any type of player, not just enforcers. In the last couple of years there have been a few notable cases of players going down with serious concussions (some of which have yet to be recovered from and could well be career ending) from hits which haven't been considered to be that bad. Headshots are a regular occurrence and are often viewed as acceptable, and I'm not aware of any plans to outlaw them. As much as I enjoy the game I can't understand this, it's asking for trouble.

I'm not in favour of banning the shoulder charge in Rugby League but can appreciate why they would take this step as the lack of control involved means that some will inevitably go astray and make high contact. Personally I agree with those suggesting that they remain legal but with heavy punishments for those which hit the head. That would dissuade players from attempting them recklessly yet allow spectacular legal big hits to the body to remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But contact to the head is already banned. Are the forces from shoulder charges that excessive compared to more standard tackling techniques?

According to the commission they are and players are more likely to end up with a serious injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But contact to the head is already banned. Are the forces from shoulder charges that excessive compared to more standard tackling techniques?

And comparing it to hockey is slightly unfair as you're effectively comparing it to bare knuckle boxing. Did I read somewhere that the NHL are clamping down on fights?

You missed my point... That was my point. The idiot journo speaking about 'clones' and 'litigation' completely failedd to understand the reason for brain injuries (CTE?) in North American sport.

Concussions and head injuries are no rare thing in ice hockey for any type of player, not just enforcers. In the last couple of years there have been a few notable cases of players going down with serious concussions (some of which have yet to be recovered from and could well be career ending) from hits which haven't been considered to be that bad. Headshots are a regular occurrence and are often viewed as acceptable, and I'm not aware of any plans to outlaw them. As much as I enjoy the game I can't understand this, it's asking for trouble.

I'm not in favour of banning the shoulder charge in Rugby League but can appreciate why they would take this step as the lack of control involved means that some will inevitably go astray and make high contact. Personally I agree with those suggesting that they remain legal but with heavy punishments for those which hit the head. That would dissuade players from attempting them recklessly yet allow spectacular legal big hits to the body to remain.

I didn't know that about Ice Hockey as I don't watch it but your post is spot on. As I said earlier in this thread I'd go as far as a 10 - 12 game ban for a malicious front of forearm, elbow or shoulder shot to the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the commission they are and players are more likely to end up with a serious injury.

Ahh okay.I'm not going to argue against player welfare, just sad to see them go. Is there any chance you have a link to the study? I'm curious as to how they worked it.

You missed my point... That was my point. The idiot journo speaking about 'clones' and 'litigation' completely failedd to understand the reason for brain injuries (CTE?) in North American sport.

I see, my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017