When I Google myself, I am sick and tired of coming up with page after page of rugby league players being carted off to hospital. This issue is close to my heart and I want it sorted.
Even the NRL’s critics and detractors admit that the game of rugby league is tough.
The distilled toughness of rugby league has been investigated as an outer coating for use on the space shuttle, as a building material for use in earthquake prone cities and toothpaste manufacturers are looking into it.
The toughness of the game and the courage of the players are among the NRL’s appealing characteristics, especially to casual fans who perhaps thirst for the long-gone era when their own preferred sport was more gladiatorial in nature.
It’s often remarked that this is a double edged sword. Mrs Suburbia doesn’t want her precious Jonny Headgear to be ironed out by a Ben Te’o brain-snap (he calls his tackling technique “the Brainsnapper”), a Greg Inglis brick wall to the chin or a Nate Myles/Richard Villasanti ‘Gee That Looked A Lot Like A Flying Headbutt’ manoeuvre.
The chances of any of those players actually playing against Jonny aren’t great but parental instinct is strong and the thought of that kind of violence just doesn’t appeal.
I know when my daughters are ready to play league I’ll be telling them about the old “take a cricket bat out there with you” trick I learned in Under 7’s. The lifetime ban was worth it – I was unstoppable that day.
So, a casual fan and a concerned parent will have a slightly different take on some of the tackles we’ve seen over this weekend.
Travis Burns, Greg Inglis, Ben Te’o and a few others are going to have to hope that whatever god Sam Kasiano prays to also listens to their prayers as well. I don’t like their chances.
Talk of banning the shoulder charge is in vogue once again. I can see the arguments from both sides. The ‘keep them’ camp says “Hey. It’s rugby league. The shoulder charge stays.” The ‘bin them’ camp says “Hey. It’s rugby league. The game is tough enough without them.”
Both sides cite the example of rugby union’s banning of the big hit. Says the anti-shoulder charge advocate: “You see? Union is still the same without it!” – the pro-shoulder charge advocate replies: “Exactly!”
Banning the shoulder charge is not going to stop head high tackles, especially accidental ones. But some of the impacts are truly frightening at times and if any player is ever permanently incapacitated by a shoulder charge you can bet rugby league will be the big loser.
“Why don’t all the players wear headgear” you definitely didn’t ask. Well, those bits of foam rubber aren’t much good except for protecting NRL players’ famous good looks and to hide a wingnut’s flapping ears. I won’t name names.
Helmets etc aren’t the answer either. There’s been recent research that shows the wearing of a helmet in the NFL actually encourages the use of the head as a weapon. If someone like Matt Utai came charging in with intent to use his considerable head as a weapon, just picture where he’d be striking. I think I’d rather have my face smashed in, thanks.
My solution was going to be to make use of recent advances in science. Why not coat a player’s head in the new Nano-material that allows light to pass through it? A player’s head becomes effectively invisible. He can then paint his face onto his chest and thus defending players will aim for that instead.
Great idea, you didn’t say. Well, it’s a rubbish idea you fool! Accidents will still happen.
Then it hit me – the answer has been there all this time: redefine.
If we just took a moment to change the rule, the problem goes away. Define a high tackle as anything above the attacking player’s head.
It will work. Players don’t attempt a tackle by clumsily smiting the vacant space above an attacking player’s head, so the risk of a high tackle under the new rule is almost zero.
Any tackles that hit a player in his face, head or neck are now legal, removing the need to penalise it or put it on report.
We can then spend our days worrying about the important issues of the code: whether we should get rid of the corner posts, the appropriateness of try scoring celebrations and whether Ryan James has ever been to the barbers.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
I don't believe the shoulder charge needs to be banned BUT I do think the onus needs to be shifted. If contact is made with the tackled players head at any point during a tackle without arms then the tackle is to be deemed as dangerous and the tackler is to be dismissed from the field and automatically placed on report. The onus is on the tackler to not involve the tackled players head. No excuses, no "he ducked into it", no "it was accidental". It is up to the tackler to assess the risk of whether it is worth attempting the shoulder charge given the automatic penalty of being sent off if it goes wrong coupled with the element of the tackled player being able to milk a penalty.
Manly Man
Guest
Has anyone bothered to ask the players their opinion because it will be them that's affected instead where paying a lot of money for scientific morons to analyse it for us which could take the rest of the year or we could ask all the players what they think and make a descion from there Duh NRL you've done it again
Chris Chard
Expert
You are a voice of reason on this otherwise prickly issue HS I've always felt players tackling Sam Burgess were at a distinct disadvantage at being pinged for a head high- look at the size of the melon on the bloke! Quality CC
oikee
Guest
:) Nice read, but even if you changed the rule to attack the head, you will still get some fool who misguides a tackle and hits him in the head. I like the idea of painting the head, this would make it easier to read, so to speak. Imagine his team mates calling out, dont hit him in the red spot above his neck. I dont think banning the shoulder charge would affect the game that much. More guys would be getting hit in the guts by 2 players at once. Like we use to tackle in the good old days. That might be spectaular i you think about it, players getting cut in half. Oh the blood, the guts, yeah, bring it on.