Grand final judiciary

[Super Freak]

Since the rule was strengthened 4/5 cases that fight the charge have been successful.

Taumalolo on Glenn was the only suspension.

That’s pretty good odds.

Those cases were different to Slater's. The players were stationary and braced. They weren't running at the player and making forceful contact with the shoulder.

 

[1910]

Arm tucked in, leading in with the shoulder, contact made with upper arm/shoulder = shoulder charge.

View attachment 3794

Is that not chest on back?

 

[1910]

Those cases were different to Slater's. The players were stationary and braced. They weren't running at the player and making forceful contact with the shoulder.

Why does stationary come into it? Do the rules mention moving v stationary?

 

[Number6]

Why are we not talking more about banning friend too cause his was far worse from a player safety perspective. Black and white rule there - don’t go above horizontal. He went 270+ degrees and lifted the legs not even an accident there. With risk of spinal injury far greater than bracing into a collision where mechanism is far less risky. Slater’s legal team should be able to show a hundred worse shoulder charges that weren’t sighted.

Don’t like this sort of retributive justice most seem to want but if NRL consistently applies the rules of then that is life but it doesn’t. For me the key action that needs to e consistent is if a foul in act of scoring a try then Slater should have been 10 in the bin and penalty try.

 

[Morkel]

Arm tucked in, leading in with the shoulder, contact made with upper arm/shoulder = shoulder charge.

View attachment 3794

I don't see it that way. He's using his upper body to add weight to the tackle, but it's all arms and chest.

 

[Super Freak]

Is that not chest on back?

Part chest, part upper arm/shoulder. It's not a direct hit, but that's irrelevant. Since the rule change in 2017, that's now a shoulder charge.

There have been many other cases where players have performed a shoulder charge in an attempt to stop a try and got away with it. Thurston on Jennings, Sezer on Goodwin, Blake on Fusitu'a, Korobeite on DWZ, Ponga on Tyrone Roberts-Davis etc..

 

[Super Freak]

Why does stationary come into it? Do the rules mention moving v stationary?

It actually matters now.

Because those players were stationary, they were deemed to be bracing for impact and not performing a shoulder charge. That's why they beat the charge. That's how Burgess got away with his against Eastwood in the Good Friday clash last year.

Taumalolo was suspended because he moved in the direction of Glenn and shoulder charged him.

I can't recall any player in the past year or two that has been suspended for a shoulder charge when they were stationary. There may be one, but most of them have beat the charge when fighting it.

 

[broncos4life]

Arm tucked in, leading in with the shoulder, contact made with upper arm/shoulder = shoulder charge.

View attachment 3794

No, just no. I can't believe this is the event you have been talking about.

 

[Harry Sack]

Arm tucked in, leading in with the shoulder, contact made with upper arm/shoulder = shoulder charge.

View attachment 3794

FMD

 

[broncos4life]

Arm tucked in, leading in with the shoulder, contact made with upper arm/shoulder = shoulder charge.

View attachment 3794

**** guys, I have found 2 more shoulder charges the dragons did against us, I am livid they got away without charge.

 

[FGfrom50]

I am not a huge Billy fan, but putting aside my feelings, it would be a shame for a legend to miss a GF in his retirement year

That said, rules is rules, and he must be rubbed out

THAT said, this is the NRL and he will be free to play, because you know, Billy

Q.E.D.

Although I personally tend agree with the OP that we should probably have a high threshold for banning a player from a finals/SOO game (fine them and make them serve it next year), Billy needs to be suspended by the rules as they are. Thus, he won't be.

 

[CaptainHook]

Andrew Ackerman, James Ackerman's brother, has made some strong comments about the Slater incident.

He also gives it to Gould and Johns.

Let's remember why the rule was introduced.

Richard Hinds and Roy Masters, both writers I like, are going with the 'he's a good bloke and doesn't deserve to miss a Grand Final' excuse.

Can't agree with them on this one.

Even looking at the tackle again. How exactly is getting smashed with the shoulder front on more dangerous than getting smashed with the shoulder from the side?

What kinda crap is that? Slater could've easily injured Feki. Match officials, cheer girls, ground staff and camera crews operate in and around the sideline. The muppet could've easily careened into them if he'd mistimed it.

How is it less dangerous?

 

[Dexter]

Wow, the Slater/melb hate is far deeper than I thought.

 

[broncos4life]

Wow, the Slater/melb hate is far deeper than I thought.

I actually have nothing against Slater, but yes I loathe Melbourne.

All that has nothing to with my opinion and I would think the same if it were the Broncos and Darren Lockyer.

 

[Morkel]

The rule was introduced way before the Ackerman incident, however it was a sobering reminder on why the rule has merit, regardless of how unpopular it was (and remains).

 

[broncos4life]

The rule was introduced way before the Ackerman incident, however it was a sobering reminder on why the rule has merit, regardless of how unpopular it was (and remains).

Yep, must be great for his family to hear the ‘Billy’s a good bloke” “It wasn’t that serious” “oh it’s just that you hate Melbourne” storyline’s.

 

[CaptainHook]

Wow, the Slater/melb hate is far deeper than I thought.

No not really.

I've got nothing against Slater. Never even met him.

I just think that the arguments for why he should be cleared to play aren't very good. The only one that has some steam is that it's probably not an incident the rule was designed for.

That's partly true. If rugby league fans imagine a shoulder charge in their head - by and large it wouldn't resemble what Slater did.

I just don't think that's a strong enough argument to save him.

I don't care who wins Sunday's Grand Final. I don't have a dog in the fight.

This has been a fascinating discussion though.

Player contract news, coaching merry go-rounds and refereeing mistakes bore me to tears but most discussions revolve around those things.

This has some meat.

Good on Ackerman for calling out Gould and Johns. It's always bothered me that commentators swoop in seconds after a controversial incident and get to set the tone for the ensuing discussion.

It bothers me when I see a player on the ground with a smashed jaw from a Dylan Napa special and Johns says it wasn't intentional, total accident etc.

Like it's no big deal. Like, gee whiz, haven't Napa and Sims just both had the shittest luck.

It bothers me that during the Sharks Storm game when Fatty says dopey shit like 'he didn't have time.'

Time for what, Fat? To make a legitimate tackle. Then maybe Feki would have scored. Sharks in the lead. Different ballgame.

Get these morons off the air.

 

[Accept]

Wow, the Slater/melb hate is far deeper than I thought.

I have despised them since the salary cap rort. Their blatant disregard for the rules may have cost the Broncos a title in 2008 and they are still reaping the benefits of bending the rules. It has also turned me off Origin as I refuse to support a team that involves those four players. Thank god Bellamy didn't accept the Bronco job as it would have marked the end of my days as a NRL fan. **** Slater, **** Melbourne.