|
No. All physical contact sports contain an element of risk. If a footballer breaks his wrist trying to block a kick, will we ban blocking too?
ballydalane (Kilkenny) - Posts: 1246 - 19/08/2021 17:44:04
2373153
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ballydalane: "No. All physical contact sports contain an element of risk. If a footballer breaks his wrist trying to block a kick, will we ban blocking too?" I don't think there's any risk of brain damage from a broken wrist.
Head injuries man.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 19/08/2021 18:10:02
2373162
Link
1
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: "I don't think there's any risk of brain damage from a broken wrist.
Head injuries man." Okay so we need to ban kicking the ball in case the leg comes up and does brain damage to someone. You can take this to any level of stupidity you want to. Mitigating injury is always a good thing. However the reality is there is a very very low risk of brain damage in our sports and stats to show that. The organizers of UFC should be in jail if risk factor was assesed for banning activities and getting paid or not is not the issue.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 19/08/2021 19:28:36
2373186
Link
0
|
|
Age bracket bahaha, sorry young folk, there is NO safe place on a pitch unless you're good at hiding!
realdub (Dublin) - Posts: 8592 - 19/08/2021 22:18:47
2373222
Link
4
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: "This is Darren O'Sullivans opinion on the subject :
"My personal opinion is that fellas have gotten so strong and are so physical now, that I don't think that type of shoulder should be allowed.
Someone else might say 'you're taking the physicality out of it', keep the physicality, that's fine. But if you're hitting a fella like that blind, and you get it wrong or are a couple of inches bigger and connect (with the head), you have a serious injury.
A broken jaw is a serious injury, but look (Eoin McLaughlin) will get over it. It could be way worse than that.
My personal opinion is that if someone can't see you and you're lining him up, and John Small is a big guy, if he hits you blind I don't care if he only hits you in the shoulder. You're in trouble, you're getting hurt.
It's too dangerous. Fellas are too strong, they are machines now, they're all in the gym. It's like being in a car crash that you can't see coming.
Personally I think it should be gone. As a defender there is no reason why you can't be there to stand him up or whatever.
It's too dangerous. If you're off by a fraction, a bit late or early or too high, it's too serious of an injury.
In the speed of a game it looked like a shoulder, but I think it's a bigger issue than that. That whole lining a fella up, you can't do it in rugby.
There is no problem with physicality, but with the angle they were going at there was no way he could have hit him shoulder to shoulder, there was always a chance he would hit him in the face.
You have to nip that in the bud...
I love the big hits, but fellas are too strong. You even see it in the club game, lads are in the gym and especially during lockdown lads got big and strong.
Everyone wants the big hit and it's a recipe for disaster...
You're not in control. If I'm the one lining you up for a shoulder, you're not in control at all. You could see me last minute and take a slight move, and I'm getting you straight in the face"." Completely agree with him. All this sarcastic talk of oh should we ban kicking, should we ban jumping is just nonsense. They're not tackles. And they're obviously far less dangerous than running at full speed and shouldering someone on the blindside.
A head injury is also far worse. Your brain controls your entire body and your thoughts/emotions. Your wrist is just your wrist.
jonjon (Mayo) - Posts: 99 - 20/08/2021 00:59:04
2373237
Link
0
|
|
Replying To ConnollyDub: "My god what a load of nonsense.
What next? Ban tackling in the game of rugby??!!
Seriously just pure and utter nonsense.
Through my years of playing gaelic games I've had my nose broke, hand broke, dislocated shoulder, stitched up pretty much everywhere, etc,. And I'm pretty sure the same goes for anyone who spent a life time playing gaelic games.
And i was the opposite to the type of player that loved the rough & tumble by the way..
But i also understood things like what happened last Sat night are unfortunately bound to happen from time to time in a CONTACT SPORT!
EVERYONE knows the risks. If you don't like it don't play the sport. Its that simple." What next? Ban tackling in rugby? Hmmmm. Frankly, at the elite level, ban rugby altogether if rule changes can't be implemented to protect the players.
plike (Kerry) - Posts: 569 - 20/08/2021 07:09:22
2373243
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Galway9801: "I wouldn't put the helmet rule
20 years from now when they're removing high fielding from the game because it's deemed unsafe for two men to jump so high close together lest one lands on the other once they fall down, you'll be defending that rule change by saying "sure there was once a time when people objected to the shoulder charge".
20 years after that when physical contact is deemed unsafe and kids are stopped from playing the game altogether you'll be saying "sure there was once a time when people objected to the banning of high fielding"." Hyperbolic, hysterical hissy fits is it now, Father?
plike (Kerry) - Posts: 569 - 20/08/2021 07:13:47
2373244
Link
2
|
|
I hereby propose taking the fair shoulder and putting to where it will be appreciated more. Instead of bothering King Puck every year in Killorglin, we should have a fair shoulder competition as a preliminary. Instead of weight divisions, we should allow lads to compete according to how much drink they've had. The beauty of this proposal is that we can all continue to celebrate the manly art that is the fair shoulder. Amen.
plike (Kerry) - Posts: 569 - 20/08/2021 09:48:24
2373254
Link
1
|
|
Replying To midfield9: "No need to ban shoulder tackles. The rules are clear. It must be side to side. The player executing the tackle must make sure he makes side to side contact and no contact with the head. Players are red carded if they behave in any manner that is dangerous to an opponent. Players have a duty of care at all times. If their opponent has received a hospital pass then the player tackling him has to be careful. Banning a shoulder charge would ruin the game." "The rules are clear. It must be side to side."
But that's the problem. It almost never is side to side any more! The speed and agility of modern players means that the conditions for a legal shoulder tackle nowadays almost never exist.
The rules are designed for a scenario which is mainly a fantasy these days.
essmac (Tyrone) - Posts: 1141 - 20/08/2021 09:52:36
2373255
Link
0
|
|
Replying To plike: "What next? Ban tackling in rugby? Hmmmm. Frankly, at the elite level, ban rugby altogether if rule changes can't be implemented to protect the players." Exactly. Rugby has gone the same way. The increasing pace and power of modern rugby players and the fact that modern rugby has gone from a 'contact sport' to a 'collision sport'. Why sidestep and leave your man for dead when you can just go bash! bash! bash! Boring to watch too, despite the "greater physicality".
essmac (Tyrone) - Posts: 1141 - 20/08/2021 09:56:24
2373256
Link
2
|
|
The health and safety of the players is paramount and I believe the shoulder charge will go as its not possible to allow it to continue and at the same time protect the players from injury as its virtually impossible to execute a fair shoulder to shoulder charge currently.
ONdeDITCH (Limerick) - Posts: 873 - 20/08/2021 10:09:48
2373262
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Okay so we need to ban kicking the ball in case the leg comes up and does brain damage to someone. You can take this to any level of stupidity you want to. Mitigating injury is always a good thing. However the reality is there is a very very low risk of brain damage in our sports and stats to show that. The organizers of UFC should be in jail if risk factor was assesed for banning activities and getting paid or not is not the issue." If you can't kick a ball without having control of your leg and connect with a mans head instead of the ball then it's you who should be banned !
"In case the leg comes up" lol
Is it a wooden leg or what ? Lol
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 20/08/2021 10:12:30
2373263
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Canuck: "Okay so we need to ban kicking the ball in case the leg comes up and does brain damage to someone. You can take this to any level of stupidity you want to. Mitigating injury is always a good thing. However the reality is there is a very very low risk of brain damage in our sports and stats to show that. The organizers of UFC should be in jail if risk factor was assesed for banning activities and getting paid or not is not the issue." All sport carries some risk. But there's a big difference between:
1. An activity which is not intended to cause injury, and almost never causes injury; and
2. An activity which nowadays is intended to cause an injury, and sometimes does cause severe injury.
When you hit a guy like Small did, you are at the very least indifferent as to whether or not you injure him, and you probably have a fair idea that an injury will result.
When you jump for a high ball and there's a clash of heads, you're not intending to injure anybody, and an injury rarely result. If it does, that's a pure accident. We accept such accidents since we wouldn't have a game without them.
Would we have a game without today's shoulder tackles? You say we wouldn't; I say we would.
All this macho talk about "physicality" makes me laugh. Get into a boxing ring if you're this mad for it. I tell you what real physicality is; it's running the length of the pitch and scoring in the 70th minute when your muscle and lungs are on fire and you just want a lie down. I was never the fittest, and I used to shoulder my opponent and maybe start a bit of handbags just to get a bit of a rest from all the horrible running lol.
I also box a bit (very badly - terrible at footwork - but the training is good for the pies), and personally I'd rather face an opponent in the ring with my guard up than to be take an open body hit like poor McLaughlin did. If I hit a man in the ring, he can hit me back. Unlike these open body shoulder targets where the man being shouldered is unprepared. You line a guy up like Small did, and you know well he's not going to be able to defend himself or hit you back. There was nothing manly about Small's shoulder hit, and the sooner we get away from this culture of old guys, safe on the sideline, romanticising this sort of stuff, the better. I don't want to see my daughter's teeth knocked out and her jaw broken just because she's driven over by some hefty pyscho full back who "wants to take the speed off the wee forward".
essmac (Tyrone) - Posts: 1141 - 20/08/2021 10:25:37
2373265
Link
3
|
|
Replying To essmac: "Exactly. Rugby has gone the same way. The increasing pace and power of modern rugby players and the fact that modern rugby has gone from a 'contact sport' to a 'collision sport'. Why sidestep and leave your man for dead when you can just go bash! bash! bash! Boring to watch too, despite the "greater physicality"." I know it's a bit of a common suggestion in our sport but rugby should absolutely look at reducing the players from 15 to 14, and maybe even 13. The talent and speed of some of the backs in rugby, if they had even a small bit more space about the pitch, they would exploit it and I would hope it would change the focus from that bash/physicality nonsense that has taken over.
JoeSoap (Donegal) - Posts: 1432 - 20/08/2021 10:33:04
2373268
Link
0
|
|
In terms of a fair shoulder, I think it's so rare we don't really need to look at banning it, but there should be more done around what is legal for a player without the ball - in all honesty defenders have a rough time of it a lot of the time with an ill-defined tackle and attacking players being given all sorts of leeway with the amount of steps, I can't remember the last time I saw an attacker called for charging either, was there a rule change around that?
I think if defending players had a much clearer way of what they need to do to stop an attacker, we'd hopefully see less stop start football as well as safer football.
JoeSoap (Donegal) - Posts: 1432 - 20/08/2021 10:37:33
2373272
Link
0
|
|
Replying To essmac: "All sport carries some risk. But there's a big difference between:
1. An activity which is not intended to cause injury, and almost never causes injury; and
2. An activity which nowadays is intended to cause an injury, and sometimes does cause severe injury.
When you hit a guy like Small did, you are at the very least indifferent as to whether or not you injure him, and you probably have a fair idea that an injury will result.
When you jump for a high ball and there's a clash of heads, you're not intending to injure anybody, and an injury rarely result. If it does, that's a pure accident. We accept such accidents since we wouldn't have a game without them.
Would we have a game without today's shoulder tackles? You say we wouldn't; I say we would.
All this macho talk about "physicality" makes me laugh. Get into a boxing ring if you're this mad for it. I tell you what real physicality is; it's running the length of the pitch and scoring in the 70th minute when your muscle and lungs are on fire and you just want a lie down. I was never the fittest, and I used to shoulder my opponent and maybe start a bit of handbags just to get a bit of a rest from all the horrible running lol.
I also box a bit (very badly - terrible at footwork - but the training is good for the pies), and personally I'd rather face an opponent in the ring with my guard up than to be take an open body hit like poor McLaughlin did. If I hit a man in the ring, he can hit me back. Unlike these open body shoulder targets where the man being shouldered is unprepared. You line a guy up like Small did, and you know well he's not going to be able to defend himself or hit you back. There was nothing manly about Small's shoulder hit, and the sooner we get away from this culture of old guys, safe on the sideline, romanticising this sort of stuff, the better. I don't want to see my daughter's teeth knocked out and her jaw broken just because she's driven over by some hefty pyscho full back who "wants to take the speed off the wee forward"." Agree Essmac. I boxing you are ready and can defend yourself most of the time. In a gaelic match its the vang you can't see that does the damage as your eye is on the ball. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think the shoulder charge is illegal in Ladies football.
CiarraiMick (Dublin) - Posts: 3676 - 20/08/2021 13:29:46
2373344
Link
0
|
|
Replying To essmac: "All sport carries some risk. But there's a big difference between:
1. An activity which is not intended to cause injury, and almost never causes injury; and
2. An activity which nowadays is intended to cause an injury, and sometimes does cause severe injury.
When you hit a guy like Small did, you are at the very least indifferent as to whether or not you injure him, and you probably have a fair idea that an injury will result.
When you jump for a high ball and there's a clash of heads, you're not intending to injure anybody, and an injury rarely result. If it does, that's a pure accident. We accept such accidents since we wouldn't have a game without them.
Would we have a game without today's shoulder tackles? You say we wouldn't; I say we would.
All this macho talk about "physicality" makes me laugh. Get into a boxing ring if you're this mad for it. I tell you what real physicality is; it's running the length of the pitch and scoring in the 70th minute when your muscle and lungs are on fire and you just want a lie down. I was never the fittest, and I used to shoulder my opponent and maybe start a bit of handbags just to get a bit of a rest from all the horrible running lol.
I also box a bit (very badly - terrible at footwork - but the training is good for the pies), and personally I'd rather face an opponent in the ring with my guard up than to be take an open body hit like poor McLaughlin did. If I hit a man in the ring, he can hit me back. Unlike these open body shoulder targets where the man being shouldered is unprepared. You line a guy up like Small did, and you know well he's not going to be able to defend himself or hit you back. There was nothing manly about Small's shoulder hit, and the sooner we get away from this culture of old guys, safe on the sideline, romanticising this sort of stuff, the better. I don't want to see my daughter's teeth knocked out and her jaw broken just because she's driven over by some hefty pyscho full back who "wants to take the speed off the wee forward"." I have to say essmac that you have presented your opinion well in the case, "The Modern Men v The Auld Fellas".
There is no doubt that when you go in with the shoulder you are going in to hurt someone, in fact there is absolutely no sanction if you hit a fella a hard shoulder to shoulder and you dislocate his shoulder or do other serious damage because it's legal. You would be looked at as having done your job if a fella is left badly injured.
So we have a game in 2021 where you can "legally seriously injure someone".
But the John Small incident is different because he never carried out a legal shoulder to shoulder to begin with.
His was an illegal charge pure and simple, it's irrelevant whether he meant a shoulder to shoulder or not.
But I do understand what you are saying, do we want to see football or do we want to see a herd of bulls going around thumping each other.
Shouldering in my opinion adds absolutely nothing to the game, it's an old fashioned form of tackling that's being mainly lauded by fellas who's best days are behind them, but the reality is that the modern player is a completely different animal than those fellas ever were and that's probably the main reason this tackle will eventually be outlawed.
It's nonsense to say that players are too soft nowadays, it's because they are much tougher that it will be outlawed.
I always found the best way to hurt a fella was on the score board, works every time.
AfricanGael (UK) - Posts: 1947 - 20/08/2021 13:43:31
2373350
Link
1
|
|
Replying To AfricanGael: "I have to say essmac that you have presented your opinion well in the case, "The Modern Men v The Auld Fellas".
There is no doubt that when you go in with the shoulder you are going in to hurt someone, in fact there is absolutely no sanction if you hit a fella a hard shoulder to shoulder and you dislocate his shoulder or do other serious damage because it's legal. You would be looked at as having done your job if a fella is left badly injured.
So we have a game in 2021 where you can "legally seriously injure someone".
But the John Small incident is different because he never carried out a legal shoulder to shoulder to begin with.
His was an illegal charge pure and simple, it's irrelevant whether he meant a shoulder to shoulder or not.
But I do understand what you are saying, do we want to see football or do we want to see a herd of bulls going around thumping each other.
Shouldering in my opinion adds absolutely nothing to the game, it's an old fashioned form of tackling that's being mainly lauded by fellas who's best days are behind them, but the reality is that the modern player is a completely different animal than those fellas ever were and that's probably the main reason this tackle will eventually be outlawed.
It's nonsense to say that players are too soft nowadays, it's because they are much tougher that it will be outlawed.
I always found the best way to hurt a fella was on the score board, works every time." But you're not going in to hurt someone, you're going in to knock them off their stride so that you can gain possession. Saying you're going in to hurt someone is pulling the ****, (I'm assuming therefore that if going in to hurt someone should be banned you're in favour of banning all combat sports)?
The pain of losing multiple all Ireland finals as Mayo have done I'm sure outweighs the pain of 99.9% of shoulder challenges theyve been on the receiving end of, perhaps we could then be all modern and sophisticated and ban losing too, do away with scoreboards, everyone is a winner. :)
Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1708 - 20/08/2021 14:43:53
2373360
Link
2
|
|
"The Modern Men v The Auld Fellas".
More nonsense. Has nothing to do with it. Change is ongoing and will be, in every aspect of our games. Players are more athletic, trained and coached better with greater expectation for their efforts. Rightly so. Rules get amended or changed as required to reflect the change. Make changes as required but consider the consequences of them. Players are more inclined to take advantage of a rule or exploit it. If the shoulder tackle is taken out you may as well just do a shoot out because the whistle be getting blown every 10 seconds.
Incidently those "auld fellas " can be seen down in the field helping with the kids, cutting the grass, cleaning the dressing rooms and selling tickets to raise funds etc. The so called "modern men" are well able to work with them and no one draws that distinction.
Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2660 - 20/08/2021 14:53:39
2373363
Link
1
|
|
You should have seen the uproar on HS when Cluxton was taken out in an aerial challenge and he broke 3 bones in his back and suffered a punctured lung. Oh wait......
Jackeen (Dublin) - Posts: 4097 - 20/08/2021 14:57:18
2373365
Link
10
|