Grand final judiciary

[Cult]

I'll break it down because it seems people are having a hard time understanding the rule.

It's quite simple, it goes like this. ANY contact with the upper arm/shoulder while the arm is tucked is now and always will be a shoulder charge. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter if we think it's a shoulder charge or not. It doesn't matter if contact with the chest is made. It does not matter if he was using his arms to push him. All of that is irrelevant and does not matter in the slightest.

View attachment 3796
View attachment 3797

That has been a shoulder charge for years.. Because he's leading with the shoulder and making contact.

I would love to hear how it isn't..

Except the front angle shows one hand aimed toward Manu in an attempt to push him away and the other folded back but moving forward to push Manu. Neither arm was tucked. The shoulder barely even makes contact. Its mostly the upper arm and it contacts at the same time as the chest, hands and hip.

 

[1910]

I don't see why the panel can't be completely independent. People that have no links whatsoever.

Surely the NRL would have explored that.

A panel of mums would give Slater 40 weeks.

I have no issue with choosing between the five players, if they can sit in judgement all year they can decide now.

Lindner isn’t suddenly going to be lacking in any morals in September.

 

[Foordy]

The idea was that ex players better understand situations. You get a panel of lawyers sitting there you’ll get decisions that don’t understand the game.

what you'll get is consistency (i know that goes against everything the NRL stands for) ... a panel of lawyers will judges the act as it is written in the rule book

 

[1910]

what you'll get is consistency (i know that goes against everything the NRL stands for) ... a panel of lawyers will judges the act as it is written in the rule book

Because our courts are filled with consistency.

 

[1910]

they shouldn't be using ex players either IMO ...

but it is a definite conflict of interest to have former team mates deciding on a players fate ... same as it is a conflict to have a former player in the video refs box for a game his old team is playing in (but that is an issue for another day)

Paul Reffiel umpires Australia and his ex team mates, Henry Perenara referees Warriors games.

I think ex players involved is a good thing.

 

[1910]

Bellew is a Supreme Court judge and over sees the whole thing, it’s not just a few ex players getting a free lunch and letting their mates off.

 

[Nashy]

Because our courts are filled with consistency.

They are actually. It's called precedent.

 

[tommy]

Slater will play. They will go by it frame by frame until they find something, anything to vindicate him then focus on that. Make no mistake, tonight is a mere formality. The knobs are out and the lube is ready. Let's get tonight over with so the wank-fest can get into full swing.

 

[Socnorb]

good,because **** the roosters

 

[john1420]

Brisbane were the last team to go back to back

I don't wanna lose that, so I'm on the Roosters bandwagon, and hope Slater gets suspended just because it suits my agenda :)

 

[Foordy]

Brisbane were the last team to go back to back

I don't wanna lose that,

i was trying hard to find a reason to go for either of these shitstain clubs ... so that'll do, Roosters it is

 

[Alec]

Slater will play. They will go by it frame by frame until they find something, anything to vindicate him then focus on that. Make no mistake, tonight is a mere formality. The knobs are out and the lube is ready. Let's get tonight over with so the wank-fest can get into full swing.

There's a frame of a mosquito sitting on Feki ready to strike, Slater had to get there as quickly as possible so Feki doesn't get that itchy spot.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Because our courts are filled with consistency.

And ex players in the Bunker are also doing such a fine job...

 

[Harry Sack]

I'll break it down because it seems people are having a hard time understanding the rule.

It's quite simple, it goes like this. ANY contact with the upper arm/shoulder while the arm is tucked is now and always will be a shoulder charge. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter if we think it's a shoulder charge or not. It doesn't matter if contact with the chest is made. It does not matter if he was using his arms to push him. All of that is irrelevant and does not matter in the slightest.

View attachment 3796
View attachment 3797

That has been a shoulder charge for years.. Because he's leading with the shoulder and making contact.

I would love to hear how it isn't..

Perhaps I've missed something here. My understanding was you're using this in comparison to Slater, ie: Boyd got off. Perhaps they're both considered shoulder charges, but they're leagues apart IMO.

 

[Renegade]

Slater will play. They will go by it frame by frame until they find something, anything to vindicate him then focus on that. Make no mistake, tonight is a mere formality. The knobs are out and the lube is ready. Let's get tonight over with so the wank-fest can get into full swing.

keep going i'm almost there

 

[Kimlo]

Precedent in the judiciary can only be used if the player was actually charged and got let off.

If the player wasn't charged at all, they can't use that as a defence.

 

[Morkel]

keep going i'm almost there

Say it with me. Future immortals. Dynasty. They're good footballers but even better blokes.

 

[BRC088]

That close to the line Manu can thank his lucky stars he didn't end up with a Slater boot to the head.