|
 |
| 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 | 2761 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2015 | Jul 2014 | 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 | 7177 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 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 |
| Jan 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 People 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 | 18062 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 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?
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
More concussions happen from tackling low and catching the hip of the ball runner. Time to ban low tackles as well?
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2490 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2022 | Aug 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Not convinced either way, In my opinion the thing that needed sorting was the third the man putting the shoulder in when the ball carrier is held & defencless. Do we now stop the ball carrier driving into contact with his shoulder? As said we are backed down this route because the the NRL just do as they please & stuff the rest.
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
As said before on other threads, keep the shoulder charge but have straight reds and long bans when people get it wrong.
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
First they came for the shoulder charge, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then they came for the kick-offs, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then they came for the goal-line drop-outs, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then I was left watching rugby union because I was unable to engage in logical reasoning and they killed rugby league.
And just in case anyone accuses me of using the slippery slope fallacy, keep in mind that once the shoulder charge is gone the media and do-gooders will have to find another bone to chew. There were hints last year that the kick-off will be the next to go.
www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 226km.html
Once the shoulder charge is gone, that [uwill[/u be the next controversy. The NRL will be pressured into another study, they'll find again that injuries are higher in said circumstance, they'll find again that the NFL are worried about it and they'll say they have no choice but to ban it because of threat of lawsuit. My prediction is that in the same swoop, goal-line drop-outs will be taken.
I think it's just a matter of time, sorry to say. Who knows where from there. I think they might draw a line in the sand after that, I can't personally see them reverting to a 5-metre line, but who knows, a Demolition Man style society seems to be a few decades away  |
|
First they came for the shoulder charge, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then they came for the kick-offs, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then they came for the goal-line drop-outs, and I didn't speak out because I'm unable to engage in logical reasoning.
Then I was left watching rugby union because I was unable to engage in logical reasoning and they killed rugby league.
And just in case anyone accuses me of using the slippery slope fallacy, keep in mind that once the shoulder charge is gone the media and do-gooders will have to find another bone to chew. There were hints last year that the kick-off will be the next to go.
www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 226km.html
Once the shoulder charge is gone, that [uwill[/u be the next controversy. The NRL will be pressured into another study, they'll find again that injuries are higher in said circumstance, they'll find again that the NFL are worried about it and they'll say they have no choice but to ban it because of threat of lawsuit. My prediction is that in the same swoop, goal-line drop-outs will be taken.
I think it's just a matter of time, sorry to say. Who knows where from there. I think they might draw a line in the sand after that, I can't personally see them reverting to a 5-metre line, but who knows, a Demolition Man style society seems to be a few decades away | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 5750 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2003 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Scrum halves and general play kickers will absoulutely love this, anyone who attempts to charge a kick down, just run straight at them, hit the deck and claim a penalty for a "shoulder charge"
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 9982 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2015 | Aug 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Bull Mania"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!'"
Couldn't agree more. All this fannying around with the rules is peeing me off, especially when their are more fundamental issues with the game at a more strategic level that should be being addressed. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5507 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2017 | Nov 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The Shoulder charge has been banned from the upcoming weekend onwards.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 4015 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2015 | Feb 2014 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The problem with the game is not the shoulder charge, but the penalty for getting it wrong. The RFL don't have the balls to install and administer strong enough penalties for getting it wrong.
The Bousquet case is a classic example of what is wrong with the game, he makes a fractious appeal against a 4 match ban that really ought to have been half a season knowing that it could be increased if it failed, so he would have had no complaint about it being 5 or 6 matches, and what do the RFL do to discourage such frivolous appeals? Naff all!
They can ban anything they want but until they install penalties big enough to make players such as Bousquet and Chase think twice before committing such cowardly acts it will be pointless because if they think taking a key player out of a team with a high tackle disguised as a shoulder charge will only incur a 1 or 2 match ban with an option of pleading guilty and getting even that reduced then they will continue to do it.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 5392 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 1970 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Whilst I think that a high percentage of shoulder barges don't effect a tackle properly and do clearly increase the chances of injury to both parties I think outlawing it is wrong.
There is far too much of a grey area regarding the actual contact, at what point is it actually shoulder barge?
Given the shoulder should make contact first and foremost in a 'proper' tackle anyway what if the arms do not contact the player even if an attempt is made. How can a referee/touchie who can't even see obvious (and often deliberate) forward passes adjudge in a split second if an attempt was made to put the arms around the opponent at any given point.
Define 'an attempt', do the arms need to be outstretched, do the arms need to make contact at all.
It would reduce concussions/injuries but to a minimal extent but more importantly as many have said there are other things in the game that cause more.
If the RFL want to avoid lawsuits then get the players to sign forms absolving the RFL and clubs from such but allowing them to take civil/criminal proceedings against players who deliberately aim an elbow/blind sided punch/headbutt etc to harm a player, there's never ever an excuse for that.
Attack to the head should be a 10 game suspension with a hefty fine somewhere along the lines of a grand.
The RFL have shown their true colours yet again...s
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 28736 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2016 | Mar 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Spineless s.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 3555 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2023 | Aug 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 8799 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2005 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2015 | Aug 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Heres one to divide the masses!
I agree with the banning of it due to the ridiculously thin line between dangerous and reckless. People can throw stats around all they want but a late and aggressive 'charge' with the shoulder can clearly cause serious injury. I darent say it but it was only a matter of time till someone got/gets really badly injured.
It is a shame to see something that made us different from our brother code come falling down around us and it does take something away from our game but as someone said earlier, a proper full blooded tackle can stir crowds up as much as the charge did.
Not much we can do now its happened however. Players reaction hasn't been overwhelmingly positive either.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 7152 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Words cannot describe how thoroughly p*ssed off and downheartened by this moronic decision I am. Been losing interest in the regular season for a few years and the RFL decide to make our game more repetitive and less interesting. While there's a lot more to the game, 'big hits'are something most of us love.
Pandering to the NRL and RLIF and actually paying attention to those morons in the media who've never even played, and also senile idiots like Stevo - how the hell is that doing our game any good?
Where is the justification for this? The facts, figures and stats showing how often the shoulder charge is used, and the presumably devastating effect the it has had on hundreds of players down the years? How many players have been seriously and/or permanently injured or hospitalised down the years? And if not, why change the bloody rule at all!??
Shoulder charges are not the problem. Attacking people's heads is the problem. The two are not the same thing. RL is often described as repetitive and this decision has just removed one of the most stirring sights in the sport.
Blake Solly and the rest of the idiots involved in this decision - p*ss off to tiddlywinks where you might just fit in. In fact, just p*ss off.  |
|
|
|
|
|
