Grand final judiciary

[Dexter]

So it is a requirement to have played football to have an opinion now is it?

Do you know what I would like, for you to actually state your opinion instead of having pot shots at everyone all the time, that’s what I would like.

How could my opinion be less clear ?

Who did I take a potshot at?

And when it comes to pot shots , pot, kettle black mate

 

[Dexter]

I have played. Senior level and also interstate. But I don't see why that matters. You don't need to have played to know Rugby League.

I also know a bloke that suffered permanent brain damage as a result of a tackle like Slater's. It doesn't matter if you're running directly at him front-on or from the side, the sheer force of a shoulder charge at full speed can do serious and permanent damage.

And I have seen far more blokes injured from absolutely legitimate tackles, outmatched by size and strength , so lets ban the whole game.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

And I have seen far more blokes injured from absolutely legitimate tackles, outmatched by size and strength , so lets ban the whole game.

Lol... is that you phil gould? Hit front on with the bloke looking at you, thats tough. Shoulder charges are dog shots almost always out of the blokes vision with no risk to the shoulder charger at all.. youre right, based on likelihood of injury there are more danerous tackles, the head high, the crusher tackle, dumping a player on his head.. theres mountains of evidence against the impacts of shoulder charges on BRAIN DAMAGE. What good game have you watched lately and said “jeez, that game would have been so much better wih some shoulder charges in it!”. Its gone, along with eye gouges, squirrel grips and stomping.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Has anyone noticed the irony that the storm get away with this.....

1999 grand final, last try to win the match in the dying moments..... ainscough “had no choice! It was a try saver!” Lol or should we take that premiership from them too?

 

[Dexter]

Lol... is that you phil gould? Hit front on with the bloke looking at you, thats tough. Shoulder charges are dog shots almost always out of the blokes vision with no risk to the shoulder charger at all.. youre right, based on likelihood of injury there are more danerous tackles, the head high, the crusher tackle, dumping a player on his head.. theres mountains of evidence against the impacts of shoulder charges on BRAIN DAMAGE. What good game have you watched lately and said “jeez, that game would have been so much better wih some shoulder charges in it!”. Its gone, along with eye gouges, squirrel grips and stomping.

Lol if thats what you got from posts

 

[Dexter]

Has anyone noticed the irony that the storm get away with this.....

1999 grand final, last try to win the match in the dying moments..... ainscough “had no choice! It was a try saver!” Lol or should we take that premiership from them too?

Absolutely irrational comparison.

 

[Foordy]

the fact is that NRL rules do not differentiate between a front on shoulder charge and one like Slaters ...

so the verdict has gone against the NRL rule book, which is exactly why ex players should not be on the judiciary.

After Akerman, the NRL will never soften the rules to allow shoulder charges like Slater did, which like the tackle that killed Akerman could have very easily gone wrong. a slightly mistimed run by Slater and Feki cops a shoulder to the head at full speed.

A big problem the NRL will have after last night is that next season we will see thousands of tackles like Slater's and the NRL won't be able to suspend them due to precedent.

 

[mieko]

Well we really are a laughing stock now. That was just a plain clear cut case and it went the other way. A shoulder charge is a shoulder charge. What a dangerous precedent it has set.
If Feki got up groggy, holding his shoulder would that have mattered?
Yes it’s a full contact sport but, the rules are the rules and they were broken. No way slater had any other thought than to barge into him like that.
Oh well, fingers crossed it’s a good GF.

 

[WASSHHH]

Photo says it all really.

So glad Bellamy is not at this club - smug prick.

 

[Nashy]

Dylan Napa. This weekend you are a fucking legend you big plodder useless jackass. use your head, your shoulders, your knees, and of course, the bottom of your boots. I wanr this big ginger **** to make Billy wish he was suspended for this game. Destroy. Him.

And Smith.

 

[johnny plath]

I just can't see how they could come up with Not Guilty. Not without a clear as day rort.

Slater's defence claimed the following:

Billy Slater’s lawyer Nick Ghabar has argued “The rule only requires an attempt, the rule does not require a successful attempt” in his bid to get Slater off the shoulder charge.
The definition of a shoulder charge is “where a defender does not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player and the contact is forceful. It will be considered misconduct, if any player affects a tackle in the manner as defined.”

His argument is clearly BS. The rule does not only require an attempt, it clear as day says "does not use, or attempt". It doesn't say "and". So either does not use, or does not attempt. So even if they attempt, but do not use their arms, it is a shoulder charge.

And then this:

Bellew also said there are two questions for the panel to deliberate on:
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.

1. Yes there was.

2. BOTH his arms, including his hands. Even if one hand happens to make slight contact, it is not both. Which is why they often talk about in a grabbing motion, trying to wrap up the runner. So yes again, there was forceful contact made, without using both his arms including his hands.

It is 100%, undoubtedly, to the letter of the relevant law, a shoulder charge.

FMD it's so fucking sad that none of us are surprised, that this is what the NRL is, that they dish up this undisputed bullshit and the fans are just expected to buy it.

The thing in this I find frustrating is that panel have either had their pants pulled down by a clever lawyer, which to me says the panel of ex footballers are out of their league dealing with the technical issues of the games laws, or they were swayed and let emotion get in the way because of grand finals and Billy. Either way, it says to me that the make up of the panel needs to change. Why does the game think its a good idea to have players adjudicating on rules... its akin to having a jury of criminals sitting in a court... it doesn't happen. I thought the idea of ex player involvement was because they have a feel for what happens in a game, but if they think Billy was attempting to make a tackle and not a shoulder charge they're as dumb as dog shit and deserve all the flak rugby league players cop for being dumb *****.

 

[johnny plath]

we get it NRL ... you are the most amateurish organisation in the sporting world ... you don't need to keep proving it to us

I don't blame the NRL as such in this because they are supposed to reamain at arms length from the so called independant judiciary panel of appointed players. I'm pissed at the panel who I think have let the game down badly here. The NRL can't do any more than appoint the judiciary panel... they can't tell them make sure x player is found guilty or not... its all on the judiciary. Maybe the NRL just needs to rethink the whole idea of having dumb arse ex players represent the laws of the game in their kangaroo court.

 

[broncos4life]

Who thought a panel of all ex-players was a good idea anyway? Take away from the fact that are obviously going to be swayed by players and the emotions, but as a general rule (and I know there are exemptions) football players aren't usually known for their intelligence and clear thinking.

Why can't the panel be made up of independent people with one member an ex-player to provide their knowledge of football and football situations for context?

 

[Morkel]

Apparently the guy who argued for the prosecution was a rookie.

 

[Foordy]

I don't blame the NRL as such in this because they are supposed to reamain at arms length from the so called independant judiciary panel of appointed players. I'm pissed at the panel who I think have let the game down badly here. The NRL can't do any more than appoint the judiciary panel... they can't tell them make sure x player is found guilty or not... its all on the judiciary. Maybe the NRL just needs to rethink the whole idea of having dumb arse ex players represent the laws of the game in their kangaroo court.

The NRL should have realised years ago that having ex-players on the panel is a bad idea ... but the old boys club want to keep these players involved in some way, and this is one area that they should have zero involvement in

 

[Nashy]

Apparently the guy who argued for the prosecution was a rookie.

Yeah he was. Because the useless NRL didn't have anyone as their main dude was on holiday and the backup was interstate. They wanted to hold the hearing Monday, but they had no prosecutor.

 

[Foordy]

Yeah he was. Because the useless NRL didn't have anyone as their main dude was on holiday and the backup was interstate. They wanted to hold the hearing Monday, but they had no prosecutor.

did i mention that the NRL are an amateur organisation ... imagine allowing your main prosecutors to be unavailable before the season ends

in fact it shows they never planned on anyone getting suspended, but just put on a show for the cameras

 

[Waynesaurus]

Well......for mine it is an embarrassing look for the NRL but I honestly can't say that I'm surprised by the outcome.

Billy just got lucky that Feki wasn't injured (not that it should even matter), but if he had been then I expect the result may have been different.