Dear NRL HQ & the media...

[mrslong]

I agree with you a lot of the time but not on this. The shoulder charge ban was the same situation as this, a knee jerk reaction to something that's not even a problem. Sure, some shoulder charges were going wrong and getting up too high...but they always have, and still do (ie Papa lastnight). Any shoulder charge to the head, intentional or not, should always have had the book thrown at it and for the most part they did. There's always been rules around attacking the head, the refs just gave far too much leeway with it. Blow the pea out of the fucking whistle, send them off, whatever...those rules have alwaysbeen there to be used.

Shoulder charges are not illegal play and IMO have a place in the game. Does anyone not enjoy watching a big shoulder charge done right? They're potentially game changing events, especially in the current iteration of the game with gluts of possession and few ways to get the ball back when you don't have it. I'd go so far as to say a well-timed and well-placed shoulder charge is less likely to cause a head injury than a textbook hips tackle, or the current shoulder-into-chest tackles, as both players heads are up and out of the way. It's still a crying shame they were ever rubbed out of the game.

Yeah nah brah, the shoulder charge literally killed a bloke. It’s almost as dangerous as a spear tackle because when it does go wrong it can go horribly wrong.

 

[berrigan]

His partner in crime Abdo seems to get off scot-free regarding criticism. Does he have no say? (sincere question)

 

[Kimlo]

His partner in crime Abdo seems to get off scot-free regarding criticism. Does he have no say? (sincere question)

Because it's not Abdo making any decisions. He's just Vlandys little bitch puppet.

If Abdo had any self respect he'd resign.

 

[berrigan]

Because it's not Abdo making any decisions. He's just Vlandys little bitch puppet.

If Abdo had any self respect he'd resign.

He should leave. I saw him talking on Channel 9 today, and he didn't seem to even understand the game. I then just read that he only saw his first game of RL 8 years ago and found it 'exciting' (or something). Not so exciting anymore!

 

[BroncsFan]

The new rules are driving fans (especially older ones) away in a sport which can't afford to lose supporters. The TV ratings have been pathetic this year (and last) rating even less than Big Brother. I understand world sport has come of age and has wiped out any rough stuff. For example the NHL which is totally fucked these days and is like soccer on ice but it still maintains it's popularity.

Rugby League is a different beast though. Rubbing out fighting, shoulder charges, head contact etc is changing the total fabric of the game= fans losing interest. Not to mention the six again rule which has also turned fans off. I for one still love the game but I didn't grow up with it in my veins and I certainly don't blame supporters for becoming disenchanted.

I think the high tackle crackdown is obviously targetted at making the game appear more palatable to the mums and dads in an attempt to increase junior participation and I would say that is desperately needed if there is to be longevity for the game.

The 6 again rule appears to be a reactive off the cusp rule by an egotistical moron in an attempt to appease his NSWRL media overlords... Kunt is all about introducing fatigue back into the game to 'bring back the little man', because our best players in recent times have obviously been the NAS and Junior Paulos of the world rather than the JT's and Lockyers who weren't allowed to showcase their talents previously.

From a strategic point of view (if that even exists in the NRL outside of MOAR QLD TEAMS!!), I think the market they are trying to attach themselves to is the NBA style.

NBA is hyper athletic, skillful and is offense first with highlight reels galore, but is effectively non-contact and therefore doesn't rely on brutality or physicality (except at the rim).

I'm no longer young, but it seems the youth of today are becoming more and more attracted to NBA and basketball, far more than any other 'international sport' (football/soccer, NFL, NHL, baseball, etc.).

If you watch an NBA highlight reel on youtube you would think it's all dunks, 'breaking ankles', 3 pointers and buzzer beaters... but it's actually a serious grind with tons of fouls leading to free throws and timeouts halting play for minutes at a time. A good shooting percentage is above 50%... so on a good day only every second shot will actually go in. However, NBA players are fast becoming celebrity status and you can often see NBA jerseys throughout the city.

Despite this the NBA has a huge following even though it's only moments throughout the game that are actually spectacular (I think their popularity can be largely attributed to video game simulations and most notably the NBA 2k series, but that's a different post altogether).... but getting back to NRL I think they certainly have the product to match up with the same characteristics as the NBA highlight reel style, if not be more suited to that style of entertainment, as our whole game is non-stop and hyper athletic all the time.

I think with proper marketting the NRL can definitely survive on the athleticism and skillfulness alone (i.e. moving away from the brutality and physicality)... but does it end up becoming more like OzTag? Yes... but it will improve public perception and junior participation, which ensures the sport survives in the future.

Where the NRL are seriously failing at the moment is their game is not staged or positioned properly to tap into the kids. Only 3 games a week are on free to air TV and 2 of those games are after 8pm (most kids are in bed or going to bed by then). Across the whole weekend there's typically only 2-3 day games (Saturday 3pm, Sunday 4pm and sometime Sunday 2pm) and only 1 of those is on free to air... that is not accessible when you want to tap into a young demographic.

Looking quickly at the AFL it appears they don't typically have a Thursday game and only one Friday game, 3/4 Saturday games appear to start before 4:30pm and on Sunday all 3 games are before 5pm... @Sproj would need to confirm if that's typical scheduling, but if it is then it looks like only 2 games a week on average are after 7:30pm!! It's also well noted that NRL looks the best when it's played in dry sunny conditions instead of dewy and slippery conditions, but the broadcasters have steered NRL away from that through scheduling.

I think the NRL need to seriously resolve the scheduling issue before they tinker too much with the rules.

They need to ensure the kids are devoted and participating in the sport before they lose their existing 'adult' audience... If the game moves too far away from what the adult audience want too quickly then they can lose interest in the sport and just cancel the subscription before it's ingrained in the next generation of kids (who are finding it harder and harder to watch or play the bloody sport in the first place). However, it's pretty bloody hard to say no to the kids and cancel the subscription if they are devoted to the sport.

An adult may lose interest in the sport if it's no longer what they want, but if the kids want to watch it every week, are participating in it every week and it's easily accessible (i.e. day games), then I think you will find that the parents will keep the subscription, because it's in the best interest of their kids to keep it.

 

[Midean]

Yeah nah brah, the shoulder charge literally killed a bloke. It’s almost as dangerous as a spear tackle because when it does go wrong it can go horribly wrong.

I disagree.
I don't want to sound insensitive, and it was a tragedy that a young bloke lost his life playing footy.
But he is one death out of how many footballers in how many shoulder charge tackles?

Under this logic, you would have to ban tackles altogether because every tackle has the potential to be fatal depending on the circumstances.

Look at Mckinnon, the tackle on him was legal, and just a horror accident.
Ackerman died because of a freak accident, just like Mckinnon.

Any head high shot should be heavily penalized, but accidents are bound to happen.

 

[Midean]

I think the high tackle crackdown is obviously targetted at making the game appear more palatable to the mums and dads in an attempt to increase junior participation and I would say that is desperately needed if there is to be longevity for the game.

The 6 again rule appears to be a reactive off the cusp rule by an egotistical moron in an attempt to appease his NSWRL media overlords... Kunt is all about introducing fatigue back into the game to 'bring back the little man', because our best players in recent times have obviously been the NAS and Junior Paulos of the world rather than the JT's and Lockyers who weren't allowed to showcase their talents previously.

From a strategic point of view (if that even exists in the NRL outside of MOAR QLD TEAMS!!), I think the market they are trying to attach themselves to is the NBA style.

NBA is hyper athletic, skillful and is offense first with highlight reels galore, but is effectively non-contact and therefore doesn't rely on brutality or physicality (except at the rim).

I'm no longer young, but it seems the youth of today are becoming more and more attracted to NBA and basketball, far more than any other 'international sport' (football/soccer, NFL, NHL, baseball, etc.).

If you watch an NBA highlight reel on youtube you would think it's all dunks, 'breaking ankles', 3 pointers and buzzer beaters... but it's actually a serious grind with tons of fouls leading to free throws and timeouts halting play for minutes at a time. A good shooting percentage is above 50%... so on a good day only every second shot will actually go in. However, NBA players are fast becoming celebrity status and you can often see NBA jerseys throughout the city.

Despite this the NBA has a huge following even though it's only moments throughout the game that are actually spectacular (I think their popularity can be largely attributed to video game simulations and most notably the NBA 2k series, but that's a different post altogether).... but getting back to NRL I think they certainly have the product to match up with the same characteristics as the NBA highlight reel style, if not be more suited to that style of entertainment, as our whole game is non-stop and hyper athletic all the time.

I think with proper marketting the NRL can definitely survive on the athleticism and skillfulness alone (i.e. moving away from the brutality and physicality)... but does it end up becoming more like OzTag? Yes... but it will improve public perception and junior participation, which ensures the sport survives in the future.

Where the NRL are seriously failing at the moment is their game is not staged or positioned properly to tap into the kids. Only 3 games a week are on free to air TV and 2 of those games are after 8pm (most kids are in bed or going to bed by then). Across the whole weekend there's typically only 2-3 day games (Saturday 3pm, Sunday 4pm and sometime Sunday 2pm) and only 1 of those is on free to air... that is not accessible when you want to tap into a young demographic.

Looking quickly at the AFL it appears they don't typically have a Thursday game and only one Friday game, 3/4 Saturday games appear to start before 4:30pm and on Sunday all 3 games are before 5pm... @Sproj would need to confirm if that's typical scheduling, but if it is then it looks like only 2 games a week on average are after 7:30pm!! It's also well noted that NRL looks the best when it's played in dry sunny conditions instead of dewy and slippery conditions, but the broadcasters have steered NRL away from that through scheduling.

I think the NRL need to seriously resolve the scheduling issue before they tinker too much with the rules.

They need to ensure the kids are devoted and participating in the sport before they lose their existing 'adult' audience... If the game moves too far away from what the adult audience want too quickly then they can lose interest in the sport and just cancel the subscription before it's ingrained in the next generation of kids (who are finding it harder and harder to watch or play the bloody sport in the first place). However, it's pretty bloody hard to say no to the kids and cancel the subscription if they are devoted to the sport.

An adult may lose interest in the sport if it's no longer what they want, but if the kids want to watch it every week, are participating in it every week and it's easily accessible (i.e. day games), then I think you will find that the parents will keep the subscription, because it's in the best interest of their kids to keep it.

Well said.
Im 41 and feel like an old fart for my opinions on this matter, and am wondering if i am just out of touch myself, and a relic of a bygone era of the game.

For reference though, the AFL this Friday had a NSW tv audience of 750k, whereas the RL, in magic round had 450k.
Saturday had AFL had a tv audience of 450k, the NRL averaged 250k over its games.
The numbers don't lie.

Weekend TV ratings Saturday May 15, 2021

TV ratings: Seven’s football audience didn’t make it to half a million this week, but the audience of 429,000 was enough to win the night

www.mediaweek.com.au

 

[LittleDavey]

Yeah nah brah, the shoulder charge literally killed a bloke. It’s almost as dangerous as a spear tackle because when it does go wrong it can go horribly wrong.

Going to echo @Midean here, there's been players who have also died as a result of legal tackles, hitting the posts - or even heart issues during the game. Do we eradicate all tackles and become touch? Of course not. Do we remove the posts? Um...no. And you better tell Vlandys that speeding the game up & increasing fatigue is just going to increase the risk of people keeling over from cardiac arrest. Are any of those things the fault of the game? No. Neither is a shoulder charge gone wrong.

It's a tough game with the potential for severe injury or, at worst, death. Like so many other sports and hobbies. Inherent risk needs to be accepted as part and parcel of the activity.

 

[Big Pete]

Look at Mckinnon, the tackle on him was legal, and just a horror accident.

No it wasn't, it was a spear tackle and McLean was rubbed out of the game for seven weeks.

The shoulder charge was not a proper tackle and it was far more dangerous than a regular tackle. I don't see a slippery slope argument at all.

 

[Manifesto]

Andrew Moore on ABC radio absolutely tearing apart Vlandeys. Apparently, PVJ has blamed the refs for too many penalties/sin bins and thrown them under the bus, now will change the rules AGAIN. Absolute disgrace, this is disgusting from the head of RL. No wonder why the game is being destroyed

 

[Midean]

No it wasn't, it was a spear tackle and McLean was rubbed out of the game for seven weeks.

The shoulder charge was not a proper tackle and it was far more dangerous than a regular tackle. I don't see a slippery slope argument at all.

Apologies, it was a tipping tackle, so while it was illegal, it was not a spear tackle and we see plenty of those tackles each week that are nothing more than a penalty.

In fact, the only reason Mclean was rubbed out for seven weeks was because of the severity of Mckinnons injury.
FOUR weeks were added to the suspension which was originally 3 weeks based on the outcome of the tackle.
This is the point though, these incidents, are freak accidents.
Banning tackles that have a long history of minimal risk vs outliers of sever outcomes are not reason to ban the tackles.

Also do you have evidence that the shoulder charge, when performed legally, was more dangerous?
The only times i recall it being an issue is when it was used illegally, like when Inglis blind sided Dean Young from the dragons and shouldered him in the head.

 

[Big Pete]

Apologies, it was a tipping tackle, so while it was illegal, it was not a spear tackle and we see plenty of those tackles each week that are nothing more than a penalty.

It's the same thing, a lifting tackle which always had the possibility of going wrong. I agree McLean copped a tougher suspension because of the injury and I'd say McKinnon unfortunately contributed to the situation by ducking his head but the point is he should have found himself in that position to begin with.

Also do you have evidence that the shoulder charge, when performed legally, was more dangerous?

Commission to outlaw 'shoulder charge'

The Australian Rugby League Commission has today accepted a recommendation to outlaw the ‘shoulder charge’ from all competitions from 2013.

www.nrl.com

I remember giving a presentation on this for some reason and the example I clearly remember was Te'o retiring Michael Greenfield.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

 

[Kimlo]

Shoulder charges aren't tough, they should never come back. They look spectacular but more often than not they're cheap shots with a very high chance of severe injury.

Good riddance.

 

[mrslong]

Throwing his refs under the bus again. What a twat.

 

[Midean]

Shoulder charges aren't tough, they should never come back. They look spectacular but more often than not they're cheap shots with a very high chance of severe injury.

Good riddance.

Again, they do not have a very high chance of sever injury, thats just not true.
Any shot to the head by a poorly executed tackle has a high chance of injury.

The link Pete just gave me outlines that the reason they banned the shoulder charge is because players are getting larger.

The Commission has reviewed a detailed report into the shoulder charge and accepted a management recommendation that the increased size of athletes was creating a situation where the shoulder charge could, if maintained, lead to an unacceptable injury risk.

it was a preemptive ban based on the fact that athletes playing nrl were getting bigger and could lead to injury.
It was not banned because of injury setting precedence.

The review demonstrated that:
- shoulder charges made up 0.05% of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012

- less than 4% of these resulted in injury to the attacking player and less than 1% to the defensive player

- 17% resulted in contact with the head of the attacking player

- players in the Telstra Premiership have grown over the decade from 2002 to 2012 to be on average 4kg heavier, 1.2cm taller and by measure of a superior Body Mass Index, stronger and more powerful

“This is about reducing a potential risk of serious injury to our players,” NRL Interim Chief Executive, Mr Shane Mattiske, said today.

So really pete/kimlo the shoulder charge was NOT banned because players were getting injured, as the stats above show, but because the potential for injury was there. Just like this rounds knee jerk over-reaction.

However, this round is more plausible than the shoulder charge ban because head high tackles are dangerous and do lead to concussions.

 

[Renegade]

who'd wanna be a ref?

 

[Big Pete]

Again, they do not have a very high chance of sever injury, thats just not true.
Any shot to the head by a poorly executed tackle has a high chance of injury.

The link Pete just gave me outlines that the reason they banned the shoulder charge is because players are getting larger.

The Commission has reviewed a detailed report into the shoulder charge and accepted a management recommendation that the increased size of athletes was creating a situation where the shoulder charge could, if maintained, lead to an unacceptable injury risk.

it was a preemptive ban based on the fact that athletes playing nrl were getting bigger and could lead to injury.
It was not banned because of injury setting precedence.

The review demonstrated that:
- shoulder charges made up 0.05% of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012

- less than 4% of these resulted in injury to the attacking player and less than 1% to the defensive player

- 17% resulted in contact with the head of the attacking player

- players in the Telstra Premiership have grown over the decade from 2002 to 2012 to be on average 4kg heavier, 1.2cm taller and by measure of a superior Body Mass Index, stronger and more powerful

“This is about reducing a potential risk of serious injury to our players,” NRL Interim Chief Executive, Mr Shane Mattiske, said today.

So really pete/kimlo the shoulder charge was NOT banned because players were getting injured, as the stats above show, but because the potential for injury was there. Just like this rounds knee jerk over-reaction.

However, this round is more plausible than the shoulder charge ban because head high tackles are dangerous and do lead to concussions.

That was one of the reasons they gave but as those figures show despite making up a very small percentage of tackles the number that resulted in injuries was higher (just under 4%) and 17% involved contact with the head.

This was also very alarming.

- that the average G-force of the shoulder charge (measured from accelerometer data taken from GPS tracking) was 76% greater than a conventional head-on tackle (10.682 compared to 6.056).