Grand final judiciary

[ivanhungryjak]

Someone had to do it.

 

[Number6]

Mate not meaning for it to be personal. I think it looked like a shoulder charge too by pub test.

My argument was it doesn’t matter if someone in the public thinks it was or wasn’t a shoulder charge or even if majority do in the way the NRL has set up the system. It’s more of a legal process which to my limited understanding defines ‘facts’ and ‘judgements’ in a different manner than common usage.

For me by the process they were using seemed a reasonable outcome in the setting of the way the rule is written re ‘attempt’ and everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. If outcome doesn’t meet community standards then community perhaps should question the rules and processes rather then the individual judiciary members who are selected presumably as a jury of peers like many others in our legal system.

 

[Morkel]

Mate not meaning for it to be personal. I think it looked like a shoulder charge too by pub test.

My argument was it doesn’t matter if someone in the public thinks it was or wasn’t a shoulder charge or even if majority do in the way the NRL has set up the system. It’s more of a legal process which to my limited understanding defines ‘facts’ and ‘judgements’ in a different manner than common usage.

For me by the process they were using seemed a reasonable outcome in the setting of the way the rule is written re ‘attempt’ and everyone deserves a presumption of innocence. If outcome doesn’t meet community standards then community perhaps should question the rules and processes rather then the individual judiciary members who are selected presumably as a jury of peers like many others in our legal system.

The wording in the rules doesn't state an "attempt" to simply use one arm, or one hand, it says an attempt to use both arms. People don't run sideways, so the excuse that Feki stepping in-field contributed is BS - if anything it would have meant that Slater would not have time to even turn his body so would have hit Feki's side him front-on. That says to me that even the one hand contacting was not an attempt to enact a legal tackle, it was incidental contact at best. And most certainly wasn't an attempt to use both arms.

So, completely disagree that the outcome was a result of the wording of the rules. The rookie barrister actually nailed it with his two qualifying questions. There was no way any right-minded person would have answered those questions in such a way as to find him not guilty. It was a con job from the start.

 

[Dexter]

The wording in the rules doesn't state an "attempt" to simply use one arm, or one hand, it says an attempt to use both arms. People don't run sideways, so the excuse that Feki stepping in-field contributed is BS - if anything it would have meant that Slater would not have time to even turn his body so would have hit Feki's side him front-on. That says to me that even the one hand contacting was not an attempt to enact a legal tackle, it was incidental contact at best. And most certainly wasn't an attempt to use both arms.

So, completely disagree that the outcome was a result of the wording of the rules. The rookie barrister actually nailed it with his two qualifying questions. There was no way any right-minded person would have answered those questions in such a way as to find him not guilty. It was a con job from the start.

"Both "does not appear in the rule .

 

[tommy]

"Both "does not appear in the rule .

7.42pm: Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew has asked panel members to consider the following.

"1. Was there forceful contact with the shoulder or upper arm? Bellew says if your answer is no, then he is not guilty.
"If you answer yes you need to consider: 2. Was the forceful contact made without Slater using or attempting to use both his arms including his hands to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.
"3. Was Slater's conduct careless? I remind you he is charged with a careless act, not an intentional act."

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/09/25/live-blog-billy-slater-grand-final-judiciary-challenge/

 

[Dexter]

7.42pm: Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew has asked panel members to consider the following.

"1. Was there forceful contact with the shoulder or upper arm? Bellew says if your answer is no, then he is not guilty.
"If you answer yes you need to consider: 2. Was the forceful contact made without Slater using or attempting to use both his arms including his hands to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.
"3. Was Slater's conduct careless? I remind you he is charged with a careless act, not an intentional act."

https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/09/25/live-blog-billy-slater-grand-final-judiciary-challenge/

And my post said "both " does not appear in the rule.
Tell me how that is wrong.

 

[tommy]

And my post said "both " does not appear in the rule.
Tell me how that is wrong.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2017/02/04/nrl-statement-on-shoulder-charge/

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

the "s" refers to plural form ie.both.

 

[Super Freak]

The rules that we have access to are a very basic rundown of the rules. They don't go into much detail. The old rule books used to have more detailed interpretations of the rules at the end of the book and the NRL used to have another book you can download that went into detail on every rule and when those rules would apply.

I do believe the clubs get education and training each pre-season on the rules so they know exactly what the NRL expect of them. This would likely include parts of the rules that aren't stated in the book.

 

[Dexter]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2017/02/04/nrl-statement-on-shoulder-charge/



the "s" refers to plural form ie.both.

I dont think that is correct.
I think they use a plural because we have 2 arms.
Another reason though to clear up the wording.

 

[Big Pete]

Was what Billy Slater did a shoulder charge?

Abso-freakin'-lutely

But let's go through the history of the new shoulder charge interpretation.

Was what Mat Scott did to Korbin Sims a shoulder charge?

Yes

Was what Ryan James did to Patrick Kaufusi a shoulder charge?

Yes

Was what Sam Burgess did to Greg Eastwood a shoulder charge?

Yes

Was what Jarrod Wallace did to Blake Ayshford a shoulder charge?

Yes.

But not according to the judiciary.

When they started accepting excuses, like the role the opposition played or the incidental contact of other body parts, it gave Slater every opportunity to escape and play in the one match fans are going to remember about this year.

I hate that it's this way and the NRL can't get it right, but that's the lay of the land.

 

[Dexter]

I went to a GF function on Saturday with some of the guys from my old club including SoO reps and Australian reps.

Not 1 of those ex players (around 25) thought he should even have been charged.
I'm sure this is an era thing because the divide in opinion is so far apart.
If the NRL want what Slater did to be a shoulder charge then somehow they need clarity and they need to be able to remove the wiggle room in the wording.
I don't see why they can't use visual examples as well as better wording to achieve the result they are looking for.
If they could provide examples of what they consider a shoulder charge, even if they haven't been charged or convicted, it could only help.

 

[Morkel]

I went to a GF function on Saturday with some of the guys from my old club including SoO reps and Australian reps.

Not 1 of those ex players (around 25) thought he should even have been charged.
I'm sure this is an era thing because the divide in opinion is so far apart.
If the NRL want what Slater did to be a shoulder charge then somehow they need clarity and they need to be able to remove the wiggle room in the wording.
I don't see why they can't use visual examples as well as better wording to achieve the result they are looking for.
If they could provide examples of what they consider a shoulder charge, even if they haven't been charged or convicted, it could only help.

Visual examples is an excellent idea.

 

[Super Freak]

I went to a GF function on Saturday with some of the guys from my old club including SoO reps and Australian reps.

Not 1 of those ex players (around 25) thought he should even have been charged.
I'm sure this is an era thing because the divide in opinion is so far apart.
If the NRL want what Slater did to be a shoulder charge then somehow they need clarity and they need to be able to remove the wiggle room in the wording.
I don't see why they can't use visual examples as well as better wording to achieve the result they are looking for.
If they could provide examples of what they consider a shoulder charge, even if they haven't been charged or convicted, it could only help.

The NRL have already confirmed that what Slater did is a shoulder charge by not punishing Koroibete in 2016 due to separation despite performing the same tackle.

The rule was updated in 2017 and separation doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Dexter]

The NRL have already confirmed that what Slater did is a shoulder charge by not punishing Koroibete in 2016 due to separation despite performing the same tackle.

The rule was updated in 2017 and separation doesn't matter anymore.

????

The NRL have actually confirmed that what he did is not a shoulder charge by finding him not guilty. That is now precedent.

Tsk tsk, shake your head and put any type of interpretation you like on it but as of right now that is not a shoulder charge.

Moving forward though as I posted above IF they decide before next season that they want that to be a shoulder charge they need to change things.

 

[Super Freak]

????

The NRL have actually confirmed that what he did is not a shoulder charge by finding him not guilty. That is now precedent.

Tsk tsk, shake your head and put any type of interpretation you like on it but as of right now that is not a shoulder charge.

Moving forward though as I posted above IF they decide before next season that they want that to be a shoulder charge they need to change things.

He wasn't charged because of separation. If there wasn't any, he would have been suspended. Now separation doesn't matter so the NRL are saying that's a shoulder charge.

How is it not a shoulder charge? What the NRL put in the rules is what they are saying a shoulder charge is and Slater did every single thing wrong.

 

[Dexter]

He wasn't charged because of separation. If there wasn't any, he would have been suspended. Now separation doesn't matter so the NRL are saying that's a shoulder charge.

How is it not a shoulder charge? What the NRL put in the rules is what they are saying a shoulder charge is and Slater did every single thing wrong.

Not guilty, therefore it is not a shoulder charge. That decision is now precedent .
If the NRL decide that the judiciary stuffed up then they will have to amend the rule in some way or the next similar tackle gets off as well.
If they don't amend the rule then they agree with the decision.

 

[Foordy]

Not guilty, therefore it is not a shoulder charge. That decision is now precedent .
If the NRL decide that the judiciary stuffed up then they will have to amend the rule in some way or the next similar tackle gets off as well.
If they don't amend the rule then they agree with the decision.

since when have the NRL or it's judiciary been consistent ...

they'll just find the next person guilty and make that the precedent ... and if pressed, they'll just make up some BS argument about why Slater was let off (possibly something to do with the movement of his hand)

 

[Dexter]

since when have the NRL or it's judiciary been consistent ...

they'll just find the next person guilty and make that the precedent ... and if pressed, they'll just make up some BS argument about why Slater was let off (possibly something to do with the movement of his hand)

I think they will change the rule, again.
It will be interesting what they do.