NRL bans shoulder charges

[Big Pete]

It's pretty obvious, you still have enough speed and momentum to make a tackle.

I get AP is arguing this extremely specific example where a player is 30mm in from touch and he's diving to score from touch and the fullback has to do something to launch himself but at that stage, not even a shoulder charge will do much to affect an out-come. Blaming the try on Zillman (let's face it, this will happen a lot to the GC) being unable to hit a shoulder tackle is missing the bigger problem.

As the Slater/Hall example showed, by going for the shoulder charge, Billy still presented the guy a chance (which he took) and injured himself in the process.

 

[Coxy]

There's no doubt a shoulder hit is effective in that situation.
There's also no doubt a shoulder hit is a huge risk of injury to both the hitter and recipient.

There's also doubt as to whether a hit like that would be penalised as a shoulder charge or not. We simply haven't seen enough examples in real life under the interpretations applied to make that judgment.

 

[Anonymous person]

As the Slater/Hall example showed, by going for the shoulder charge, Billy still presented the guy a chance (which he took) and injured himself in the process.

and if Slater goes for the regular tackle then the guy doesnt have a chance of scoring, he gets a certain try. his injury just shows how much force he was able to get into that shoulder tackle, more than he wouldve got going for a tackle.

 

[Big Pete]

Hall was still a good 4 or so metres away from the line when Billy gets to him, if Slater makes a driving tackle under the ribs, he's over the sideline or at worse he's wrapped himself around Hall.

The shoulder charge made it an unnecessary risk and it's one Slater would surely want over.

 

[Porthoz]

BP, I understand what you're saying, but you're arguing against the laws of physics now.
[NERD ON]
Billy's momentum determines the force applied to change Hall's inertia direction.
The lower Billy's speed, the lower his momentum, reducing the force applied to Hall's inertia, allowing him better control of his trajectory.

Besides, in the example at hand, other laws of physics say that from that angle, Billy wouldn't have been able to do the driving tackle you're talking about effectively, certainly not to prevent a try, unless he was lucky enough to dislodge the ball...
[/NERD]
Now my brain hurts...

 

[Big Pete]

I don't believe Billy's momentum would be affected that greatly if he was attempting to go for a tackle.

I understand your opinion and your entitled to it but clearly his option failed.

 

[Anonymous person]

so just because something failed it was the wrong option? doesnt work that way. its like choosing between a bomb and a grubber - you choose the bomb, the opposition defuses it. that doesnt mean the bomb was the wrong option. it just means it didnt work that time. it doesnt mean that the other option wouldve worked.

the shoulder charge was still the better option in that instance IMO. physics and common sense tend to support that opinion. he got closer to stopping the try with the shoulder charge than i think he would have with a tackle. he had no chance of pulling him down before the tryline, so the only option was sideline. a shoulder charge will have a better chance of pushing someone 2-3m over the sideline than a tackle. right option IMO.

 

[Porthoz]

This argument is starting to go in circles. Let's all agree to disagree...

 

[Fozz]

I don't agree to that.

 

[Porthoz]

No one asked you.

 

[Fozz]

Your mum asked me.

 

[Je$ter]

I don't believe Billy's momentum would be affected that greatly if he was attempting to go for a tackle.

I understand your opinion and your entitled to it but clearly his option failed.

You can't just run full speed to effect a tackle, there is always a deceleration phase before contact to position your body and feet. If you try and do that a small bit of footwork will beat even the best defenders. A shoulder charge is a lot more aggressive move in terms of not having a deceleration phase, therefore more momentum.

You can argue that point all you want but it's what is coached from under 6's right up to the nrl.

 

[broncos4life]

Seriously besides jester and AP does anyone care anymore? You can argue all the physics and pros and cons you as elite coaches feel you understand, but it's not going to change s***. You crap on about deceleration, physics, that 'without doubt the shoulder charge is the most effective way of pushing someone out to stop a try' blah blah blah. Well guess what, as it stands flopping your wang out and hoping the distraction causes them to drop the ball is currently more effective than the shoulder charge, so who gives a f***

 

[Viti]

Seriously besides jester and AP does anyone care anymore? You can argue all the physics and pros and cons you as elite coaches feel you understand, but it's not going to change s***. You crap on about deceleration, physics, that 'without doubt the shoulder charge is the most effective way of pushing someone out to stop a try' blah blah blah. Well guess what, as it stands flopping your wang out and hoping the distraction causes them to drop the ball is currently more effective than the shoulder charge, so who gives a f***

I seriously doubt that's true

 

[Fozz]

Depends on how big the wang is.

 

[Coxy]

You can't just run full speed to effect a tackle, there is always a deceleration phase before contact to position your body and feet. If you try and do that a small bit of footwork will beat even the best defenders. A shoulder charge is a lot more aggressive move in terms of not having a deceleration phase, therefore more momentum.

You can argue that point all you want but it's what is coached from under 6's right up to the nrl.

Shoulder charges have been banned in junior grades for years.

 

[Anonymous person]

i *think* hes talking about tackling technique and slowing down to position yourself right, rather than being taught to shoulder charge.

 

[Je$ter]

This^