|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18802 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2015 | Aug 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Looks like it's going to be outlawed from today.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2762 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Link?
Interesting post considering its been announced that the shoulder charge will not be permitted in the world club challenge as the international federation have sided with the aussies. Which will probably mean that the shoulder charge will be outlawed for the world cup and as a result, the RFL will probably follow suit and outlaw the shoulder charge.
Then when someone gets a nasty bang in the head from a chest to chest tackle, there'll be calls to ban that type of tackle too.... tackling is a key part of the game - how far do the rule makers go on this subject?
look at soccer....where tackling is almost outlawed whereas 10 years ago players could get stuck right in... If we're not careful, we'll end up with touch and pass every week!
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 7209 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Cannot tell you how much i'm against this. What is this going to achieve? Just because a few people in the media have been moaning about it, the RFL suddenly cave in.
Contact with the head is already illegal, so just making a tackling technique illegal isn't going to change that. All it will do is infuriate fans when it comes to interpretation. Whats the difference between the shoulder charge and someone hitting with their shoulder? How are the referees suppose to define a shoulder charge.
It's changed nothing in protecting the players as they haven't been any "challenges" that people have gotten away with with the shoulder charge been legal. Ridiculous ruling!
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5880 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I don't think it will make much of a difference, we haven't even seen that many shoulder charges so far this season - the only ones we have seen have been illegal challenges anyway!
You don't need a shoulder charge to dominate a tackle - Lulia on Shenton last Friday was a great example of how to make an impact without the use of the shoulder.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 7665 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
awfull decision just as it was when the Ausies banned it a couple of months ago.
massive over reaction, stats show there are very few injuries resulting from the shoulder charge. of course someone will point to the exeptions to make a case for a ban but the facts dont support removing this element from our game.
furthermore it shows that we've taken it up the rear from the Ausies again.
Pathetic decision that lessens the game for no reason.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 156 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2013 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2015 | May 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| To quote myself from the other day because I can't be d writing out my views again...
Quote wrapPeople who support and cannot see the massive change the shoulder charge is going to bring, they're naive. The problem is that you have league people who are judging what and what isn't a shoulder charge on current, rugby league criteria. But just because that is the criteria now that doesn't mean that's what the criteria is going to be 5 years, 15 years down the line, once the ban has really taken effect. The criteria is going to change; the sport is going to be worse off for it.
Case in point: If you were to sit a rugby fan in front of a league game, they wouldn't find 2 shoulder charges a game - or whatever obscure number the NRL landed on to sex up their study - they'd find you, in their opinion, a 'shoulder charge' every 10 tackles. Somebody mentioned the Fa'asavalu rib tickler the other year. Well, I put that tackle on the video website that cannot be named about the time it happened and, after being featured on a popular rugby website, there was an interesting response. Numerous rugby fans thought it was an illegal tackle by rugby standards, given that Leuluai bounced off him and there was no "wrap" - that was the response.
As for the "clear medical evidence", it's interesting to me that it's responded to ever so selectively. The study found that shoulder charge tackles had a higher g force then tackles with traditional use of the arm, which equates to higher risk of brain trauma, and that's fairly obvious. As a result, and because of supposed threat of lawsuit, the shoulder charge has been wiped from their competitions as it's too much of a risk.
Now what's interesting about that is that while their findings are correct, to an extent, you could just as easily find several other aspects of the game which, if you wanted to put them under a microscope individually, are just as dangerous. It's purely conjecture here, but, maybe more so. Other elements of the game could be more dangerous.
You can look at the injuries in the case of Burgess - O'Donnell, Mika - Amor, Poore - Lincoln, Te'o - Greenfield, Kasiano - Fa'aoso, Walker - Burgess, etc, and you can see other causation's. Is it not true that the nature of the rugby league kick-off is conductive to huge collisions, higher g-force, serious risk of brain trauma.
What about the 10 metre line. Do you not think that if we compared g-force and brain trauma between a 5 metre line and 10 metre line that the latter would be a major cause of head injury. Goal-line drop-outs, for the same reason, are a major cause of head injuries.
Space, allowing for momentum, is the biggest threat to player safety in rugby league. Surpassing the shoulder charge quite easily. By removing the shoulder charge you'll see a very minor negative trend in brain trauma, a change so small that it won't be worth mentioning. If you wanted to make an actual, serious dint in brain trauma, the serious way to do it would be to go back to the 5 metre retreat, ban the kick off, do away with the goal-line drop-out, maybe even go so far as to put a rule in place to limit the number of players in the tackle. Realistically speaking, any one of those changes would make anywhere between as much difference as the shoulder charge ban to a whole heap more difference.
Or, what about this radical idea: Introduce a rule which makes the continued playing, or re-entry of a concussed player, a punishable offence. At the same time, bring in a mandatory sitting out period for a concussed player, as boxing do. Concussed? You're not playing for, at least, two weeks. You want to get really radical and serious about the pressing issue of brain trauma? Ban club doctors who are found to be complicit in fielding players suffering from, or who've suffered, brain trauma.
There are a lot of things that could be done to combat this issue, but the ARL aren't bothered about doing them because they don't care about brain trauma. The fans who support the ban, yeah, I don't think you really care about brain trauma either.
And as for lawsuits. Lawsuit for what? High shots that are already illegal. I'm not well versed in the law, but it doesn't make sense to me. How can an organisation be at risk of lawsuit for brain trauma resulting from an act that's illegal, but not face the same risk - an added risk, actually - for brain trauma which results from legal, accepted play.
Another question on lawsuits. If organisations can face lawsuit over head trauma because of illegal hits to the head, wouldn't the new found illegality of the shoulder charge not matter? Hits to their head have happened and injured people regardless of them being illegal. Shoulder charges are now illegal, but they're still going to happen and people are still going to get hurt from them.
The two points in my last two paragraphs baffle me. If someone could explain that, I'd love to know. As a layman it makes bugger all sense to me. Just thinking about it puts me at risk of brain trauma. I sense my head is on the verge of imploding!
From the little I know of the NFL situation, lawsuits are being faced because the NFL concealed information and teams encouraged players to play through their injuries, or they'd lose their place in the team obviously. That's widespread in league, too. Not the concealment of information, but players being pressured and financially coerced into playing through concussion. Club doctors are coerced into allowing it, also. But I can't see anyone in league talking about sitting players on the sidelines for several weeks if they've had a concussion.
I can't make sense of any of it. The only logical conclusion I've landed on is that the ARL banned the shoulder charge because of a rather nasty media campaign which was waged against the shoulder charge, and the NRL for not acting on it. Rather than for safety it seems to me a move to protect/improve the image of the game. I'd liken it to the rugby union ban of rucking about a decade ago. '"
Bolded the bit I'd appreciate someone explaining. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 14082 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2017 | Feb 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
fcking sick of bowing down to the NRL. The game gets softer every year.
The decision was based on totally different circumstances emerging from the NFL. They are facing multiple lawsuits, not from allowing shoulder charges but from allowing head to head contact. They have now rubbed it out the game but surprise surprise still allow full on shoulder charge tackles. The whole basis for the decision is flawed and changes the very nature of what makes RL stand apart from every other game out there. Hang your heads in shame you RL pencil necks!
I was at the NRL allstars game at the weekend and the two events that drew biggest roar from the crowd and had everyone on their feet were two shoulder chartges. One was penalised, one wasn't. Just give the refs another opportunity to frick up with interpretation of another new rule. We are in the entertainment business, the fans wnat choulder charges, the players want shoulder charges, the coaches want shoulder charges. Just the beauracrats who seem scared of them!
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 14970 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2021 | Nov 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Shows how much the Aussies/NRL influence the RLIF
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 28186 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2016 | Aug 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Another rule change that is going to rely on refereeing interpretation. That shouldn't cause any problems...
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18072 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Mar 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The game doesn't need shoulder charges - correct technique will deliver the same result without the risk of what happened to Hardaker last week. Perhaps all those baying for the shoulder charges thought what happened to Hardaker was ok? acceptable colateral!!
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 484 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2017 | Feb 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
id like to see the reasoning, rather than just research has proved its bad.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 14082 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2017 | Feb 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So was there a rlif meeting this week, where did it take place and what was on the agenda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
