The shoulder charge revisited

[Coxy]

Yeah, but you're very good at being completely wrong.

 

[Porthoz]

I rest my case.

 

[Coxy]

If you really think there's a higher risk of head injury riding a bicycle than playing rugby league you have absolutely no idea.

edit: play nice, children

 

[Coxy]

Hospitalisation rates per 100,000 participants:

Rugby League: 677.9
Cycling: 97

So rugby league players are about 7 times more likely to end up in hospital from playing than a cyclist.
Hospitalised sports injury, Australia 2002-03

Importantly, wearing a helmet does not remove the risk of serious injury, or even greatly reduce it, since the vast majority of cycling injuries are related to being hit by motor vehicles.

Whereas reducing the risk of head injuries by taking out a potentially very uncontrolled and dangerous tackling technique CAN reduce significantly the risk of serious injury. A study showed the injury rate from shoulder charges is 70 times higher than from "normal" tackles!

Again, it's a silly comparison and highlights the ignorance of yourself and Nashy to the relative risk (or lack thereof) of cycling vs the higher added risk of shoulder charges in rugby league.

 

[Nashy]

Yes, because you're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. If you really think there's a higher risk of head injury riding a bicycle than playing rugby league you have absolutely no idea.

So please, stop it. you're just looking like an idiot.

Stop using figures to suit your argument. You're either discussing ALL tackles, or shoulder charges. If we're talking all tacles, sure, RL players are at greater risk, but that's not the argument.

If we want to go with your argument, we should be banning all contact sports.

 

[Coxy]

Stop using figures to suit your argument. You're either discussing ALL tackles, or shoulder charges. If we're talking all tacles, sure, RL players are at greater risk, but that's not the argument.

If we want to go with your argument, we should be banning all contact sports.

Shoulder charge ban a 'no-brainer' as study shows the controversial technique causes injury | Rugby League, NRL Scores, NRL Ladder | Fox Sports

An NRL study has found there is 70 times more risk of a player being injured by a shoulder charge than a normal tackle.
From something like 14,000 tackles made before round 22 last year there was an overall injury rate of 0.1 per cent - but in the same period 42 shoulder charges resulted in an injury rate of 7 per cent.
He said: "To me you can almost say it is a no-brainer. A seven per cent chance of injury is too high. It is not worth taking that risk.

 

[Anonymous person]

not debating anything youre talking about about helmets etc, but statistics on injuries from tackles are always going to be vastly skewed to the "safe" side though simply because of how stats are taken.

for 1 actual tackle they can count as many as 4 people to have made that tackle, 3 of whom could have come in and flopped on a downed/almost downed ball carrier. if the guy who actually made the tackle got injured, the stats would show that there was a 25% injury rate, when in reality it should be 100%. unless theyre only counting that as 1 tackle, which i find hard to believe, but it is possible.

also, who keeps track of the number of shoulder charges? the refs sure cant keep track of what is and isnt one.

 

[Coxy]

Refs don't keep stats anyway. And I take your point on the stats, if they use the standard "tackles made" stat then yes it would skew the stats. Not much detail in that report about how the stats were calculated.

 

[Anonymous person]

Refs don't keep stats anyway. And I take your point on the stats, if they use the standard "tackles made" stat then yes it would skew the stats. Not much detail in that report about how the stats were calculated.

going by their numbers, it makes no sense.

up til round 22, means 21 rounds x 8 matches per round = 168 matches
14000 tackles / 168 matches = 83 tackles per match.

generally theres what, 550-600 tackles a match? dunno where they got their stats, but they should fire whoever got them.

 

[Coxy]

That actually indicates they're looking only at each tackle as a whole, not individual tackles made. Even then it's light. You'd expect roughly 60 sets a match so 240-odd tackles? I can only assume they didn't look at EVERY game.

Would like to see the published study more detailed.

 

[Anonymous person]

That actually indicates they're looking only at each tackle as a whole, not individual tackles made. Even then it's light. You'd expect roughly 60 sets a match so 240-odd tackles? I can only assume they didn't look at EVERY game.

Would like to see the published study more detailed.

yeh i just went by average of say 7 tackles per minute for 80 minutes, which gives 560 tackles, only counting each tackle as 1. granted its not always that, youd expect 10 mins min to be taken up with time wasting, so even say 7 * 70 gives 490 tackles. the fact that they came up with 80 means its a useless stat IMO.

id like to see a more detailed study, but my guess is you wont see one because it wont look as bad. saying 0.001% of tackles result in injury, while 0.003% of shoulder charges result in injury, isnt going to make people agree with calling for a ban on shoulder charges.

 

[Coxy]

Well I don't know, that'd still be a factor of 3 in terms of risk but again you'd have to question the statistical significance.

 

[theshed]

Lets say that the shoulder charge is equally as dangerous as any regular tackle (which is completely false but for the point of argument I'll concede), why does the game need shouldercharges? 'Because the refs are too inconsistent' isn't a good enough answer. How many times do refs get knock ons wrong. Does that mean we should make knock ons legal?

 

[Coxy]

Lets say that the shoulder charge is equally as dangerous as any regular tackle (which is completely false but for the point of argument I'll concede), why does the game need shouldercharges? 'Because the refs are too inconsistent' isn't a good enough answer. How many times do refs get knock ons wrong. Does that mean we should make knock ons legal?

The argument that they should allow shoulder charges is that "fans love them"...

 

[Renegade]

Imo it's all to do with legal ramifications when someone eventually sues the NRL because they're 45 and have early onset of parkinsons/dementia/alzeimhers.

By banning the shoulder charge, cracking down on anything that is considered not in the spirit of the game (legs first when someone is planting the ball), they're basically giving themselves some platform to say, no we did not encourage behaviour that result in this mans condition, we have done our best to eliminate or minimize risk of chronic or long term head injuries by introducing these measures, such as the no shoulder charge, whatever cognitive tests they do for when a concussion occurs, etc.

they have to do this, because imo, if a player theoretically sued the NRL and won - the flood gates would open, and honestly, I don't know if we'd still have a professional game. They would be bankrupted several times over.

 

[Coxy]

Yep. Same reason spear tackles/dangerous throws are so quickly jumped on and punished. I know every time it happens and it's barely even dangerous, Gould is all "that's not dangerous" and goes into full retard mode saying the game's going soft, blah blah blah. He's got absolutely no concept of player welfare. Have to remember he came through when it was OK to stiff arm and spear, and punch in scrums etc (perhaps not legal but rarely punished).

Just have to look at Stephen Kearney being sued by Jarrod McCracken for a serious neck injury after a spear tackle.

While I don't think players should sue for injuries resulting from the game, except if there's negligence in their treatment, the NRL does have to protect itself and its players from such action.

 

[Porthoz]

Hospitalisation rates per 100,000 participants:

Rugby League: 677.9
Cycling: 97

So rugby league players are about 7 times more likely to end up in hospital from playing than a cyclist.
Hospitalised sports injury, Australia 2002-03

Importantly, wearing a helmet does not remove the risk of serious injury, or even greatly reduce it, since the vast majority of cycling injuries are related to being hit by motor vehicles.

Whereas reducing the risk of head injuries by taking out a potentially very uncontrolled and dangerous tackling technique CAN reduce significantly the risk of serious injury. A study showed the injury rate from shoulder charges is 70 times higher than from "normal" tackles!

Again, it's a silly comparison and highlights the ignorance of yourself and Nashy to the relative risk (or lack thereof) of cycling vs the higher added risk of shoulder charges in rugby league.

Very selective numbers. Another show of desperation to be right.

I will only need this from the very same study:

Head injury (n=723, 26.5%) is the most common principal body region injured in sports and recreation related cycling hospitalisations this compared with 18.5% of all sports related injury hospitalisations. Elbow and forearm injury comprised 22.4% of admissions (n=610) compared with 19.1% for all sports related injury hospitalisations (Figures 6.4 and 6.5).

Length of stay is an indication of severity of injury. Cycling had a higher mean number of bed days (3.0) than all sport related hospitalisations (2.6) (Table 6.3).

 

[Coxy]

sports and recreation related cycling

This is the problem. Cycling is not just sports and recreation related, and I have never advocated not wearing a helmet when riding in a sports type environment. You'd find in any organised sports event it'd be a requirement to wear one. You know, a rule for the sport. Like shoulder charges being outlawed is a rule for the sport of rugby league.