Grand final judiciary

[Morkel]

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.

Didn't Feki get injured and was out for the rest of the game?

 

[Waynesaurus]

Didn't Feki get injured and was out for the rest of the game?

I thought that happened a bit later in the match.

*Edit*......yep, happened when he was bumped in the air trying to take a high ball.

 

[Kimlo]

Absolute corrupt bullshit.

The judiciary needs to be completely dismantled and started again, run entirely by an independent 3rd party with the NRL having absolutely no say on anything, including hiring. They give them the rule book, the 3rd party does the rest.

Who ever thought dumb **** footballers were ideal judges in understanding legalities?

Should our judges all be ex Bikie thugs because they understand the emotion?

 

[Foordy]

Hell must have frozen over .... I actually agree with Paul Kent :qmiedo:

 

[Morkel]

I thought that happened a bit later in the match.

*Edit*......yep, happened when he was bumped in the air trying to take a high ball.

My mistake.

 

[mieko]

Hahahahaha

 

[Battler]

View attachment 3804
Photo says it all really.

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

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

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 *****.

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.

 

[Foordy]

I'm sure the panel members are all going boating this weekend

 

[Sproj]

I don’t even know why so many of you are upset. He was never getting suspended and when on earth was the last time the NRL did ANYTHING against public perception?

 

[Morkel]

I don’t even know why so many of you are upset. He was never getting suspended and when on earth was the last time the NRL did ANYTHING against public perception?

Because we had hope Sproj.

That there was a line in the sand, that there are some things that are so blatant and impossible to justify that even the NRL would not cross it for fear of wholesale mutiny.

But all hope is lost Sproj. And you know what? The NRL have won. Because they know that people like me, like us, the rusted on fans, will still keep supporting their teams, will back them even harder now, not even despite the fact, but because of the fact that parasitic teams like the Storm will forever get favouritism, simply to appeal to a demographic that does not give a shit about League and likely never will.

 

[broncos4life]

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

Yeah he is young but tenacious, although it was past his nap time.

 

[Thelmus]

The problem I have is not that Billy Slater got off. Good luck to him. It is the sheer hypocracy of it all.
Judicaries letting players off for fairytale finishes sounds nice until you realise how many others have not been so lucky, simply because they were further down the popularity/marketing pecking order.
Combine this with officiating that has different decisions on ingame errors depending on the penalty count and you start to pity the players who are expected to put up with the whole fiasco, let alone us fans who see a game we use to love being made into WWE with a ball, destroying the soul of the game in the process.

 

[Old Mate]

Please let Cronk be ok so he can help belt the storm. Plz.

 

[Nashy]

Please let Cronk be ok so he can help belt the storm. Plz.

Didn't his rotator cuff implode?

 

[Super Freak]

Word is going around that it could just be a contusion, which would mean he could play.

No one has actually been able to confirm what type of rotator cuff injury it is. If it's a tear, he's fucked though.

 

[john1420]

Righto my mistake. Every opinion on bhq is impartial and nothing to do with Storm and or Slater hate.

The Akerman shoulder charge was the exact reason why the rule was bought in .
Front on collisions with 2 bodies colliding, absolutely no resemblance to the Slater tackle.

I haven't said it isnt a shoulder charge btw all I've said is there is an argument to be made and there is.

Feki backed himself to beat Slater down the line and realised he was covered so slowed down, Slater is still at full pace and no way can pull out.

If anyone thinks it was possible for him to adjust in some way you have either never been in that situation on the field or never played at all.

Most people against Slater are assuming he always intended to produce a shoulder charge, this may be correct but it is unprovable .
Slater had too assume Feki was going for the corner so positiond himself for that, Feki slows down Slater adjusts and makes contact a metre or two earlier than he expected .

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

 

[broncos4life]

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

Yeah, I don't really get the intent thing. I'm sure most players don't intend to injure a player or do something illegal, but if it happens you need to face the consequences, intent should be irrelevant.

But all of a sudden if you don't intend to do it it doesn't matter? If the believe there was intent that should be a different conversation about the length of suspension/fit to play the game, just because you are doing wwhat most people do doesn't mean you should get off.

 

[Old Mate]

Isn’t it funny, booing Cronk hoping the Rabbits get up and now it’s carn Roosters get up on the Storm. **** WogBoys day up.