Talking Footy

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

yeah too true E

you might see 3 a week ... thats in 8 games , but I spose thats also an argument for keeping it.
of course its the media again
they were all over the one GI put on Dean Young last year ... oh how terrible , its dangerous .... do we need someone in a wheel chair before its banned

then its banned

& its

OUTRAGE at commission banning shoulder charges
FMD the standard of journalism is as low as its ever been.

I think it will have next to no impact on the NRL in 2013.... opinion is running 50/50 in most polls ....
so its really a non issue
& most leaguies are neither glad to see it go .... or outraged it has

So are the media responsible for all the negative comments made by NRL coaches, players and fans? Check out LU. They HATE it!

Some players and fans have suggested fans will turn away from the game. After all, where is the interest when the only thing most fans want to see is violence and injury.

But lets all blame the media...

a coach
2 players & 5 fans ..................as Rev Lovejoy said on the Simpsons

its all over people
we don't have a prayer





will be forgotten about by next week

Really? There would be 30 LU posters alone complaining. The odd person who supported the decision copped abuse.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/rugby-leagu ... 29orq.html

Here's a poll showing about 4000 fans disagreeing with the decision. A few more than 5 hey?

This article alone quotes 7 NRL players objections http://www.theherald.com.au/story/11350 ... rge/?cs=12

Wow Dave, its unlike you to speak shit

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

So are the media responsible for all the negative comments made by NRL coaches, players and fans? Check out LU. They HATE it!

Some players and fans have suggested fans will turn away from the game. After all, where is the interest when the only thing most fans want to see is violence and injury.

But lets all blame the media...

a coach
2 players & 5 fans ..................as Rev Lovejoy said on the Simpsons

its all over people
we don't have a prayer





will be forgotten about by next week

Really? There would be 30 LU posters alone complaining. The odd person who supported the decision copped abuse.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/rugby-leagu ... 29orq.html

Here's a poll showing about 4000 fans disagreeing with the decision. A few more than 5 hey?

This article alone quotes 7 NRL players objections http://www.theherald.com.au/story/11350 ... rge/?cs=12

Wow Dave, its unlike you to speak shit

theres 4000 showing agreement as well d head
& another million plus who couldn't give a F either way as the game won't change one iota
meaning its a non issue

end of

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

a coach
2 players & 5 fans ..................as Rev Lovejoy said on the Simpsons

its all over people
we don't have a prayer





will be forgotten about by next week

Really? There would be 30 LU posters alone complaining. The odd person who supported the decision copped abuse.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/rugby-leagu ... 29orq.html

Here's a poll showing about 4000 fans disagreeing with the decision. A few more than 5 hey?

This article alone quotes 7 NRL players objections http://www.theherald.com.au/story/11350 ... rge/?cs=12

Wow Dave, its unlike you to speak shit

theres 4000 showing agreement as well d head
& another million plus who couldn't give a F either way as the game won't change one iota
meaning its a non issue

end of

53% don't like the decision Dave. That's "turmoil" in anyone's language.

Probably 20 to 1 against on LU to.

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Really? There would be 30 LU posters alone complaining. The odd person who supported the decision copped abuse.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/rugby-leagu ... 29orq.html

Here's a poll showing about 4000 fans disagreeing with the decision. A few more than 5 hey?

This article alone quotes 7 NRL players objections http://www.theherald.com.au/story/11350 ... rge/?cs=12

Wow Dave, its unlike you to speak shit

theres 4000 showing agreement as well d head
& another million plus who couldn't give a F either way as the game won't change one iota
meaning its a non issue

end of

53% don't like the decision Dave. :

47% do
turmoil ....
forgotten about in 3 days ...........

53% against, enough to overturn a government. turmoil indeed

Daves right, this'll all blow over in no time. Why? Because its not a major ruling which will impact on the game. Shoulder charges occur max 4 times a game. There's not many players who actually try it and even less who are proficient at the move.

The only thing that concerns me though is the issue of blindly taking the doctors point of view. Doctors often have a very narrow scientific based view of generally all things. And generally the ones that get in the media trying to change rules in a sport they know little about are attention seeking douchebags who think they're gods gift to the earth because....they believe the silver spoon in their butt and being a doctor gives them that status. Clearly the AFL have listened to these douchebags far too much and we've seen a blanket ruling over the biff, providing the dirtier players in the league to be 'protected' by the rules. If this were to happen in RL it would be a travesty and we must advocate for NRL officials to listen to the few good doctors we have in society rather than the helen lovejoy attention seeking douches.

Xman? You a doctor by any chance?

King-Eliagh wrote:

Daves right, this'll all blow over in no time. Why? Because its not a major ruling which will impact on the game. Shoulder charges occur max 4 times a game. There's not many players who actually try it and even less who are proficient at the move.

The only thing that concerns me though is the issue of blindly taking the doctors point of view. Doctors often have a very narrow scientific based view of generally all things. And generally the ones that get in the media trying to change rules in a sport they know little about are attention seeking douchebags who think they're gods gift to the earth because....they believe the silver spoon in their butt and being a doctor gives them that status. Clearly the AFL have listened to these douchebags far too much and we've seen a blanket ruling over the biff, providing the dirtier players in the league to be 'protected' by the rules. If this were to happen in RL it would be a travesty and we must advocate for NRL officials to listen to the few good doctors we have in society rather than the helen lovejoy attention seeking douches.

Xman? You a doctor by any chance?

Yeah because opinions and policy effecting players health, which are generated using evidence based medicine, are a "narrow view"

Moron!

yes Xman they are.

Please alert us all to where the evidence base has been built, within the medical profession, specifically on the shoulder charge in RL. Where's the years of evidence and analysis that docs have conducted, specifically on the shoulder charge?

I dont think its there. And if it was, it'd be a "narrow view" anyway because if we got these 'simple minded' helen lovejoys to analyse the effects of tackling and associated head injuries they'd likely be up in arms about that too and calling for the sport to be banned. In fact i think this has been done before with pretty much that result. Sport is sport and people play it at their own risk vis a vis the enjoyment and fulfillment they get out of it. Helen lovejoy type medicos have no place dabbling in it and getting their name in the media with their emotion stirring tripe...just because they were likely no good at sport. The legit medicos involved in the sport would be the ones who actually understand the sport and their profession's place within it...rather than sort of the other way round. And this, I would suggest, would be the minority, particularly in regards to those spouting off to the media.

Narrow views indeed Xman you silly confused narrow minded buffoon.

King-Eliagh wrote:

yes Xman they are.

Please alert us all to where the evidence base has been built, within the medical profession, specifically on the shoulder charge in RL. Where's the years of evidence and analysis that docs have conducted, specifically on the shoulder charge?

I dont think its there. And if it was, it'd be a "narrow view" anyway because if we got these 'simple minded' helen lovejoys to analyse the effects of tackling and associated head injuries they'd likely be up in arms about that too and calling for the sport to be banned. In fact i think this has been done before with pretty much that result. Sport is sport and people play it at their own risk vis a vis the enjoyment and fulfillment they get out of it. Helen lovejoy type medicos have no place dabbling in it and getting their name in the media with their emotion stirring tripe...just because they were likely no good at sport. The legit medicos involved in the sport would be the ones who actually understand the sport and their profession's place within it...rather than sort of the other way round. And this, I would suggest, would be the minority, particularly in regards to those spouting off to the media.

Narrow views indeed Xman you silly confused narrow minded buffoon.

so policy affecting health, and based on medical evidence, is a narrow view?

You do realise the decision wasnt made by medicos alone? They would have asked for their opinion and evidence but they would not have been the sole contributors to the recommended policy change.

Or are you that stupid?

Havent answered my Q i see Xman. Where's this medical evidence base on the shoulder charge in RL that you speak of???

As always I'll answer your questions, that's just the kind of good chap I am

Policy on health has in the last few centuries been developed pretty much solely through a western science based view. Which in terms of social, environmental, political, psychological, cultural and other factors affecting health, is incredibly narrow, it's generally solely based on cure rather than prevention and health promotion. We are however slowly shifting in our understandings and conception of health to build these factors in i.e the acceptance of practice such as traditional chinese medicine as a valid health service. Unfortunately though we're not really there in our understanding yet, hence douchebags like yourself Xman spouting off like medicine alone is the be all and end all.

Of course I realise the decision wasnt based alone on medical advice, however their narrow views appear to have been taken a bit too seriously in this instance, as in others. Again not that i care, as the shoulder charge is not something i think affects the game greatly whether its banned or not. But if this kind of advice was taken on board to copy the AFL nanny state rules around biffo I'd be quite upset, yes.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Havent answered my Q i see Xman. Where's this medical evidence base on the shoulder charge in RL that you speak of???

As always I'll answer your questions, that's just the kind of good chap I am

Policy on health has in the last few centuries been developed pretty much solely through a western science based view. Which in terms of social, environmental, political, psychological, cultural and other factors affecting health, is incredibly narrow, it's generally solely based on cure rather than prevention and health promotion. We are however slowly shifting in our understandings and conception of health to build these factors in i.e the acceptance of practice such as traditional chinese medicine as a valid health service. Unfortunately though we're not really there in our understanding yet, hence douchebags like yourself Xman spouting off like medicine alone is the be all and end all.

Of course I realise the decision wasnt based alone on medical advice, however their narrow views appear to have been taken a bit too seriously in this instance, as in others. Again not that i care, as the shoulder charge is not something i think affects the game greatly whether its banned or not. But if this kind of advice was taken on board to copy the AFL nanny state rules around biffo I'd be quite upset, yes.

Ask the medicos involved in the policy change, not me. WHy the fuck would I have it?

But orthopaedic surgeon Sam Sorrenti last night delivered a reality check, saying a mistimed shoulder charge with a high G-force reading could not only cause serious head trauma but lead to heart failure.
Last year, 21-year-old rugby union hooker Halley Appleby suffered a heart attack and required on-field CPR after a regulation tackle playing for University in a Brisbane club game.
The warning from Sorrenti, who was part of a sub-committee that investigated the health dangers of shoulder charges, came as Australian coach Tim Sheens backed the ARLC's hardline stance, a view opposite to that of fellow premiership coaches Wayne Bennett and Ricky Stuart.
"A tackle like this can ruin lives," said Sorrenti, spokesman for the Rugby League Medical Officers' Association.
"The major concern is obviously the potential damage to the brain. It's similar to hitting a bowl of jelly, that's the shockwaves that occur to the brain (from a shoulder charge).
"The other thing is even if you don't hit the head, there can be major damage to the rib cage and the organs behind the rib cage.
"The heart and aorta are at risk and there is a possibility someone can get hit hard in the sternum from a shoulder charge and suffer a cardiac arrest on the field.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/c ... 6521489766

But the evidence for injury caused by trauma to the head or chest is well documented. Is a shoulder charge of sufficient force to cause such trauma? Well according to those who change the rules it is.

Yeah they use the word "risk" a lot. Didnt i say before people who play contact sports are aware of the risks and choose to participate for the enjoyment and fulfillment it provides vis a vis the 'risks' associated.

As is highlighted in your article, "The other thing is even if you don't hit the head, there can be major damage to the rib cage and the organs behind the rib cage."

So as I suggested earlier again, shall we ban marngrook and RL now Xman? Because there can be major damage to the rib cage and organs within? I've told you this before chumpo but me thinks you're following the wrong sport and/or dont actually understand the sport you follow very well.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Yeah they use the word "risk" a lot. Didnt i say before people who play contact sports are aware of the risks and choose to participate for the enjoyment and fulfillment it provides vis a vis the 'risks' associated.

As is highlighted in your article, "The other thing is even if you don't hit the head, there can be major damage to the rib cage and the organs behind the rib cage."

So as I suggested earlier again, shall we ban marngrook and RL now Xman? Because there can be major damage to the rib cage and organs within? I've told you this before chumpo but me thinks you're following the wrong sport and/or dont actually understand the sport you follow very well.

yeah, about players and risks. You are aware that players are now suing the NFL for long term affects of injuries associated with concussion?

The fact as you rightly have pointed out is that the shoulder charge is not a crucial part of RL. As an action it is quite dangerous, as it has been shown to be in the AFL. Will outlawing the shoulder charge ruin the game? Well, if youre watching the game of RL for the brutality alone id suggest it possibly may. These fans should change to MMA and be done with it.

ParraEelsNRL wrote:

As long as there is an attempt to wrap the arms first, the shoulder charge will remain in some manner.

It's called interpretation. (been a law in Union for years)

:>::

parafeel you must be hurting sooooooooooooooooo much.
your game has become so pussey whipped!!!