To quote myself from the other day because I can't be d writing out my views again...
Quote: wrap "People who support and cannot see the massive change the shoulder charge is going to bring, they're naive. The problem is that you have league people who are judging what and what isn't a shoulder charge on current, rugby league criteria. But just because that is the criteria now that doesn't mean that's what the criteria is going to be 5 years, 15 years down the line, once the ban has really taken effect. The criteria is going to change; the sport is going to be worse off for it.
Case in pointAnd as for lawsuits. Lawsuit for what? High shots that are already illegal. I'm not well versed in the law, but it doesn't make sense to me. How can an organisation be at risk of lawsuit for brain trauma resulting from an act that's illegal, but not face the same risk - an added risk, actually - for brain trauma which results from legal, accepted play.
Another question on lawsuits. If organisations can face lawsuit over head trauma because of illegal hits to the head, wouldn't the new found illegality of the shoulder charge not matter? Hits to their head have happened and injured people regardless of them being illegal. Shoulder charges are now illegal, but they're still going to happen and people are still going to get hurt from them.
The two points in my last two paragraphs baffle me. If someone could explain that, I'd love to know. As a layman it makes bugger all sense to me. Just thinking about it puts me at risk of brain trauma. I sense my head is on the verge of imploding!
3.8828125:5
