Shoulder charges will help lawyers bleed league dry
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 26 Mar 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
The Sydney Morning Herald’s back page sports report of the second round of the NRL premiership resembled a wrap-up of a demolition derby rather than a story on rugby league.
* Ben Ross was going to be referred straight to the NRL judiciary for a forearm charge that flattened Cooper Cronk.
* Brett White, who was sent off with Ross in the melee following the incident, was up on grade-four striking charge.
* Karmichael Hunt was facing the judiciary on a shoulder charge that broke Braith Anasta’s nose.
* Josh Perry was charged with a grade-one striking charge following an alleged head-butt to Danny Wicks.
* Ashley Graham was charged with a grade-four careless high tackle after a shoulder charge went wrong and left Brett Hodgson concussed.
The context for these incidents is the prowler-tackle in the first round by Riley Brown that smashed the glamour player Craig Wing out of rugby league for months.
Is rugby league morphing from a ferocious and often exciting body contact sport into a body destruction sport?
In the 1890s rugby union was so brutal The Bulletin called the code ‘the undertaker’s’ friend.’ Is rugby league becoming the 21st century ‘undertaker’s friend?’
When I’m confused about what is happening in the rugby league world, I look to Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph for some guidance on what to think about a particular issue or controversy. The articles in The Sunday Telegraph tend to provide a series of readings that throw light, a bit like glosses on a Biblical text, on a contentious matter.
So here are some insights from the Sunday Telegraph in its NRL second round wrap-up:
* Andrew Johns in his article headed ‘Crunch time for the prowler’ argued that too much air play had been given to Riley Brown’s tackle on Craig Wing. ‘Critics should lay off Riley,’ the Master concluded.
* James Hooper had a sympathetic piece on Riley Brown that revealed his father was sentenced to 17 years in jail for murdering his mother. Brown was left as the figurehead of the family and made their legal guardian at age 18. ‘To this day, Riley Brown and his No 1 is nothing compared to the hell Riley Brown and his brothers have endured … and overcome.’
* The league legend, Ricky Stuart, described in the logo to his column as The Game’s Best Thinker, and writing ‘not as a rugby league coach, but as a parent,’ argued that players faced risks no matter what sport they played. Rugby league was safe for kids. It is character-building. In a reference to the Craig Wing incident, Stuart insisted: ‘But what I can’t understand is the knee jerk reactions and negative headlines.’ The article was highlighted by a delightful photograph of Stuart holding his two smiling sons, Jackson and Jed.
* Underneath Ricky Stuart’s column was The Comment by Phil Rothfield. Some background here. Rothfield is a fierce defender of the rugby league code, as some of us who have been savaged in sports pages he controls can testify.
The Comment documented the difficulty that rugby league development officers had in answering the complaints of mothers following the Craig Wing incident. A leading league doctor was quoted as saying that the prowler-tackle left players exposed to ruptured kidneys or serious spinal injuries.
An AFL official was quoted as saying that brutal league incidents were ‘the best possible free kicks for our game in Sydney.’
Phil Rothfield ended his column by noting that he’d received around 100 emails from fans turned off by the prowler-tackle on Craig Wing, and that the wife of an advertising executive ‘at the big end of town’ refused to go to watch the West Tigers with her husband and kids ‘because she was so sickened by the incident.’
This is powerful stuff coming from a journalist who is league through and through. And it leads me to the conclusion that the NRL really has no option but to ban the prowler-tackle and the shoulder charge.
1. Rugby league, according to Sonny Bill Williams, perhaps the most effective deliverer of the shoulder-charge, ‘is not ‘netball.’ It’s not a demolition derby either. Mothers are not going to allow their sons to play rugby league if they are going to end up being forced to look like Hannibal Lecter, or worse are crippled by cheap shots.
2. Skilful playmakers will be smashed out of the game, or will stop trying to be playmakers. This thought struck me while I was watching West Tigers and Brett Hodgson was smashed by the Cowboys centre Ashley Graham. Hodgson came into the line, right by the ruck, rather like a matador engaging the bull close up, when he saw Graham charging at him with his forearm extended. Hodgson, it seemed to me, tried to pull back from the impact and slipped. The forearm smashed into his jaw, rather than his chest, where it was probably intended.
The point is that if playmakers have to run the gauntlet continually of being smashed by shoulder charges that can afflict a serious injury on them, they’re going to stop trying to be skillful, matador-type players.
This is the point of the shoulder charge, of course. But is this a good thing for rugby league? I doubt it.
Incidentally, Hodgson had to be given three days off training to recover from concussion (is this enough time off?), and slept in the room of the team doctor after the match so he could be monitored.
3. The NRL is setting itself up for a lawyer’s bonanza with its defence of shoulder tackles, despite all the evidence of the damage they wreck and might do if things go really wrong.
The tackle might be ‘legal’ in rugby league but this will not make it legal as far as the law is concerned. I passed my torts exam decades ago with a mark of 52, but I am a fan of Boston Legal and my understanding is that the shoulder charge that goes wrong could be grounds for an assault charge.
One of the elements of torts is the issue of ‘foreseeability.’
Is it foreseeable that the nature of a shoulder charge is such that a player could be badly damaged? The answer is obviously, yes.
Is it in the nature of a shoulder charge that physical damage is the main element in this form of tackle? The answer again is, yes.
We have grounds here, I believe, for a legal action by a damaged player against someone who has launched a shoulder charge against him.
Before the ‘we’re not playing netball’ fanatics start bellowing about the integrity of the game being destroyed with this sort of analysis, they should read another text from the Round 2 wrap-up in The Sunday Telegraph.
The must-read gossip pages — What’s The Buzz, written by Phil Rothfield and Phillip Heads — carried an item saying that Craig Wing has been inundated with offers of free legal advice to take a civil action against Riley Brown. The item mentioned that the late Steve Rogers had successfully sued Mark Budgen for breaking his jaw, but that Wing didn’t want to take the matter further.
Sooner or later, probably sooner, a player is going to act on the Rogers precedent and take civil action, looking for huge damages from the deepest pocket available (the NRL) for injuries sustained from a shoulder charge gone wrong.
And sooner or later, probably sooner, a pack of lawyers will start rounding up former players who might be suffering the continuing effects of shoulder charges and launch a class action against the NRL.
Memo to the NRL: Ban the shoulder charge now before the lawyers get their chance to bleed the rugby league code dry.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (6)
- New dawn for rugby league gets underway (10)
- Rugby league commission ushers in new era (3)
- Ennis confident about his NRL fitness
- Why sporting seasons should never cross paths (33)
- Independent Commission four years in the making, but worth the wait (21)
- Kearney still to choose Eels kicker
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (6)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (40)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (101)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
Greg said | March 26th 2008 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Spiro
I just cannot fathom some of the self-delusion in league. And it’s these flippant comments (old, shrivelled cliché’s really), such as ‘this isn’t netball’, et cetera that point to the problem, which is essentially a long line of excuses and inarticulate reasoning.
I always get the feeling that discussions around safety and culture in league are akin to trying to patch the sieve while it sinks into the sea. And the reason for this is that there doesn’t seem a ‘critical mass’ of players who speak up against thuggery. Already, in this debate, we have widely divergent opinions, but the likes of Ricky Stuart are defending the worst. They are so often defending the worst – high tackles, swinging arms..etc, as elements of a ‘man’s game’. Even further, they state that RL is ‘character building’…but what sort of character are they building? A mindless violent moron? One aspect of this character which seems universal in league is ‘keep your mouth shut, don’t complain, be tough.’
Which is, in any dictionary, sycophantism.
And so it is that this ‘prowler’ tackle, rather than being immediately torn out of the game, is still free to wreak havoc. The most alarming aspect of this, as you have pointed out, is that it is not unlikely that someone will be seriously injured. And won’t hell break loose if someone ends up with a major spinal injury?
And that, Spiro, would be the death of league; Australia of today is very different to that of 20 years ago, when such a tragic even could be explained away as ‘part of the game’. Not anymore. And thank goodness for that. The immensity of harm which will be done to league if someone is seriously injured can’t be understated. Unfortunately, I think it will take an external influence, such as successful litigation, to change RL’s attitude about itself, which almost seems impregnable.
Greg
The Cougar said | March 26th 2008 @ 8:33am | Report comment
The physical element, including shoulder charges, is what draws people to rugby league. They are the modern-day “gladiators”, and in my mind, the NRL is the toughest competition in the world. To try to restrict the massive collisions we see every week in the NRL would be like taking Keith Richards out of the Rolling Stones; it just wouldn’t be the same.
Spiro, you say: “Is it in the nature of a shoulder charge that physical damage is the main element in this form of tackle? The answer again is, yes.”
I disagree. Physical damage is not the main objective. What about: to stop the ball-carrier; make him less likely to cart the ball up at full speed again; pass the ball; lift your team-mates with a bit of courage and commitment.
Remember the shoulder charge also carries innate risks. It can go horribly wrong if mis-timed and can land the charger, not the chargee, in strife injury-wise. But also, it can lead to a break by the attacking side if not executed to perfection, costing potential points and the wrath of the coach.
Redb said | March 26th 2008 @ 8:54am | Report comment
The Cougar,
You said:
“disagree. Physical damage is not the main objective. What about: to stop the ball-carrier; make him less likely to cart the ball up at full speed again; pass the ball; lift your team-mates with a bit of courage and commitment”
No the emphasis should be on protecting the ball carrier not leaving them open to dangerous and blindsided attacks.
Rugby league was great when the ball carrier was doing the damage – ala my champ Paul Sironen, he just ran through the buggers and left a trail of bodies.
cheers
Redb
The Cougar said | March 26th 2008 @ 8:58am | Report comment
By the way, one of the low points of the Super 14 season was when Brumbies centre Tyrone Smith got yellow-carded for his tackle on Waratahs five-eighth Kurtley Beale in Round 4.
I was totally exasperated. Smith showed plenty of bravery to open his shoulders, exposing his chest, ribs, stomach to the ball-carrier and timed the tackle perfectly. It was a tremendous hit which should’ve been rewarded for its courage and skill, but rather it was cruelly penalised.
Coming off a woeful World Cup, I found myself once again grappling with the increasingly elusive virtues of rugby union.
The Cougar said | March 26th 2008 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Greg,
I’d love to see the statistics, but I’d reckon there have been more spinal injuries arising from scrums in rugby union than in any other sport.
So why hasn’t the IRB outlawed scrums based on this evidence? I presume because it is an essential part of the game and players know the inherent risks associated with scrums.
I can only assume that Ben Darwin hasn’t initiated legal proceedings against the estate of William Webb Ellis because he was aware of the dangers involved in rugby union scrummaging.
Same goes for rugby league. Players know the inherent risks associated with being on the end of a shoulder charge. Attacking the head of an opponent is a big no-no, and hence there are penalties, suspensions, fines etc. in place to protect players.
I s’pose it’s a bit like smoking or driving on public roads, two pursuits that are potentially fatal. We’re made aware of the inherent dangers, but then some personal responsibility is left with us to participate or not.
So for me, shoulder charges are fine, ANY head contact and the prowler tackle are not.
Andrew B said | March 26th 2008 @ 10:19am | Report comment
The Cougar,
The Laws in Union state you must use your arms in the tackle, and Tyrone didn’t. In league terms, it was a pretty soft shoulder charge, but the ref was just doing his job.
As a concept, I have no problem with the shoulder charge. Like Cougar wrote, there is elements of skill involved, and risks in trying to put the hit on. But the players have gotten so good at it now it is stifling the game. League is just turning into an immensely physical ‘Gladiator’ game, and the skilful footwork and ball play is taking a backseat. And I get the impression that’s exactly how the NRL want it.
Scott said | March 26th 2008 @ 10:20am | Report comment
One of the clear differences between union and league is how high and dangerous tackles are treated. In union anything that even looks suspect is penalised or the player gets a yellow card. In league it seems anything less than a dead body is “play on!!!”
IMHO the hits is union are just as impressive in union as league but the danger of serious injury to both parties is reduced. Being a spectator I want to see the physical confrontation of these two great sports AND I also want to see the stars of the game showing their skills not sitting on sidelines.
Rodney said | March 26th 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Yeah, that’s why League players get punished for Tackles that go wrong and Union players like the kiwis who spear tackled the Pommy fella a season or two back continued to play in that match and all the others after without anything being said.
Tad hypocritical at times these union guys are.
Rodney said | March 26th 2008 @ 11:51am | Report comment
What about the spear tackle done by the All Blacks against the Lions a few years ago?
Not one thing said, no player punished, no fine, no yellow card, no nothing.
A tad Hypocritical I think.
If it was RL, the players would’ve been out for 12 months.
Andrew B said | March 26th 2008 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Rodney,
That tackle on BOD was off the ball, and not seen by the referee or touch judges, nor was it caught on TV footage. The citing committee had nothing to go on. It was only months later when some handy-cam footage from someone in the crowd was released did we see what happened.
Its not hypocritical, it was just a case of the incident not being seen.