There are two current evils in the NRL: the shoulder charge and Twitter. One is codified as a law of the game, with opposition, and the other should be.
I doubt anyone would oppose Twitter being banned for use by NRL players.
The first shoulder charge penalty of the year was given recently in a trial match between the Titans U20’s squad and the Burleigh Bears.
George Rose, of Manly ilk, is the first NRL first grade player ‘charged’, pardon the pun, with the honour of committing the same on the field, in the Indigenous All-Stars Match.
The NRL are embarrassed.
The players are upset.
But hey…that’s what players do.
They are full time athletes with a huge amount of time on their hands: time to post on Twitter about the coffee they had the morning, their opinions on the Oscars and the consistency of their bowel movements
Call of Duty
November last year the ARLC put out a statement reading “The Commission has reviewed a detailed report into the shoulder charge and accepted a management recommendation that the increased size of athletes was creating a situation where the shoulder charge could, if maintained, lead to an unacceptable injury risk.”
The clubs and the NRL owe a legal duty of care to their players (indeed the players owe it to each other on the field). Like it or lump it, the decision to ban the shoulder charge is entirely consistent with that duty on the NRL’s reasoning.
For now, it is here to stay (at least for this season or the first couple of games or maybe one game before a clarification).
Cool Sports Cases
The most well-known criminal action against a player was in 1985 when Leigh Matthews was charged with assault for an attack on a fellow player ‘off the ball’. He was fined $1,000 but, on appeal, the fine was reduced.
The conviction was not, however, overturned. So players can be held criminally liable for their actions depending on the circumstances.
In civil terms, Jarrod McCracken case in rugby league (pre-Civil Liability Act mind you) was probably one of the most infamous in recent times.
McCracken won his action against the Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club, Marcus Bai and Stephen Kearney for damages after a lifting tackle gone wrong.
In the Court of Appeal Justice Ipp was “left in no doubt whatsoever that the tackle constituted a gross infringement of the laws of the game and there was no modicum of care in the actions of Messrs Kearney and Bai.”
So players can be held civilly liable for their actions depending on the circumstances.
On Notice
It’s pretty simple: all NRL players are on notice that shoulder charges have been outlawed. They have been outlawed because of the increased risk of injury they pose – see the media release.
In Opposition
The most vocal opponent of the shoulder charge to date has been George Rose. Great quotes after the All Stars match and Morris flattening include:
”When it first happened, that was my thought, they didn’t need to make it illegal, just crack down on the bad ones,”
”I didn’t think there was any malice in my one tonight. It was an accident, obviously, but it felt good doing it. I usually have it happen to me; the one time I pull it off is when it was illegal. Straight away when I did it I thought, ‘Oh s**t.’”
Nice save George: it was an accident, obviously. To be fair, George isn’t the only one riling against the new rule.
Jeremy Smith from the Knights said “I think the ban is a joke”.
James Maloney from the Roosters said “Worst decision ever made…BANNING THE SHOULDER CHARGE…if u don’t like the contact sport we play…maybe MARBLES would be more up Ur alley”
Aaron Woods from the Tigers said: “There’s nothing better than seeing someone get smashed by a shoulder charge. What a joke”
Linking All This Together
There is always the chance that a player will get injured this season from a shoulder charge, perhaps seriously.
Players: maybe just shut up while you’re ahead. Go back to twittering about the consistency of your bowel movements.
Don’t end up in The Australian with a story that opens like this.
“THE first player to be penalised for a shoulder charge, George Rose, said he always intended to produce one in his first match as a form of protest at the NRL’s decision to ban the tackling technique for this season.”
Had Morris been injured I would have been only too keen to take his case if I was a personal injury lawyer.
Damn Straight
Roar Rookie
Pretty hard to fault that logic Mushi.
mushi
Roar Guru
It may, after some adjustment, lead to more space for halves as well. If you can't throw your body at on coming forwards you'll see hit ups making a few more metres, which leads to the defence being a little more ragged which leads to attacking opportunities for smaller shifty players against a broken line
PuntPal
Roar Pro
I am with you Delpy....as a fan of ball running forwards, I was sick of watching a skillful player take the ball to the line with the intention of providing a short ball to a support player, only to have someone cannon-ball them right after they pass the ball. To me its a cowardly act that was going to cause many serious injuries in the future and also discouraged ball movement. Banning the shoulder charge is not the end of big hits in footy...it just puts the emphasis back on traditional tackling methods, rather than the US-style human cannon-ball.
mushi
Roar Guru
First: There is a chasm of difference between isolating a spear tackle and “ANY lifting tackle”. It is actually because of the danger of the extreme version of the lifting tackle that it is banned not because of ANY lifting tackle. Second: Okay lets think that when you said lifting you really meant to type spear, but what about “nowhere near as dangerous as....other head high tackles”. My high school science had pressure = force over surface area and force = mass times acceleration. I’d want to see the adding up if we are claiming that anyone’s arm outweighed their body or that the acceleration of an arm that was hung out was greater than the lunge or leap driven by an NRL players massive legs on a dangerous shoulder charge. I would also be staggered if anyone had a shoulder shaped so that its “point” was a flatter surface than the inside of their forearm. This is probably why people started actually using the shoulder charge right, because it does indeed lead to more pressure and force being applied to your opponent. If it didn’t wouldn’t you think that they’d just be using their arms and throwing players around like it was the House of Flying Daggers. Third: lets say there is a universe where your statement is correct. Those two actions have been outlawed. It isn’t like they’ve gone aw shucks we can only have maximum of two dangerous things banned so as of tomorrow you can knee people in the face, gouge their eyes hell have an MMA match right there on the field..but no shoulder charges or lifting tackles.
Intrepid
Guest
The Melbourne papers have been full of concussion stries and strangely not the Sydney ones but I agree only come down hard on the ones that go wrong (which would mean judiciary referral)..the new rule was introduced without any consultation...
turbodewd
Guest
Lifting tackles, i.e spear tackles are the worst tackles by far.
Delpy
Roar Pro
I understand that I am in the minority here, but I actually like the rule change. Far more skill is involved with tackling a player one-on-one than just lining him up and knocking him over. Tackling technique has gone out the window in the last 5 or so years and the shoulder charge is partially to blame. Players who have developed advanced tackling technique should be rewarded over those who have just bulked up. I do agree with the comments above in that shoulder charges are no more dangerous than a lifting or head-high tackle, but these are illegal tackles. As for players on twitter, I don't like it either, but we have taken enough rights off them already. It should be up to clubs to educate their players on appropriate social media behaviour. This is just the clubs protecting their own assets.
mushi
Roar Guru
When did you do science at high school - the dark ages?
turbodewd
Guest
I firmly believe the shoulder charge is nowhere near as dangerous as any lifting tackle or other head high tackle.
Chris morrison
Guest
It is a bullshit rule change. No need for it whatsoever. Everyone who has ever played the game knows that whilst shoulder charges look big and fantastic, they don't hurt as much as a solid "proper tackle" and definately do not cause as much injury. The only thing that was required was to crack down on the existing rule of not being able to attack an opponents head in any kind of tackle not just shoulder charges. This is the only time a shoulder charge is at all dangerous when it is mistimed and the attempted hit makes high contact.