Shoulder charge to be BANNED
- Thread starter Napper
- Start date
You want more risk? Meatheads. If all you want is blood, why not just call for the lions to come out versus the Christians? A shoulder tackle low to the mid-section won't attract a penalty, it is the potentially catastrophic hits to the head that are the concern.Napper said:
If you don't like it go cheer for UFC or some other 'sport'. Maybe cock-fighting will satisfy your blood-lust.
eagles2win
Bencher
My thing is this - Australia plays New Zealand next year as per usual prior to origin.
This game isn't run by the ARLC rules and played under international rules (hence the one ref) - so shoulder away boys.
Players that do so shouldn't be cited.
This game isn't run by the ARLC rules and played under international rules (hence the one ref) - so shoulder away boys.
Players that do so shouldn't be cited.
If only the players could organise is decent players association then they may get some input into these decisions. At the moment, they have 'twitter.'
byso said:
Why ? His big hits are proper tackles
Eagles Terrorist said:
There is more skill involved in timing a shoulder charge right than a leg tackle
We probably need to find out exactly how they propose to define 'shoulder charge'.
But if that's true that 17% of shoulder charges (?) made contact with the head last year, then obviously they have to look at that. If someone was badly hurt the commission could hardley pretend they weren't on notice about the potential risk. It's all about insurance and duty of care, I'd say.
But if that's true that 17% of shoulder charges (?) made contact with the head last year, then obviously they have to look at that. If someone was badly hurt the commission could hardley pretend they weren't on notice about the potential risk. It's all about insurance and duty of care, I'd say.
If they are banning SC all together this is bollocks..... this decisoin has been made by plonkers in an office that havent even canvassed there number 1 asset... the players.
I cant understand with al the issues that need to be corrected in the game they have chosen a tiny piece of the game to make a call on. I thin i read this morning there were only something like 17 actual shoulder charges last year!!!!!!!!!
if you do it and whack someone in the chin, then its your fault and you pay the penalty..... body on body contact is fine
MOVE ON
I cant understand with al the issues that need to be corrected in the game they have chosen a tiny piece of the game to make a call on. I thin i read this morning there were only something like 17 actual shoulder charges last year!!!!!!!!!
if you do it and whack someone in the chin, then its your fault and you pay the penalty..... body on body contact is fine
MOVE ON
Don't ban this guy. It is my belief that Shoulder Charge should be presumed innocent until the court case.
Being sensible now, I agree with SER8. They need to clearly define this rule before kickoff otherwise it's going to be seriously misinterpreted and penalty milking plus whistle blowing is going to rife.
Though, if they get rid of clearly intended dangerous hits aimed at taking guys out for the game then this can only be good. I'll always remember what Crocker did to Snake in the '07 GF. He took him out and should have been sent off.
Being sensible now, I agree with SER8. They need to clearly define this rule before kickoff otherwise it's going to be seriously misinterpreted and penalty milking plus whistle blowing is going to rife.
Though, if they get rid of clearly intended dangerous hits aimed at taking guys out for the game then this can only be good. I'll always remember what Crocker did to Snake in the '07 GF. He took him out and should have been sent off.
Eagles2nv
DESpicable Manly
Banning shoulder charges isn't the right way to police the issue. A proper shoulder charge is one of the mose effective tackles in rugby league. If the shoulder charge isnt defined before kick off there are going to be alot of unneccesary penalties, or resulting defensive lapses cause people are too scared to make a good tackle.
You can just see a good tackle that is a 'shoulder first in the tackle' being penalised.
Instead of bannig it, they need to lift the repercussions for getting it wrong. GI should have been given 12wks for his hit. Players will be more relectutant to try it if they are given hefty penalties.
You can just see a good tackle that is a 'shoulder first in the tackle' being penalised.
Instead of bannig it, they need to lift the repercussions for getting it wrong. GI should have been given 12wks for his hit. Players will be more relectutant to try it if they are given hefty penalties.
The Eagle said:
Watch the 4 Corners report "Hard Knocks" that looks at head injuries in Union & League. Former Cowboys player Shaun Valentine is interviewed. You would be very naive to think there are no former League players without brain injuries resulting from their playing days.
It looks like I'm in the minority here, but this decision doesn't worry me. While shoulder charges a visually spectacular, they are more often than not ineffective. Firstly, the usual result is the two players bounce off each other and the attacker goes on to make a couple of more metres. Secondly, there is a definite injury risk, usually to the defender. Think of $BW recurring shoulder problems when he was previously in League, mainly due to his poor tackling technique IMO. Or, the much replayed Harrogan hit on Spud (as much as I do love watching that 😉).
I assume, and hope, that the ruling will be similar to Union where you can use the shoulder, as long as you don't contact the head, and are attempting to make a legitimate tackle, ie attempting to use your arms as well.
I assume, and hope, that the ruling will be similar to Union where you can use the shoulder, as long as you don't contact the head, and are attempting to make a legitimate tackle, ie attempting to use your arms as well.
mozgrame
Engorged member
Hahaha!! Gotta love big George...this from twitter!
george roseâ€@gorgeousgrose
Whether its banned or not @D_LUSSICK and @Rex_tokz can expect at least one big boy flyin outta the line for a shoulder charge when we clash!
With the banning of the shoulder charge I will now focus on backflip training and freakish try scoring training. For highlight reel purposes
george roseâ€@gorgeousgrose
Whether its banned or not @D_LUSSICK and @Rex_tokz can expect at least one big boy flyin outta the line for a shoulder charge when we clash!
With the banning of the shoulder charge I will now focus on backflip training and freakish try scoring training. For highlight reel purposes
Stevo
First Grader
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Yeah 17% made contact with the head. But......
Shoulder charges made up 0.05% of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012
That's bugger all.
less than 4% of these resulted in injury to the attacking player and less than 1% to the defensive player
That's even more bugger all!
Townsville Eagle
Reserve Grader
This is a joke. in my view every front on tackle could then be classified as a shoulder charge. When you ht, you hit with the shoulder first and the arms assist. They should just ban a player for 12 weeks if they do a shoulder charge that goes wrong and see how often they go wrong then. The GI one was dangerous, what did they do about it, nothing much from memory. The league is not serious about genuine protection only butt covering. AFL is now officially, yes officially, a tougher sport than NRL. When I want to watch touch footbal I will go to the local park in Townsville to do so. Nine may wish they didn't spend the money soon enough.
I know this would never happen, but i'd love to see the players and coaches completely defy this rule.
Imagine all the teams coming out in the early rounds committing shoulder charges galore.
The judicary suspending 20-30 players each round by round 3, 100 players are suspended.
That would really put egg on ARLC's face, to see all there superstars out and channel 9 going ballistic because they paid 1 billion dollars for NSW cup quality footy.
In all seriousness though, this is a shocking decision. All that was needed was to ramp up the penalties for contact with the head (be it accidental or not) due to a shoulder charge. If you attempt in and get it wrong, minimum 6 weeks ranging up to 12.
Imagine all the teams coming out in the early rounds committing shoulder charges galore.
The judicary suspending 20-30 players each round by round 3, 100 players are suspended.
That would really put egg on ARLC's face, to see all there superstars out and channel 9 going ballistic because they paid 1 billion dollars for NSW cup quality footy.
In all seriousness though, this is a shocking decision. All that was needed was to ramp up the penalties for contact with the head (be it accidental or not) due to a shoulder charge. If you attempt in and get it wrong, minimum 6 weeks ranging up to 12.
The Who
Journey Man
I reckon this 'no SC' rule will cause more controversy than the one it replaces. To me (and comments from almost every RL fan) there is no problem with a SC if it is done properly. The problem comes when it hits the head and not the body.
My suggestion is not to ban SCs, just increase the penalties for those that go wrong and come in contact with the head.
My suggestion is not to ban SCs, just increase the penalties for those that go wrong and come in contact with the head.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
