An article on the greatest game of all – tremendous stuff.

Your passion for the code comes through – once again confirming that inside every union man is a leaguie just bursting to get out.

Who knows, if you keep up the work rate you may even put Steve Kaless out of a job!

In that instance the lawyers, judiciary and those mythical mums (who’s role I believe is overstated by the media otherwise RL playing numbers would already be substantially lower) have every right to circle – they were illegal acts.

The Riley Brown example is an anomaly – a technically legal maneuver that transgresses the intent of the law – a lot harder to prove and in my opinion unlikely to ever be proven in terms of intent versus the written law. I’m not condoning it – I thought it was the work of an absolute coward.

Steve Rogers’ broken jaw (striking the head) and Jarred McCracken’s spinal injury (two players lifting past vertical) are clear violations of the laws of rugby league and therefore seeking compensation for lost earnings is a relatively straightforward process.

BTW – I would have thought that the AFL which condones shoulder charges from ANY angle, at ANY time on players with the ball has a much larger propensity to create injuries. I’d love to see an analysis of RL concussion v AFL popped shoulders!

In closing your honour I agree that, regardless of the code, any player who commits an illegal act that leads to the victim facing loss of earnings or capability will most definitely have to face up to lawyers in the future. But this does not automatically transfer to players being able to sue for being victims of a legal act (no matter how violent or nonsensical that act might seem to fans of a rival code).

In final closing, I’ll see your RL mothers who decry the contact and match you with RU mothers who decry the fully loaded scrum. I reckon we’d come out about even!

At least with the rugby codes & the AFL for that matter these players are removed from the field & not allowed back until they are fully recovered.

But in soccer there is the subtle damage cause to the players brains from the constant heading of the ball. A Scandinavian study revealed former soccer professionals (who head a ball on average 700 times a season) the onset of brain degeneration diseases such as Parkinsons & Alzheimers is hastened. many in their early 40s show signs of these ‘old-persons’ diseases as well as other dementia type symptoms. Now there’s some cases the ambulance chases could pursue.

It’s not tiddlywinks

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.

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.

Tad hypocritical at times these union guys are.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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