ARL has banned the shoulder charge - finally

[smartcooky]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/n...rom-rugby-league/story-e6frfgbo-1226520747167

RL has finally realised that the risk of injury and chronic head issues down the track is too great to ignore.

 

[dasNdanger]

Kinda sad to see that most of the comments from coaches and fans alike indicate that the game won't be exciting without the charges. Rugby union hasn't had shoulder charges for ages and it's still a very exciting game to watch. It's almost as if league fans want a blood sport, not a contact sport.

das

 

[jeffb]

Kinda sad to see that most of the comments from coaches and fans alike indicate that the game won't be exciting without the charges. Rugby union hasn't had shoulder charges for ages and it's still a very exciting game to watch. It's almost as if league fans want a blood sport, not a contact sport.

das

:lol:




































Only Jokin

 

[dasNdanger]

:lol:

Only Jokin

Trust me, if I was younger (and a dude), I'd make a great loosehead prop.

And before you say 'there's always women's rugby', what fun is there rolling around in the mud with a buncha broads? (From my standpoint, none. You, however, may have a different opinion. )


das

 

[jeffb]

Trust me, if I was younger (and a dude), I'd make a great loosehead prop.

And before you say 'there's always women's rugby', what fun is there rolling around in the mud with a buncha broads? (From my standpoint, none. You, however, may have a different opinion. )

das

So your not a Hooker then, lol.

Rolling around in the mud with some girls




HEAVEN, lol

 

[dasNdanger]

So your not a Hooker then, lol.

Nah, I'm a bit clumsy off my feet.

Rolling around in the mud with some girls
View attachment 2015
View attachment 2016


HEAVEN, lol

Yeah...no. Sorry, I just don't see it.


das

 

[nickdnz]

To be fair - I think one of the few things going for league was the claim that it was more physical than union because they allowed reckless and dangerous tackles. Now other than being easier to understand the rules of (you only need the capactiy to count to 6), I don't know what league has going for it.

 

[smartcooky]

To be fair - I think one of the few things going for league was the claim that it was more physical than union because they allowed reckless and dangerous tackles. Now other than being easier to understand the rules of (you only need the capactiy to count to 6), I don't know what league has going for it.

As I understand the stats, in the 2012 NRL season, less than a quarter of one percent of the 146,000 tackles made were shoulder charges but those few were responsible for 25% of the game's injuries.

That is a damning statistic any way you slice it.

 

[nickdnz]

As I understand the stats, in the 2012 NRL season, less than a quarter of one percent of the 146,000 tackles made were shoulder charges but those few were responsible for 25% of the game's injuries.

That is a damning statistic any way you slice it.

Yeah - I totally understand that they are dangerous and it's irresponsible for any sporting body to allow it, as it certainly is bad for an athletes well being. But it's also one of the few aspects that contributes to league as a spectacle, over rugby. I morally disagree with bull fighting, but take away the bull and it's going to hurt attendances.

 

[dasNdanger]

I don't watch much league play (mostly because I can't get past that silly fish-flop move a player makes to get back on his feet), but even with the little I've watched league does seem to be a more consistently exciting game. I think the nature of the league game makes it a more physical game than union in that it's faster paced. And the faster the game, the more likely you'll see big hits. The union game often does get bogged down in multiple tackles and rucks leading to softer tackles. But when a player is able to reach max speed and then gets hit the tackle is certainly more exciting, regardless of the game being played, though it does seem to happen more in the league game.



das

 

[Teh Mite]

I wonder how those prune faced, walking chips-on-shoulders Eddie Hemmings and Steve-o will take this.

 

[UilamOsa]

As I understand the stats, in the 2012 NRL season, less than a quarter of one percent of the 146,000 tackles made were shoulder charges but those few were responsible for 25% of the game's injuries.

That is a damning statistic any way you slice it.

I disagree with the ban, and the stats haven't been fully explained*. Whilst I'm happy that their pushing for stronger protection of the head injuries, i think they're going the wrong way about it. I'm not one of those believe that Shoulder Charges make the game of league. (it's not allowed in club level) BUT a stronger deterrent should've been making any head contact 2 game ban, then add everything else on top. (intent, prev history, current points etc) Some of the better shoulder charges were not head shots but chest shots.

This doesn't do my argument any justice, but it helps soften the stats provided in that particular report.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ses-challenge-to-the-data-20121123-29ypk.html

 

[Amobokoboko]

A big pity, would have loved to see a couple of more hits.