The Changing Nature of Violence in Rugby League and AFL

[Xman]

Ego driven? Dont try and narrow the argument you silly buffoon.

Xman didnt you alert us all before to the fact that king hits can cause death? In case you never noticed RL and Marngrook arent as safe a past time as chess or synchronised swimming. You can get seriously hurt out there and if that chance is increased by some dodgy ***** who doesnt care for the rules then players have the right to retaliate violently, with whatever means they deem necessary to stop the unjust actions being undertaken. It sends a good clean message to the children to stick up for themselves and fight against injustice. Seems our Xman would rather children and adults didnt do that but rather submitted to giving those in authority positions, who often have not seen or exprerienced what occurred.

Stupid? That's our Helen.

You claimed violence is justified when lives are threatened like someone trying to kill your relative. This NEVER happens on the sporting field. Sporting fights are about playres becoming annoyed over minor issues. Therefore NRL fights are never justified on the sporting field even using your own bogus criteria.

[King-Eliagh]

No I claimed retaliation is often instinctual and necessary on the contact sporting field and off it. If you think sporting fights are only about people becoming annoyed over minor issues then you're blinder than I expected and you dont understand the passion within players. A double whammy for our Helen.

[Xman]

No I claimed retaliation is often instinctual and necessary on the contact sporting field and off it. If you think sporting fights are only about people becoming annoyed over minor issues then you're blinder than I expected and you dont understand the passion within players. A double whammy for our Helen.

Instinct, hmmmmmm, lets let the community act on instinct!

"Mmmm, she looks nice"---->rape

"I'm angry at you"----->assault

"You hit me, take this"----->murder

Thats why we have laws, to set boundaries so behaviour doesn't hurt others. Allowing fighting sends a message to the fans that instinctive and primitive behaviour like this is appropriate. Its not, well not in the community anyway, nor in junior sport.

[King-Eliagh]

Helen Lovejoy! In fine form!

Just remember those laws you put so high up there also state that self defence is legal. Think about it Helen. And for fiftieth fuuuuukkkinng time in this thread, fighting is NOT allowed in RL. Its against the rules you dumb preachers wife. However if someone was to do what Judd did this year and effectively and purposefully dislocate a players shoulder then someone who went in and clocked him one on the noggin to protect their fellow player would not be looked on harshly...as would be the same in society...but not in the AFL and in Helen Lovejoy's dumb perspective.

Stop acting like a hysterical woman in this thread Xman, its totally warping what the essence of the thread is. I know though you have no other way around arguing against me on this, i mean society and the law are on my side :D

[Xman]

Helen Lovejoy! In fine form!

Just remember those laws you put so high up there also state that self defence is legal. Think about it Helen. And for fiftieth fuuuuukkkinng time in this thread, fighting is NOT allowed in RL. Its against the rules you dumb preachers wife. However if someone was to do what Judd did this year and effectively and purposefully dislocate a players shoulder then someone who went in and clocked him one on the noggin to protect their fellow player would not be looked on harshly...as would be the same in society...but not in the AFL and in Helen Lovejoy's dumb perspective.

Stop acting like a hysterical woman in this thread Xman, its totally warping what the essence of the thread is. I know though you have no other way around arguing against me on this, i mean society and the law are on my side :D

So if another player grabbed Judd around the throat and strangled him would that be ok? Or knocked him unconscious and stamped on his head?

Two wrongs don't make a right! Giving people the right to retaliate is a retrospective step which allows people an excuse to act without control. Games have rules and judicial processes for a reason, as does society. Players are NOT the judge and jury.f I killed your boyfriend do you think you would get away with killing my wife in revenge?

[King-Eliagh]

Nope just a good left hook to the noggin or any other act which snapped the ***** out of it would be suffice. The NRL and I wouldnt condone a stamping on the head, nor a strangulation, which really isnt a manly act.

Two wrongs dont make a right is a simple old wives saying from two centuries ago Helen. It has no relevance to what I'm discussing and neither does the rest of your eye for an eye dribble. Again for the fiftieth time, I'm talking about standing up for your own and others human rights in what are potentially the two most violent sports on the planet. Allowing players to retaliate with biffo to acts of extreme injustice is the right thing to do. NRL - big tick. AFL - big cross. That schoenmakers incident was a disgrace!

[Striker]

I think you're simply making grand assumptions there striker. Google jill meagher indeed! If we're gunna go down that dumb line, google charles manson you silly twat. Better still google 'torture in the middle ages'. You'll pee your panties and vow never to make your dumb comment on violence again Xman will likely vommit and then turd and pee in his panties simultaneuosly

Bullying got heaps of publicity over the past 3 decades. The only reason bullying seens to get more publicity now is because media has become more pervasive through technology and the internet.

Xman would lead you to believe that developing a blanket bullying policy in a primary school will eradicate bullying yeah right

Bullying got how much publicity? What school did you go to anyway??

Funny that you mention "torture in the middle ages" because in the streets we're sliding back towards that! That's why I mentioned Jill Meagher (RIP). We're supposed to be civilised, and leave the rough stuff where it's legal in sport. And leave it to the adults as well. That's why I like league. But not the children. Grow up first, learn to control it and then see what happens. Makes sense right? El you don't want control, that's plain as the knuckle on your fist. No control, we'll have so many Charles Manson wannabes the streets will be freaking empty!!

[King-Eliagh]

Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? is a comparative account of the major intervention projects against school bullying that have been carried out by educationalists and researchers since the 1980s, across Europe, North America and Australasia.

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/i ... cale=en_GB

First google search i did Striker.

The rest of your blabber was utter rubbish.

I dont want control? ??? What's that about? You silly twit, read. Umpteen times in this thread I've clearly stated and supported the fact that unnecessary violence is against the rules in the NRL. i.e. i support that it's "controlled".

Leave violence to the adults and not the children? yeah right, that's possible!

Violence has always been an aspect of every culture living on this planet since neanderthals like Xman and AFL'Warrior' have been around. How it is managed and condoned is what we might say makes us civilised and separates us from the neanderthals...like Xman and AFL 'Warrior'.

The NRL have got it right by acknowledging the circumstances that lead to violence and looking lightly upon those who biff when it is necessary i.e. when Judd dislocated a blokes shoulder on purpose.

The AFL present as an unintelligent uncivilised org which applies blanket rulings against violence showing the organisation as having the mental capacity of Mr Mackey off south park. Violence is baaad..mmmkay...thats you Xman!

[Xman]

Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? is a comparative account of the major intervention projects against school bullying that have been carried out by educationalists and researchers since the 1980s, across Europe, North America and Australasia.

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/i ... cale=en_GB

First google search i did Striker.

The rest of your blabber was utter rubbish.

I dont want control? ??? What's that about? You silly twit, read. Umpteen times in this thread I've clearly stated and supported the fact that unnecessary violence is against the rules in the NRL. i.e. i support that it's "controlled".

Leave violence to the adults and not the children? yeah right, that's possible!

Violence has always been an aspect of every culture living on this planet since neanderthals like Xman and AFL'Warrior' have been around. How it is managed and condoned is what we might say makes us civilised and separates us from the neanderthals...like Xman and AFL 'Warrior'.

The NRL have got it right by acknowledging the circumstances that lead to violence and looking lightly upon those who biff when it is necessary i.e. when Judd dislocated a blokes shoulder on purpose.

The AFL present as an unintelligent uncivilised org which applies blanket rulings against violence showing the organisation as having the mental capacity of Mr Mackey off south park. Violence is baaad..mmmkay...thats you Xman!

The AFL applies similar rules to society. If you commit a violent act you are punished. If you react to a violent offense with violence you are punished. The NRL is out of step here and only because they prefer to keep the violence in their game to appeal to bogans such as yourself.

[Striker]

How about presenting the whole abstract, El?

Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? is a comparative account of the major intervention projects against school bullying that have been carried out by educationalists and researchers since the 1980s, across Europe, North America and Australasia. Bullying in schools has become an international focus for concern. It can adversely affect pupils and in extreme cases lead to suicide. Schools can take action to reduce bullying and several programs are available but do they work? In fact, success rates have been very varied. This book surveys thirteen studies and eleven countries. Working on the principle that we can learn from both successes and failures, it examines the processes as well as the outcomes, and critically assesses the likely reasons for success or failure. With contributions from leading researchers in the field, Bullying in Schools is an important addition to the debate on tackling school bullying.

Publication date, 2004. Not any year in the 1980's. 2004.

Look, you're putting all violence over as good one minute, and the next agreeing in effect with X. This is your whole problem. You can't be consistent. Violence in the hands of kids who don't know any better has to be stopped. Surely you agree with that, huh? Come on! Let's see some level headed thinking.

Now I agree with you that the AFL is going too far (love the Mackey reference!), and what you said about the NRL getting it right at their level is also correct. X AKA pansy - shut it!

[Xman]

How about presenting the whole abstract, El?

Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions Be? is a comparative account of the major intervention projects against school bullying that have been carried out by educationalists and researchers since the 1980s, across Europe, North America and Australasia. Bullying in schools has become an international focus for concern. It can adversely affect pupils and in extreme cases lead to suicide. Schools can take action to reduce bullying and several programs are available but do they work? In fact, success rates have been very varied. This book surveys thirteen studies and eleven countries. Working on the principle that we can learn from both successes and failures, it examines the processes as well as the outcomes, and critically assesses the likely reasons for success or failure. With contributions from leading researchers in the field, Bullying in Schools is an important addition to the debate on tackling school bullying.

Publication date, 2004. Not any year in the 1980's. 2004.

Look, you're putting all violence over as good one minute, and the next agreeing in effect with X. This is your whole problem. You can't be consistent. Violence in the hands of kids who don't know any better has to be stopped. Surely you agree with that, huh? Come on! Let's see some level headed thinking.

Now I agree with you that the AFL is going too far (love the Mackey reference!), and what you said about the NRL getting it right at their level is also correct. X AKA pansy - shut it!

youre also being inconsistent. You cannot allow the pros to punch on without repercussions but punish the kids for copying them!

[Striker]

That's not inconsistent, X! Are you saying that children can behave like adults? They're CHILDREN, your freaking fool!

[Xman]

That's not inconsistent, X! Are you saying that children can behave like adults? They're CHILDREN, your freaking fool!

They are. They get confused by mixed messages. They believe in leading by example, that actions speak louder than words. If their heros are allowed and even encouraged to use violence regularly then for them this is cool and they want to copy. You only have to read about the violence in junior RL, or watch the recent youtube videos to see what a massive problem the junior RL comps have.

[King-Eliagh]

Ahh striker that article referred to "major intervention projects against bullying which have been carried out since the 80's". What you think these projects weren't publicised?

Again you're contorting my argument. Please reference where I reported that "all violence is ok"...? ...? ...? ...?

Violence in the hands of kids cant be stopped. Kids are violent from the toddler age, this is actually normal behaviour. What they need to be taught is when it is ok/necessary to use violence. The case of the disgraceful judd incident is just one of thousands of incidents in marngrook where biffo should be condoned.

You're right with the rest of your points though striker. Xman and the AFL are mollycoddling politically correct dumbasses, in the league of mr Mackey mmmkay

[Xman]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/09/17/th ... by-league/


I coach rugby league at a schoolboy and junior club level. I am responsible for boys across a range of ages: 13–17 roughly, but sometimes I have players a little younger.

We play in both the local club and local schoolboy competitions, both of which are usually administered by the ARL and CRL (about to be known as NRL Development).

If one of my boys throws a punch on the field (as has happened to us at critical times this year), he is not only sent off but he is banned for a week.

If the player he assaults punches back, then he too gets sent off and has an automatic one week ban.

The local judiciary can then look at the severity of the incident and make the suspension longer if need be. If it happens at a school game, then the consequence applies to his club games as well.

Now, I don’t have a problem with this. In fact, I think it is useful to have a blanket policy like this because it means there is no grey area: everyone understands the rule (comes under the SAFE PLAY CODE) and the consequences if it is broken.

Not only that, but I don’t want my players thinking belting an opposition player is a useful tactic.

I want them on the field using their strength and skill within the laws of the game to win. I don’t want them out there bashing the daylights out of the opposition.

It doesn’t matter what age the player. If they compete in junior club level or a schoolboy comp, then rules are the same.

But when my boys turn on the TV on Friday night to watch the footy, they see players – professionals who make a living from the sport – belting each other with no apparent consequence.

Either that or they are sin binned for 10 minutes.

They can get a ban from the judiciary for high tackles, for cheap shots, for dangerous play, but not for punching each other?

I am worried about the contradiction of the message this sends my players.

For example, someone like Israel Folou, who debuted for the Storm at 17 years of age … if he played in a school game and threw a punch, then he would be gone from the field immediately.

But if he did the EXACT SAME THING in the NRL he wouldn’t.

This is one of the major dilemmas of our glorious sport. I know that the ‘biff’ has played a big role in the history of rugby league and I know that when I am watching State of Origin and they start belting each other, it gets exciting.

But I also know that restraining yourself and not expressing anger through physical violence is a skill a lot of boys I teach desperately need to learn.

So rugby league needs to decide: which is it?

Because, as any parent will tell you, if you TELL your kids one thing and then they SEE you doing the opposite, 9 times out of 10 they will do what they see you do, not what you tell them not to do.