Shoulder charge to be BANNED

[DSM5]

Matai will have to adjust, simple as that. He's no the only one. I'd like to see only two in a tackle as well. You would see a drop off of the wrestle then. Gillmeister should be hired to show players how to make a hard but fair tackle.

 

[Stevo]

Matai's problem has never been shoulder charging. Swinging arms are more his problem.

 

[Dan]

Whilst I understand the risk, big hits are a part of the game, and it's rare that these do actually result in injury. There have only been a handful of times when the shoulder charge has caused anything too big on the injury front.

Especially when contrasted against the lower leg injuries suffered in normal legs tackles. I guess we need to get used to the fact Oz Tag rules will soon be in play

 

[Brissie Kid]

Manly invented the 'shooter' under 10m rule. Ian Roberts, Dave Gillespie, Solomon Haumono. Then Hoppa nailing Galloway??? against Sharks. That was the beginning of the end of the shoulder charge that day I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LViNhAZDaU

 

[Dan]

Jeez I remember watching that hit live, we came out with plenty of excuses for Hoppa, and I still think the intent was never to knock the guy out, he was trying to leap into the bigger man for the hit and it all just went horribly wrong. Either way it was a pretty bad hit looking at it now in the cold light of day

 

[Eagles Terrorist]

Jeez I remember watching that hit live, we came out with plenty of excuses for Hoppa, and I still think the intent was never to knock the guy out, he was trying to leap into the bigger man for the hit and it all just went horribly wrong. Either way it was a pretty bad hit looking at it now in the cold light of day

That was before my time on the forum, but I was right in front of it. Never did I think it was anything else but intentional. Hoppa lost me at that point.

 

[mozgrame]

Whilst I understand the risk, big hits are a part of the game, and it's rare that these do actually result in injury. There have only been a handful of times when the shoulder charge has caused anything too big on the injury front.

Especially when contrasted against the lower leg injuries suffered in normal legs tackles. I guess we need to get used to the fact Oz Tag rules will soon be in play

I agree. I think they should just up the punishment for "contact with the head" in any form. Maybe a 10min send off straight away, and the tackle to be looked at through the week. If found guilty, or rather determined intentional, an automatic 6week suspension. No player would want that on there resume so they are not going to be told by the coach to rip someones head off for the good of the team.

Players would very quickly adjust their tackling styles, or suffer the wrath of their coaches and team mates. It may even shorten the careers of some hot head thugs that shouldn't be in the game anyway, if teams aren't willing to sign them due to the amount of time they would spend on the sidelines. Put the pressure back on the coaches and ultimately the players themselves to conform.

 

[Dan]

That was early in this sites incarnation I believe. When we were the Alternate Eagles.

 

[mozgrame]

Jeez I remember watching that hit live, we came out with plenty of excuses for Hoppa, and I still think the intent was never to knock the guy out, he was trying to leap into the bigger man for the hit and it all just went horribly wrong. Either way it was a pretty bad hit looking at it now in the cold light of day

That was before my time on the forum, but I was right in front of it. Never did I think it was anything else but intentional. Hoppa lost me at that point.

I remember we had Hop pulling off shots like that on one side, and Kylie Leuluai putting on hits on the other side in those days. Opposition had to be alert back then. LOL

 

[Dan]

I guess I never thought it was intentional because I don't want to believe that any one would want to intentionally harm someone in that way

 

[Stevo]

There isn't a player this decade who has intentionally elbowed anyone in the head the way Hoppa did. Hoppa aint that smart but he ain't that dumb either.

 

[Rex]

R + L = I

Increased knowledge of Risks + shift in Litigation = Inevitability of banning of shoulder charge.

 

[Brissie Kid]

R + L = I

Increased knowledge of Risks + shift in Litigation = Inevitability of banning of shoulder charge.

What's the new knowledge of risk? Always expect to be hit hard if you run with the ball in rugby league. Why is the concussion from other tackles and accidents not subjected to the same formula & banning? Are concussions from everything else less damaging to the brain somehow.

 

[Mals]

Matai's problem has never been shoulder charging. Swinging arms are more his problem.

^This!^

 

[Brookie]

and what is matai's arm connected to? a shoulder?

 

[globaleagle]

shin bone connected to...knee bone...

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Sizing up the shoulder charge ban raises challenge to the data
November 24, 2012


Roy Masters




THE International Rugby Board's chief medical officer, Dr Martin Raftery, while endorsing the Australian Rugby League Commission's ban on the shoulder charge, disputes most of the data used to justify outlawing it.
Raftery, who recently returned from an international conference on concussion in Switzerland, is impeccably qualified to comment on injuries in both codes of rugby. He played for Cronulla (1974-80); was doctor for the Wallabies (2002-08) and the Dragons (1989-2004) and was appointed to the IRB's top medical post before last year's Rugby World Cup.
Rugby union has already banned the shoulder charge but not because players had grown 1.2 centimetres taller and 4 kilograms heavier since 2002, as the ARLC claimed, citing ''a detailed report''.
''This is an attempt to make a casual link with player size without any evidence of a link between size and injury,'' Raftery says. ''I am not aware of any data, including what is available from the 'detailed report' into shoulder charges, showing the increased size of athletes making a shoulder charge more likely to cause an injury, even if this would seem to be logical. Since 2000 [in rugby], despite a proven increase in weight, height and speed of players, injury rates have remained stable and actually returned to the pre-professional levels.''
Advertisement
Raftery also takes issue with NRL players who argue that the injury risk from a shoulder charge is minimal because these tackles represent a very small percentage of all tackles effected, a point ironically made by the ARLC which says shoulder charges comprise only 0.05 per cent of the 142,355 tackles made this year.
''I often hear people quoted saying that the injury risk from a shoulder charge is not that bad,'' he said. ''What these people fail to take into account is the injury per event. For example, in a game there may only be three shoulder charges with one injury (injury rate of one in three events) whereas there may be 10 injuries from tackles but there are 250 tackles in a game (injury rate from a tackle is one in every 25). In this scenario the shoulder charge is over eight times more likely to result in an injury. Data from rugby union confirms that a shoulder charge is 70 per cent more likely to result in an injury when compared with a tackle.''
The ARLC, in justifying the ban, cited a statistic that the average G-force of the shoulder charge measured from accelerometer data taken from GPS tracking was 76 per cent greater than a conventional head-on tackle (10.682 compared to 6.056).
This drew a cynical response from Raftery: ''Whilst this is impressive data, forces measured in American football with accelerometers in helmets do not show a linear relationship between head injury and force. There is also no evidence to suggest a head injury occurs at a specified force. Additionally, there is no link with the severity of a concussion and the level of force. What force data suggests is that athletes have different levels of susceptibility to head injury and the best approach is to eliminate direct forces to the head and face, rather than decide one level of force is OK and another is harmful.''
However, Raftery did endorse one statistic quoted by the ARLC - 17 per cent of shoulder charges resulted in contact with the head of the attacking player. ''The 2012 Concussion Conference in Zurich … strongly recommended that sports look to reduce attacks to the head and face in an effort to reduce concussion and any potential long-term sequelae,'' he said. ''If 17 per cent of shoulder charges result in contact with the head, then the risk is that one in every six shoulder charges will potentially cause a head injury.''
Apart from the ARLC being vulnerable to criticism it is grandstanding with flawed data, it risks accusations of hypocrisy, particularly regarding concerns over player safety. The ARLC had one representative at the Zurich conference, Dr Ron Muratore, the NRL's chief medical officer, whereas the AFL had six present, including an administrator.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/sizing-up-the-shoulder-charge-ban-raises-challenge-to-the-data-20121123-29ypk.html#ixzz2D5EgnaCf

 

[Darren]

Goodbye Matai, good idea we signed a heap of young centres.

 

[Stevo]

Moron

---

and what is matai's arm connected to? a shoulder?

What's your point?

 

[lsz]

Might be worth watching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL6b96jaazU

Then again Darren it might get in the way of your trolling / agenda