The shoulder charge revisited

[Anonymous person]

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?

sometimes the only way of saving a try is by shoulder charging, ala fullback/wingercoming across in cover on a try bound opponent.
a big shoulder charge can motivate your teammates, ala sonny bill or carl webb on bailey in the state of origin. asserting physical dominance is a big mental part of footy.
a big shoulder charge can knock the ball out of the oppositions grasp more readily than a regular tackle. possession is everything in rugby league.

the rule book should have no grey areas IMO. the shoulder charge rule, as it is, has lots of grey areas, as the policing of it shows. i would actually be in favour of eliminating "knock-on/knock-back" in the contest and making any dropped ball a handover (knock-back would be allowed when for example fielding a kick when theres no defenders around for example, but the second you make contact with a defender, any unintentionally dropped ball is a turnover).

shoulder charges allowed. contact with the head not allowed. doesnt get much more straight forward and black and white than that.

 

[theshed]

I'm playing Devil's advocate more than anything. I don't feel strongly either way about the shoulder charge. But I do agree that one of the only issues I've had with it is that I think it should be allowed when attempting to knock a player into touch during the act of scoring a try. The collision is no where near as massive as when two upright men run full speed directly towards each other.

 

[Coxy]

If they went down that path then they have to fully rule out contact with the head. So that would mean head clashes with a defender, accidental or otherwise, are penalised. Because very often that's what happens with a shoulder charge, the defender's head hits the ball runner's head.

 

[Big Pete]

My view hasn't really changed.

I don't see them as a vital part of the game and they really didn't bring anything that a good technique couldn't.

More often than not, the charges themselves were total cheap shots that would blindside the players. I understand some people enjoyed the collision but it was never my cuppa.

I believe that NFL lawsuit is going to have huge ramifications in world sport and the NRL had to do everything it could to limit the damage.

The NRL could have found common ground and offered a harsher penalty for the shoulder charge but I feel like in the long-run it was always going to be banned.

 

[Porthoz]

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.[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]

Oh cool, now we're separating sport injuries from recreation and commuting ones... Should we also only count cycling in separate cycling paths with no access for motorised vehicles, just to make sure the numbers support your agenda?

Btw, this same study from 2002-2003 also shows that Rugby Union, where the shoulder charge had already been banned for a long time had the same percentage of head injuries as Rugby League where the shoulder charge and up-endings were common place. Maybe it's those ugly scrums in RU causing all the players to fall on their head!

No one is saying the shoulder charge isn't a risk. A bad one can definitely cause a serious concussion, which will have to be dealt with properly. It is however nowhere near as dangerous or bad as some people advocate.

Whether or not it should be banned depends on the perspective, and if the sport is trying to protect itself from situations like renegade mentioned, I can understand it.

Far more important in my opinion, is the handling of any head injury and concussion. My agenda and what I find seriously lacking in RL, although it is improving, is that players that show any degree of concussion have to be removed from the field on the spot, no excuses! They also have to be completely cleared of concussion before being allowed to resume any contact in training or competition.

I will reiterate that what causes serious potential permanent damage to the brain, is a concussion on top of a healing concussion!

 

[Anonymous person]

If they went down that path then they have to fully rule out contact with the head. So that would mean head clashes with a defender, accidental or otherwise, are penalised. Because very often that's what happens with a shoulder charge, the defender's head hits the ball runner's head.

inglis being penalised in origin 3 shows that we'll soon be at that stage imo. guy falls a good 2 feet the second before he gets tackles and inglis gets done for a high shot with his arm around his waist. absolutely pathetic.

I believe that NFL lawsuit is going to have huge ramifications in world sport and the NRL had to do everything it could to limit the damage.

the difference is that NFL players wear helmets, and act accordingly. they use the helmets as justification for ramming things head first. theyve got a helmet, they wont get injured.

problem is that running headfirst into a brick wall over and over, helmet or not, is going to lead to damage. the NRL is vastly different as players dont intentionally run in head first, despite what paul gallen says.

 

[Coxy]

I don't disagree with any of that. You've just chimed in to my response to Nashy's question about my view on the silliness of mandatory helmets for cyclists vs my support for banning shoulder charges in rugby league.

What is always fundamentally missed/ignored/overlooked is that my view is not BANNING helmets, but allowing it to be user discretion when it should be worn. Location, type and purpose of cycling all vary the risk involved of having an accident, to the point where slow in an environment with, yes, no motor vehicles or only slow moving, low volume local traffic by a competent and confident rider is perfectly safe (negligible risk of an accident) and any accident is at such a slow speed that you can avoid hitting your head (just like if you trip over while walking or running).

Mountain bike riding, velodrome track cycling, road race cycling, even moderate speed road commuting or training rides...all higher likelihood of a crash and so I'd strongly advise people wear a helmet in that situation, and as I've said numerous times, I do (although the only situation I engage in is moderate speed road commuting).

My stance is about choice, not about helmets being useless (although there is an argument that for the major cause of cycling injury and death, being hit by a motor vehicle, they are as good as useless...but that's not the point).

There's no situation in rugby league where "choosing" to shoulder charge is safe. The reason being, as a defender to engage in a shoulder charge you HAVE to take your eyes off the ball runner at some stage. You set yourself for it before contact is made, and you have very little if any time to react to a change in direction or height of that ball runner. Whatever the legitimacy of that study I talked about earlier, a 7% injury rate from shoulder charges is too high when the rate of injuries in "normal" tackles would be well under 1%.

The exact same argument could be applied to dangerous throws. Well executed, where you upend the player and put them down safely on their shoulder, you're not going to hurt their head or neck. But you have very little control over how safely you can do that. But even looking at the spear tackles that have been charged, how many have resulted in serious injury? Very few. Is that the point? No, because that's more a case of "there but for the grace of [insert imaginary friend of choice] go I".

Does that clear it up?

TLDR: If I'm riding 15km at 24kph avg (up to 60kph) on a variety of surfaces, interacting with road traffic and thus potentially hitting debris or whatever and falling, I will choose to wear a helmet due to amount of factors out of my control. If I am tootling at <20kph a few hundred metres along separated infrastructure or along wide, quiet roads, I would probably choose not to. I have a choice of situations I face.

If I'm a rugby league player I should not expect to change direction, slip, stumble and be hit in the head by a player who has taken his eyes off me. Therefore I'd want shoulder charges to be banned as most other legitimate tackles I can anticipate and protect myself against.

 

[Renegade]

Coxy, I'm interested in your bike helmet argument.

Would you say it is akin to driving down a small town road without a seatbelt on?

if not, why not?

 

[Nashy]

I don't disagree with any of that. You've just chimed in to my response to Nashy's question about my view on the silliness of mandatory helmets for cyclists vs my support for banning shoulder charges in rugby league.

What is always fundamentally missed/ignored/overlooked is that my view is not BANNING helmets, but allowing it to be user discretion when it should be worn. Location, type and purpose of cycling all vary the risk involved of having an accident, to the point where slow in an environment with, yes, no motor vehicles or only slow moving, low volume local traffic by a competent and confident rider is perfectly safe (negligible risk of an accident) and any accident is at such a slow speed that you can avoid hitting your head (just like if you trip over while walking or running).

Mountain bike riding, velodrome track cycling, road race cycling, even moderate speed road commuting or training rides...all higher likelihood of a crash and so I'd strongly advise people wear a helmet in that situation, and as I've said numerous times, I do (although the only situation I engage in is moderate speed road commuting).

My stance is about choice, not about helmets being useless (although there is an argument that for the major cause of cycling injury and death, being hit by a motor vehicle, they are as good as useless...but that's not the point).

There's no situation in rugby league where "choosing" to shoulder charge is safe. The reason being, as a defender to engage in a shoulder charge you HAVE to take your eyes off the ball runner at some stage. You set yourself for it before contact is made, and you have very little if any time to react to a change in direction or height of that ball runner. Whatever the legitimacy of that study I talked about earlier, a 7% injury rate from shoulder charges is too high when the rate of injuries in "normal" tackles would be well under 1%.

The exact same argument could be applied to dangerous throws. Well executed, where you upend the player and put them down safely on their shoulder, you're not going to hurt their head or neck. But you have very little control over how safely you can do that. But even looking at the spear tackles that have been charged, how many have resulted in serious injury? Very few. Is that the point? No, because that's more a case of "there but for the grace of [insert imaginary friend of choice] go I".

Does that clear it up?

TLDR: If I'm riding 15km at 24kph avg (up to 60kph) on a variety of surfaces, interacting with road traffic and thus potentially hitting debris or whatever and falling, I will choose to wear a helmet due to amount of factors out of my control. If I am tootling at <20kph a few hundred metres along separated infrastructure or along wide, quiet roads, I would probably choose not to. I have a choice of situations I face.

If I'm a rugby league player I should not expect to change direction, slip, stumble and be hit in the head by a player who has taken his eyes off me. Therefore I'd want shoulder charges to be banned as most other legitimate tackles I can anticipate and protect myself against.

So why can't the players be the ones who make the decision on whether they perform a shoulder charge? It can be their choice, you know the risk, and the factors. You **** it up, you're sitting down for 12 weeks, minimum.

 

[Coxy]

Coxy, I'm interested in your bike helmet argument.

Would you say it is akin to driving down a small town road without a seatbelt on?

if not, why not?

Speed. Pure and simple. If you're driving down a small town road at 20kph, then yeah OK, I could see the reason not to wear a seatbelt (just as some delivery drivers are exempted from wearing them if they're constantly stopping).

If you're driving at 60, 70, 80kph and have to stop in a hurry, for whatever reason, even if you don't crash you could end up hitting head or crushing ribs on the steering wheel etc.

 

[Coxy]

So why can't the players be the ones who make the decision on whether they perform a shoulder charge? It can be their choice, you know the risk, and the factors. You **** it up, you're sitting down for 12 weeks, minimum.

Look, to be honest if the NRL decided that's the route they wanted to take, fine. But the way I see it is the rules are very similar to the dangerous throw situation. Most dangerous throws aren't dangerous....but they're illegal anyway. Do a minor one, you might get a penalty and report, but no charge. Then it goes up from there.

Players still lift. And players still get in dangerous positions.

If you're in a situation where you feel the only option is a shoulder charge (eg, winger streaking for the line and you want to bump them out) then you take the odds to it.

All I've ever said is that I'm fine with the NRL banning the shoulder charge. I agree it hasn't been smooth sailing yet, but once they get the kinks out of what is and isn't a shoulder charge, how it's enforced, it'll just be another rule nobody will worry about.

But even when they brought it in, I was fine with them NOT banning it. I'd have been fine if they'd just ramped up the penalties into a new category of "dangerous shoulder contact" like they did with "dangerous throws".

Point is, they didn't. I'm fine with the action they've taken. I'm fine with them maintaining it and refining it. I'd rather they try and work it out now that it's there than scrap it and try something totally different which they **** up anyway.

 

[Porthoz]

Thank you for clarifying your helmet stance. I agree with your opinion. :winky:

Utilising the same risk assessment as you mentioned earlier, up-endings are much more dangerous than shoulder charges though. The first can result in anything between paraplegia or death, to a concussion.

Concussion and face fractures are pretty much the worst you can expect from a shoulder charge, and the risk is smaller than getting your head in a bad position during a normal tackle.
When mentioning 7% injury risk from a shoulder charge when compared to normal tackles, you should also take into account the frequency of said type of tackles, and I am pretty sure that the risk of injury by shoulder charges is lower than from normal tackles, as you would be tackled 10 to 20 times on average per game, and it's highly unlikely that there would be more than 1 shoulder charge amongst those tackles.

The Rugby Union to Rugby League comparison supports the above, as I said before, there is little difference between both codes when it comes to head injury percentages, and one code has banned shoulder charges for a long time.

 

[Coxy]

fair enough, I don't disagree on the relative risk between lifting and shoulder charges. but I still think the risk from shoulder charges is enough for rules to protect players.

as I said, I'm fine with the ban. I'd be fine with allowing them but having massive penalties where there's head contact.

the nrl went the ban option. I'm happy to persevere with it, and despite some controversial calls think it hasn't been the disaster the knuckle draggers make it out to be.