Grand final judiciary

[Harry Sack]

I've seen some bullshit charges get off, Reynolds comes to mind, but **** me this is up there. Although the meltdown from some fans on other forums has been excellent. Prior to the verdict though, I had heaps of people on my news feed claiming it was a QLD conspiracy to get Billy out of the GF. They're oddly silent atm. I do love bandwagon Origin supporters sticking their head in during the regular season lol.

 

[CaptainHook]

Wow. What a night.

Still hard to believe he escaped a suspension - good luck to the kid.

Hopefully he's used up all of his good luck, a little bit can be spread to Cronk and he has a shocker on Sunday.

Looking at the big picture - whether he was suspended or not, the bottom line is we're only 80 minutes away from this grubby little shit ever staining a rugby league field again forever.

Or maybe less. As others have said, being on the receiving end of a Dylan Napa special wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Slater could be stepping the wrong way. Like Feki. Napa had no choice. Totally accidental. Completely unintentional.

There was no time!

It's important that Napa gets the support and attention he needs as Slater is stretchered off with a smashed face.

Looking long term - what are some of the ramifications?

The NRL basically defined the charge and penalty last night based on the actions of the victim.

Surely they've just made the biggest rod for their own back?

I suspect the NRL will be hoping like hell there won't be similar incidents for the final 80 minutes of the year and then they'll amend it over the off-season.

 

[Super Freak]

Before 2017 the shoulder charge rule only came into play when there was no separation between the upper arm and the torso.

In 2017, they fixed that by changing the rule to all forceful contact with the upper arm/shoulder is a shoulder charge regardless of separation.

Billy Slater performed a shoulder charge under the current definition of the rule. So what possible changes could they make to fix it?

The rule is not the problem. It's the fucking judiciary. The fact that the NRL still can't see this is why this problem isn't going to be ending anytime soon.

 

[Sproj]

I suspect the NRL will be hoping like hell there won't be similar incidents for the final 80 minutes of the year and then they'll amend it over the off-season.

It will happen in round 1, when they make decisions like this, it always happens that way.

 

[Browny]

Funny how the judiciary suspended Napa tackle 2 after Greenberg told them to [HASHTAG]#independentlol[/HASHTAG]

 

[Kimlo]

Paul Kent is spot on. Buzz has had too much to drink as usual.

 

[jarro65]

Paul Kent is spot on. Buzz has had too much to drink as usual.

Rothfield makes a good point for once, where was all this outrage when the other exact same tackles were done ??

There have been plenty of shoulder charge type tackles made on wingers this year, and the only comments you hear are about how good they were.

 

[Nashy]

Rothfield makes a good point for once, where was all this outrage when the other exact same tackles were done ??

There have been plenty of shoulder charge type tackles made on wingers this year, and the only comments you hear are about how good they were.

The issue Buzz has, they weren't charged. That's what makes it different.

 

[johnny plath]

He won't be smiling when he's barely scraping into the eight or missing it completely without Smith.



They weren't, the NRL rep gave very clear instructions that would have resulted in a conviction in a court of law. If you read the blog it says that Slater was staring at the dude for 10 minutes straight after he told the judiciary what was required, I assume because he knew he was gone. The NRL had other ideas.

So what happened?? you saying the panel just ignored the directions given... exactly why a panel of players is shit.. how about a ref a player and some other person with a fucking brain to split the two.

 

[Dexter]

I don't give a crap what Slater was trying to do

The fact is he produced a shoulder charge

Intent can inform the grading

He got the lowest possible grade so that means he had no intent

No problem with me, it's still a week on the sidelines

Lack of intent doesn't mean no charge/not guilty FFS

So many posters have said how capable they are of taking the emotion out of the argument while sprinkling their posts with Melb hating comments but I have tried to view this according to what I see and read as below.

According to the NRL rule if a player uses the arms OR attempts to use the arms (including the hands)
then it is not a shoulder charge.

Given that first contact is made with Slaters right hand which is clearly out in front of his left shoulder, how is it a shoulder charge under the wording of the rule?

There was always a good winnable argument to be made by Melb and that is the way it turned out.



The definition of a shoulder charge has been changed for the 2017 Telstra Premiership to make it clearer and simpler for fans and players.
As part of a change to the Judiciary and Match Review system, a player will be charged if:
• The contact is forceful, and;

• The player did not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

NRL Head of Football Brian Canavan said the amendment clarified and simplified the definition of a shoulder charge.

"This change will make it easier for everyone involved in the game to understand what does and does not constitute a shoulder charge," Mr Canavan said.

"Clearly there were instances in 2016 when the Match Review Committee and the Judiciary had differing views of whether or not a shoulder charge had been used, and that made it difficult for players, Clubs and our supporters to understand the guidelines around the offence."

The change to the definition of a shoulder charge was made following recommendation from the NRL Competition Committee, on advice from the Judiciary Chairman.

 

[johnny plath]

So many posters have said how capable they are of taking the emotion out of the argument while sprinkling their posts with Melb hating comments but I have tried to view this according to what I see and read as below.

According to the NRL rule if a player uses the arms OR attempts to use the arms (including the hands)
then it is not a shoulder charge.

Given that first contact is made with Slaters right hand which is clearly out in front of his left shoulder, how is it a shoulder charge under the wording of the rule?

I think that just because the right hand does make contact shouldn't determine that he was using it to make a tackle. IMO his right hand contacts him because its in his running stride and thats it... Slater's whole body position is about driving with the left side of his body... slaters feet, hips, and upper body are all position exactly opposite to how you would make a right shoulder tackle. Not exactly what you would expect from the so called greatest fullback of all time. It was a fucking shoulder charge which he slimed out of because a smart lawyer convinced dumb arse footballers that somehow that right hand constitutes an attempted tackle. Don't people say if it looks like a duck then its a duck... well that was a fucking shoulder charge.

 

[Kimlo]

• The player did not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

Because anyone who is even remotely objective would very clearly be able to determine that he did not use, nor "attempt" to use his arms or hand to tackle or hold the opposing player. The hand merely touched and all attempt and force came through the actual shoulder.

It's ridiculously clear cut, and only a biased judiciary filled with ex players could have come to the conclusion they did. There is no way you can look at the tackle and call that an attempt to use the arms to effect the tackle or even "hold the player".

Sure you could argue it was an "attempt", but that's one of the weakest arguments ever, and any good prosecution would laugh it off and say nope.

 

[Dexter]

@broncospwn, @johnny plath
None of that applies to the rule as it is written and how it was argued in the judiciary.

Like so many have said take emotions away and look at the rule and the contact.

 

[Kimlo]

There is no emotion whatsoever. I am literally making my point with the exact wording of the rule in mind.

Would you judge his hand briefly brushing Feki as an attempt to effect a tackle or hold the player?

 

[Dexter]

There is no emotion whatsoever. I am literally making my point with the exact wording of the rule in mind.

Would you judge his hand briefly brushing Feki as an attempt to effect a tackle or hold the player?

How else could you judge it? He was effecting a tackle unless you are now going down the road of intent .

 

[Dash]

How else could you judge it? He was effecting a tackle unless you are now going down the road of intent .

He was effecting a shoulder charge in which his opposite hand made incidental contact. You absolutely do not make a left side tackle with your right hand.

 

[Kimlo]

How else could you judge it? He was effecting a tackle unless you are now going down the road of intent .

So watching the video of the tackle, you honestly believe his right arm was used to tackle, or to attempt to tackle?

• The player did not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

\

This is the exact rule.

Did he use his arms (or hands) to tackle or hold the player? That's 100% no
Did he attempt to use his arms (or hands) to tackle or hold the player? There is nothing in the video that indicates to me that he attempted to effect the tackle with his arms, or even try to hold up the player.

There's the slightest argument that he "attempted" it, but reasonably judging the tackle, 9/10 people would say he did not attempt to tackle using his arms at all and it was a by-product of his shoulder charge that his right arm touched the opposing player, not an attempt on his part.

It's a ridiculous decision, I'm seriously baffled you're defending it as correct. This is the stupidest judiciary decision in years, it just opens up a can of worms for players to shoulder charge as hard as they want, from any angle, but simply make sure the other hand slightly touches the opposing player and now that the precedent is set, it's entirely legal.

 

[Dexter]

He was effecting a shoulder charge in which his opposite hand made incidental contact. You absolutely do not make a left side tackle with your right hand.

So watching the video of the tackle, you honestly believe his right arm was used to tackle, or to attempt to tackle?

\

This is the exact rule.

Did he use his arms (or hands) to tackle or hold the player? That's 100% no
Did he attempt to use his arms (or hands) to tackle or hold the player? There is nothing in the video that indicates to me that he attempted to effect the tackle with his arms, or even try to hold up the player.

There's the slightest argument that he "attempted" it, but reasonably judging the tackle, 9/10 people would say he did not attempt to tackle using his arms at all and it was a by-product of his shoulder charge that his right arm touched the opposing player, not an attempt on his part.

It's a ridiculous decision, I'm seriously baffled you're defending it as correct. This is the stupidest judiciary decision in years, it just opens up a can of worms for players to shoulder charge as hard as they want, from any angle, but simply make sure the other hand slightly touches the opposing player and now that the precedent is set, it's entirely legal.

Fact, He reached out and made contact first with his right hand. What you or anyone else thinks about intent, accidental contact or anything else does not matter. It happened therefor he did use his right hand and, guess what, he was making a tackle.

The problem is with the definition of the rule as I see it. How they remedy that, I don't know because the defence lawyers are 1 step ahead.