What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

See ya Slater

A

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Surely said:
If you look.at side on pics you will see the right arm is out in front of fekis body not as it appears in this pic where it looks like he is actually using it in the tackle.
Click to expand...

shhh! Leave him be. He's cute when he's dreaming.
 
A

Alderley Rooster

Juniors
Messages
1,185
The whole notion of leading with his left hand or touching with his left hand meaning he was trying to make a tackle is absolutely hilarious and possibly the best example of clutching at straws I have ever heard! There is nothing in his tackle to suggest he is trying to make a legitimate tackle by wrapping his arms around Feki's body. It is a shoulder charge end of story. And if he gets off then it is back for good and NO player should ever be suspended for it again.

All this while Napa misses 3 games for a head clash
 
Springs09

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
This shit about the other arm - if Slater gets off because the judiciary decides that his right hand brushing Feki means it's not a shoulder charge, that it shouldn't even be a penalty - then the shoulder charge is back. The rule is pointless and players can now whack someone with a tucked arm shoulder charge as long as the other hand slightly brushes the ball carrier.

Look back at other shoulder charges and many of them have the other arm affecting the tackle in some way. For example this Kane Evans hit on Sam Kasiano a few years ago:
This hit caused a lot of debate about bringing the shoulder charge back, but watch the video. Even though Evans hits him with a tucked shoulder, his left arm slightly brushes Kasiano!

I'm someone who opposed the shoulder charge ban but if Slater gets off through this 'other arm' loophole then the ban is pointless, the NRL is hypocritical and the shoulder charge as we knew it is effectively back. As a referee there is no way I could penalise a shoulder charge again unless it's very blatant side-on charging with the other hand behind his back, every player will claim 'oh but my other hand'.
 
S

Storm80

Juniors
Messages
212
Alderley Rooster said:
The whole notion of leading with his left hand or touching with his left hand meaning he was trying to make a tackle is absolutely hilarious and possibly the best example of clutching at straws I have ever heard! There is nothing in his tackle to suggest he is trying to make a legitimate tackle by wrapping his arms around Feki's body. It is a shoulder charge end of story. And if he gets off then it is back for good and NO player should ever be suspended for it again.

All this while Napa misses 3 games for a head clash
Click to expand...

Can you point to the NRL rule which says a legitimate tackle requires a player to wrap the arms?

Actually, tell me what the definition of a tackle is under NRL rules? I looked at the rule book and there is no such definition. The NRL don’t define what a legal tackle is.

There are plenty of tackles where a player goes in and only uses one arm to grab the opponent without wrapping the arms... is that a legal tackle then??

None of you, including Gallen on 100% Footy, seem to have bothered to read the freaking rule book. The shoulder charge rule does not say anything about “wrapping the arms” and, in any event, the NRL rules don’t seem to define what a legal tackle is.

All the rules say is 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.”

As both of slaters hands and arms come into contact with Feki before his shoulder does, he has clearly “attempted” to use his hands or arms to knock him on his ass over the side line.

Some of you need to learn the rules before you start chirping away. “Ohh he didn’t wrap his arms it’s not a tackle”... Absolute hogwash. There is no such rule requiring arms to be wrapped.

This great game of league is gonna turn into bloody netball pretty soon. Well I guess at least netballers and their fans can read a rule book and not make it up as they go so maybe that’s the right way to go
 
blaza88z

blaza88z

Coach
Messages
15,096
Storm80 said:
Can you point to the NRL rule which says a legitimate tackle requires a player to wrap the arms?

Actually, tell me what the definition of a tackle is under NRL rules? I looked at the rule book and there is no such definition. The NRL don’t define what a legal tackle is.

There are plenty of tackles where a player goes in and only uses one arm to grab the opponent without wrapping the arms... is that a legal tackle then??

None of you, including Gallen on 100% Footy, seem to have bothered to read the freaking rule book. The shoulder charge rule does not say anything about “wrapping the arms” and, in any event, the NRL rules don’t seem to define what a legal tackle is.

All the rules say is 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.”

As both of slaters hands and arms come into contact with Feki before his shoulder does, he has clearly “attempted” to use his hands or arms to knock him on his ass over the side line.

Some of you need to learn the rules before you start chirping away. “Ohh he didn’t wrap his arms it’s not a tackle”... Absolute hogwash. There is no such rule requiring arms to be wrapped.

This great game of league is gonna turn into bloody netball pretty soon. Well I guess at least netballers and their fans can read a rule book and not make it up as they go so maybe that’s the right way to go
Click to expand...

Regarding the wrapping the arms bit, no there is no set in stone rule that says that but to complete a legal tackle you have to show intent on at least using your arms and usually that is done in a wrapping motion, not a grab of the forearm before you hit him with nothing but shoulder in a charging motion

If this is let go on the basis that he attempted to use his arms (which he didn't, all he did was grab), like I said earlier in the thread the precedent is set and it's a dangerous one, we could see blokes flying in off the back fence grabbing any body part available before they clean them up with nothing but shoulder, it's a shoulder charge. Spare me the technicalities of it all, it's 100% a shoulder charge. Once you remove the purple glasses, you too will see the light.
 
C

Chimp

Bench
Messages
2,578
One of the things people are missing here also is that the NRL do Policy on the run - Greenberg came out a while ago and basically said, if you tuck your arm in and smash with the shoulder, it will be dealt with as a shoulder charge, his right arm is almost irrelevant (plus at full speed, you can see with absolute certainty Billy intends on making the tackle with his left shoulder, his right arm is just part of the charging/barging/bumping whatever you want to call it motion). Greenberg was adamant, tucking the arm in and smashing is illegal - so i actually think Slater would have prove his left arm/hand was the one that was making a tackle - which clearly it isn't.
All the stills in the world are completely pointless - just watch the footage and see how Slater initiates contact, it is entirely led with a tucked left arm. He was trying to smash Feki in touch, as it was the only real way to prevent a try with an opponent of that size and speed. It should be a great tackle, but under the current bullshit rules, it's illegal.
 
P

Penrose Warrior

First Grade
Messages
8,665
Whilst I will say the NRL gets it wrong way, way more than they should...looking at 32 pages of this thread, there's not much chance they can ever please some or most of the people when views are completely at one end of the spectrum or the other, seemingly 50/50 split.

Even the Waqa Blake one, that looks to me from the goal line that he's clearly tried to initiate contact with his left arm, and the force of his body comes through and shoulder makes the contact.

Just because the shoulder takes on the majority of the contact, it doesn't (in my books) make it a shoulder charge. Under the rules Slater probably deserves to go, and maybe his record of leading with the shoulder puts him in the danger zone, but purely on this incident I can't see how he could've done anything else whilst trying to save a try in a sudden-death match. He goes in with arms first, he probably gets knocked out. He goes low, Feki scores.
 
Danish

Danish

Referee
Messages
31,886
Penrose Warrior said:
I can't see how he could've done anything else whilst trying to save a try in a sudden-death match. He goes in with arms first, he probably gets knocked out. He goes low, Feki scores.
Click to expand...

You’ll have to direct me to the section in the rule book that states that you are allowed to break them if there is no other option available.

Maybe we should go back and give the 99 grand final win to the dragons since the only way for ainscough to stop that try was to take the winger’s head off? Any legitimate tackling technique wouldn’t have stopped it, so by your logic the coat hanger is now in play
 
P

Penrose Warrior

First Grade
Messages
8,665
Danish said:
You’ll have to direct me to the section in the rule book that states that you are allowed to break them if there is no other option available.

Maybe we should go back and give the 99 grand final win to the dragons since the only way for ainscough to stop that try was to take the winger’s head off? Any legitimate tackling technique wouldn’t have stopped it, so by your logic the coat hanger is now in play
Click to expand...

I never said he was allowed to break the rule. I said under the rules he should be banned. I'm also saying the rule is wrong for on-line, east to west tackles. As black and white as the rule is now, it doesn't work. When you shoulder charge a guy front on in the line, you have options. When you're executing a sliding, on-line tackle, your options are much less. As I said, Slater could have led with his arms and been either knocked out or feebly gone round the legs. But he knew he had to save a try with the best - albeit illegal under the black and white rules - option. I'd also suggest it's near on impossible to make head-high contact when making a shoulder-first side-on tackle. First contact is always going to be the opposition's shoulder. Which negates the reason the shoulder charge was banned in the first place.

The Ainscough one has no relevance.
 
Last edited:
C

Chimp

Bench
Messages
2,578
Penrose Warrior said:
I never said he was allowed to break the rule. I said under the rules he should be banned. I'm also saying the rule is wrong for on-line, east to west tackles. As black and white as the rule is now, it doesn't work. When you shoulder charge a guy front on in the line, you have options. When you're executing a sliding, on-line tackle, your options are much less. As I said, Slater could have led with his arms and been either knocked out or feebly gone round the legs. But he knew he had to save a try with the best - albeit illegal under the black and white rules - option. I'd also suggest it's near on impossible to make head-high contact when making a shoulder-first side-on tackle. First contact is always going to be the opposition's shoulder. Which negates the reason the shoulder charge was banned in the first place.

The Ainscough one has no relevance.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with this. Slater has done the only real thing he could to save the try. But under current bullshit rules, it's illegal. He should probably have been binned and should get a ban.

The rule is wrong in my opinion, but it's been wrong all along, can't now start making exceptions because it suits the fairytale narrative.

Hopefully it prompts a review of the shoulder charge rule, to either make these type of sliding defence on the touchline tackles legal, or better still, legalise shoulder charges but be super harsh on high contact with the shoulder. I'd go as far as saying the shoulder charge is legal (I actually think it's safer for a smaller defender to shoulder charge/shoulder brace contact on a prop running at them 1 on 1 from say a drop out than it is for them to try make a legitimate tackle), but if you get it wrong and hit high with a shoulder charge/contact, it's a mandatory minimum of 10 weeks, with severe loading for repeat offences. That should be enough deterrent to ensure players would only use it safely.
 
SadShark

SadShark

Bench
Messages
3,982
bileduct said:
Of course I have. I looked at the rule and the evidence.
Click to expand...
Then there’s nothing to worry about. At all.

Is there?

Nup.

He’ll play.

Or, will he?

Maybe there’s a tiny spec of evidence that he might get susp.............nah, he’ll be fine.

He’ll play.
 
bad boy bubby

bad boy bubby

Coach
Messages
14,335
Slater has a technique issue.
The way he defended was how he has been defending for a long time.
What year was the shoulder charge outlawed?
This vid from 5 years ago, by coincidence against the Sharks, shows that he hasn't really changed his technique and was basically defending on instinct.


Personally I think 10 mins in the bin for a professional foul in the process of a try scoring opportunity, would have been suffice punishment. The refs deemed it an illegal play on the field but got the decision wrong.
 
Danish

Danish

Referee
Messages
31,886
Penrose Warrior said:
I never said he was allowed to break the rule. I said under the rules he should be banned. I'm also saying the rule is wrong for on-line, east to west tackles. As black and white as the rule is now, it doesn't work. When you shoulder charge a guy front on in the line, you have options. When you're executing a sliding, on-line tackle, your options are much less. As I said, Slater could have led with his arms and been either knocked out or feebly gone round the legs. But he knew he had to save a try with the best - albeit illegal under the black and white rules - option. I'd also suggest it's near on impossible to make head-high contact when making a shoulder-first side-on tackle. First contact is always going to be the opposition's shoulder. Which negates the reason the shoulder charge was banned in the first place.

The Ainscough one has no relevance.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of options to tackling a bloke over the sideline that don’t involve tucking your arm in and dropping your shoulder. Any roosters fan can tell you about Scott f**king sattler, for example.

And for the record, please tell me one tackling technique that is NOT supposed to have first contact made with your shoulder? Hitting with your shoulder is step one of any tackle that isn’t being made by terrible defenders like Thurston, Soward, or Lockyer.

Shoulder first contact is expected in any tackle. It’s making a legitimate wrapping motion with your arms that matters. Slater tucked one arm and let the other fling about wildly. It was an obvious as you like shoulder charge.

Now personally I have ALWAYS been against the shouldercharge rule. Go back to when they first outlawed it and I was one of the most vocal people on this forum arguing against it. But it’s now the rule, and it ain’t going anywhere. So it has to be enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top