Grand final judiciary

[Dash]

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.

I wouldn't call it a fact that he 'reached out'. That point is debatable at best.

Personally, if I'm reaching out with my right hand, whether making a tackle or grabbing a beer out of the fridge, I don't turn my left shoulder towards the object in question.

 

[Super Freak]

Billy Slater makes no attempt to wrap the right arm around Feki. He places his right arm out in front of him to brace for the impact.

He then makes forceful contact with the upper arm/shoulder.

That is a shoulder charge.

 

[Kimlo]

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.

Attempt: make an effort to achieve or complete

Do you believe he used his arms to make an effort to effect a tackle or hold up Feki?
Forget the rules, you're a judge on the panel. That's the question asked of you. Do you in good faith, say that you believed he made an effort to use his arms to tackle or hold the player?

The rule isn't did the arms touch the opposing player, if that was the rule, sure he's innocent (although that's now the precedent).

 

[john1420]

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.

Hey Dexter :)

Not sure if your opening line about emotion was meant to suggest that I had emotion in the argument, but for the record, I don't believe I do

I genuinely believe that was a shoulder charge, and I genuinely believe that if someone else had done it they would have been suspended

I believe that it was emotion that got him the not guilty verdict

Sure it wasn't a classic and seriously bad shoulder charge, but that's what makes it a grade 1

 

[Number6]

Hey Dexter :)

Not sure if your opening line about emotion was meant to suggest that I had emotion in the argument, but for the record, I don't believe I do

I genuinely believe that was a shoulder charge, and I genuinely believe that if someone else had done it they would have been suspended

I believe that it was emotion that got him the not guilty verdict

Sure it wasn't a classic and seriously bad shoulder charge, but that's what makes it a grade 1

That’s the issue you believe which does not make it fact in a legalistic environment. I suppose question is what is the burden of proof in judiciary? Is it balance of probabilities like a civil court? To me the structure sounds more criminal (which is a huge problem if true as we should be supporting players not routinely ascribing criminal intent) where beyond reasonable doubt comes into effect.

For me on balance of probabilities it is a shoulder charge but on reasonable doubt the hand is enough particularly given the disproportionate and unjust nature of the punishment and lack of discretionary remediation (a lesser penalty) which shouldn’t but will always be in panel’s mind. Besides if a Storm were smart they made sure the judiciary had lots of good food before and during deliberation since time of day and fullness of stomach has more to do with a verdict than merit of case based on human factors research.

I agree with dexter so much wasted emotion here. It doesn’t matter what you think of slater or storm and so forth. IMO as someone who begrudgingly respects but doesn’t like the Storm the lesser of evils was done by what is likely a crappy system. Unlike rest of society much easier for NRL to redesign the system to prevent stupid situations like this that were well foreseeable. I’ve given a solution that I think could work better but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Cult]

I wouldn't call it a fact that he 'reached out'. That point is debatable at best.

Personally, if I'm reaching out with my right hand, whether making a tackle or grabbing a beer out of the fridge, I don't turn my left shoulder towards the object in question.

The only reason that arm moved forward was because he was running, not waddling toward the winger. It wasn't used to initiate a tackle

 

[Super Freak]

That's not making an attempt to wrap the arm around. That's bracing.

Tariq Sims did the same thing to Hodges in 2014, they didn’t accept it as making an attempt to wrap the arm around then. He got 5 weeks.

 

[Nashy]

View attachment 3817

That's not making an attempt to wrap the arm around. That's bracing.

Tariq Sims did the same thing to Hodges in 2014, they didn’t accept it as making an attempt to wrap the arm around then. He got 5 weeks.

I think given the rule interpretation and wording was change last year, we probably shouldn't be looking at events from that far back.

 

[Super Freak]

I think given the rule interpretation and wording was change last year, we probably shouldn't be looking at events from that far back.

That particular part of the rule has always been the same. They have always had to make an attempt to wrap the arm or arms around the tackled player.

The changes made were in regards to separation, head movement of the tackled player, what they deem to be forceful contact and positioning of the arm.

 

[Nashy]

That particular part of the rule has always been the same. They have always had to make an attempt to wrap the arm or arms around the tackled player.

The changes made were in regards to separation, head movement of the tackled player, what they deem to be forceful contact and positioning of the arm.

Be interesting to see if either coach push the refs with it. Is there an actual rule book somewhere around?

 

[Dexter]

That particular part of the rule has always been the same. They have always had to make an attempt to wrap the arm or arms around the tackled player.

The changes made were in regards to separation, head movement of the tackled player, what they deem to be forceful contact and positioning of the arm.

I'm struggling to see anywhere that the rule states wrapping.
If you say something often enough you start to believe it but wrapping does not appear in the rule.

 

[scobie]

So if the attempted use of one hand is enough to constitute a legal tackle, would it not follow on that next season we could see a return of the front on shoulder charge?
So player A trucks the ball forward, player B tucks his right arm by his side and while hitting player A flush in the chest with his right shoulder, simultaneously makes a grab with his left hand at the player. And even if it only glances off player A, he'll be deemed to have attempted a proper tackle and no charge ensues. So the shoulder charge is back. Or have I completely missed the point as usual?

 

[Dexter]

Hey Dexter :)

Not sure if your opening line about emotion was meant to suggest that I had emotion in the argument, but for the record, I don't believe I do

I genuinely believe that was a shoulder charge, and I genuinely believe that if someone else had done it they would have been suspended

I believe that it was emotion that got him the not guilty verdict

Sure it wasn't a classic and seriously bad shoulder charge, but that's what makes it a grade 1

Hey john1420, no not at you as such mate just a generalisation trying to address too much in a single post before shooting off to golf.

I agree it looks like a shoulder charge but what I have been getting at is it doesn't matter what it looks like or what anyone thinks only what the rule says and how it is argued.

If you ask me getting rid of the ex players won't fix a damn thing. The reason there are so many charges get beaten IMO is because the wording allows wiggle room which good lawyers can exploit, having legal people adjudicate as well will potentially lead to even more results like this one.

Lawyers argue about little words like, and, but, is, etc and those words affect interpretations and they argue what the rule does not say like successful attempt.


Slaters Lawyer argued that the wording doesn't say "a successful attempt" needs to be made just an attempt so his first contact constitutes an attempt.

Anyway it's moot now and we all have our opinions.

 

[Super Freak]

I'm struggling to see anywhere that the rule states wrapping.
If you say something often enough you start to believe it but wrapping does not appear in the rule.

It's been confirmed by the MRC that it needs to be a wrapping action.

Greg McCallum also confirmed that. Billy Slater and his legal team used that defence at the Judiciary.

 

[Dexter]

So if the attempted use of one hand is enough to constitute a legal tackle, would it not follow on that next season we could see a return of the front on shoulder charge?
So player A trucks the ball forward, player B tucks his right arm by his side and while hitting player A flush in the chest with his right shoulder, simultaneously makes a grab with his left hand at the player. And even if it only glances off player A, he'll be deemed to have attempted a proper tackle and no charge ensues. So the shoulder charge is back. Or have I completely missed the point as usual?

I can't see it TBH. What you have described is , I think, impossible to do front on.

I do think they need to change the wording again although I don't know how but maybe the NRL could hire Slaters legal team for advice.

 

[Dexter]

It's been confirmed by the MRC that it needs to be a wrapping action.

Greg McCallum also confirmed that. Billy Slater and his legal team used that defence at the Judiciary.

Cheers mate, IF that is the case no wonder they get their pants pulled down all the time because that word does not appear in their own rule, bloody hard to argue "but that's what we meant".

Of course Slaters defence said he was wrapping because that would constitute an attempt.

 

[john1420]

That’s the issue you believe which does not make it fact in a legalistic environment. I suppose question is what is the burden of proof in judiciary? Is it balance of probabilities like a civil court? To me the structure sounds more criminal (which is a huge problem if true as we should be supporting players not routinely ascribing criminal intent) where beyond reasonable doubt comes into effect.

For me on balance of probabilities it is a shoulder charge but on reasonable doubt the hand is enough particularly given the disproportionate and unjust nature of the punishment and lack of discretionary remediation (a lesser penalty) which shouldn’t but will always be in panel’s mind. Besides if a Storm were smart they made sure the judiciary had lots of good food before and during deliberation since time of day and fullness of stomach has more to do with a verdict than merit of case based on human factors research.

I agree with dexter so much wasted emotion here. It doesn’t matter what you think of slater or storm and so forth. IMO as someone who begrudgingly respects but doesn’t like the Storm the lesser of evils was done by what is likely a crappy system. Unlike rest of society much easier for NRL to redesign the system to prevent stupid situations like this that were well foreseeable. I’ve given a solution that I think could work better but that’s just my opinion.

You can't be serious, right? The issue is it's not fact, just my belief?

Why is the same not true on the other side of the argument? Those that say it isn't a shoulder charge are only stating what they think and not fact too

Should I have written "It is a shoulder charge"? Would that make it any more fact and any less just what I think?

The fact is - 90% of what's posted on these forums is just what the poster thinks, and not fact

 

[Harry Sack]

90% of statistics are made up.....