Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Midean, post: 3263952, member: 10185"] Again, they do not have a very high chance of sever injury, thats just not true. Any shot to the head by a poorly executed tackle has a high chance of injury. The link Pete just gave me outlines that the reason they banned the shoulder charge is because players are getting larger. The Commission has reviewed a detailed report into the shoulder charge and accepted a management recommendation that [B]the increased size of athletes was creating a situation where the shoulder charge could, if maintained, lead to an unacceptable injury risk.[/B] it was a preemptive ban based on the fact that athletes playing nrl were getting bigger and could lead to injury. It was not banned because of injury setting precedence. [B]The review demonstrated that:[/B] - shoulder charges made up 0.05% of the 142,355 tackles made in 2012 - [B]less than 4%[/B] of these resulted in injury to the attacking player and less than 1% to the defensive player - 17% resulted in contact with the head of the attacking player - players in the Telstra Premiership have grown over the decade from 2002 to 2012 to be on average 4kg heavier, 1.2cm taller and by measure of a superior Body Mass Index, stronger and more powerful “This is about reducing a potential risk of serious injury to our players,” NRL Interim Chief Executive, Mr Shane Mattiske, said today. So really pete/kimlo the shoulder charge was NOT banned because players were getting injured, as the stats above show, but because the potential for injury was there. Just like this rounds knee jerk over-reaction. However, this round is more plausible than the shoulder charge ban because head high tackles are dangerous and do lead to concussions. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 19 (members: 0, guests: 19)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now