What's new
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!

2018 PF2 Fri - Storm 22-6 Sharks @ AAMI

Finals Week 3: Storm v Sharks


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

Cheap Charlie

Juniors
Messages
59
I'm gonna give myself a tap on the back for reading 90% of this thread first then have a another sip of my latte because I live in Melbourne and not Mt Druitt anymore and proceed to say nothing about the game because winners just get on with it and f**k the haters.
Latte sippers. Good grief.
 

azza29

Juniors
Messages
1,013
No better way to make it to a GF than by denying Cronulla a shot, unless it had been Manly. The butt hurt in these threads is consistently delicious, go Storm!
 

Meth

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
34,477
No Vonny, it’s not different to stop a try being scored using a shoulder charge.

These Fox merkins are the worst apologists since Neville Chamberlin.

not sure Vonny is there for her appreciation of the nuances of the game.
 

Morehead St

Juniors
Messages
111
Its a shoulder charge but once again there will be one rule for one and one for another
I have to agree. Others are defending Slater on the grounds the shoulder charge was made from the side, and therefore not a danger to the safety of the player with the ball.
BS.
To save me retyping, I'll just paste my reply to that, here:

"Your case rests with your view that his side-on charge is legal simply because it was not front-on. That is flawed because a shoulder charge is just that - a tackle made without any attempt to use the arms. The laws of the game make no mention of the direction of the charge - you have fabricated that. As soon as you throw in a furphy you condemn your argument.

"Guilty, Your Honour, as charged" (Yes, I am poor at puns).

What would your reaction be if a player was held standing in a tackle with his back exposed - spine, kidneys, etc, and a defender charged those vulnerable areas with the shoulder point without any attempt to tackle with the arms?

You would plead 'Fair Play' since it was not front-on? I doubt your audience would keep a straight face. Your future articles would be moved to the Comics Section.

Further, if a runner was heading straight for Slater and turned to pass the ball to a support as Slater hit him with a shoulder, then logically that is - in your opinion - not illegal since it hit the ball carrier "on the side".

Your foundation premise is made of quicksand.

The Storm have been quick and cunning to manipulate the minds of the judiciary immediately after the game by having Slater defend himself: "It would be wonderful to have your last game in a GF…I thought he was going to step in side. That resulted in me being in an awkward position to tackle."

That rubbish condemns him. The best fullback in the world thought he was going to be stepped inside so he leads with his far shoulder which would have resulted in him having his back turned on such a runner? How many would believe that Slater, 3 metres from the try line, would have his back turned to a player he believed was going to side step when in FRONT of him?

Further, Slater hit the runner with full force – knocking the Shark off his feet. If Slater was preparing to alter his own course to adapt to a perceived change of direction from the attacker, his whole momentum and balance would have been lessened to the extent that he may have been knocked out of the way.

Like your argument, it does not make sense. It fails the test of basic logic.

The NRL will either have to enforce the rules, or let Slater off and therefore create a dangerous precedent that will endanger many players in the future.

They need to choose what is right, as the Referee failed to do when he did not give Slater 10 in the bin for a professional foul, let alone award Cronulla a penalty.

It has long been suggested that the NRL have favoured the Storm to continue the promotion of the game in Melbourne AND as a “lover’s make-up” for taking premierships off them while giving other clubs lesser penalties for similar crimes.

Another rorting of their own laws by the NRL will see those suspicions scream."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
There is some suggestion from the replays I've watched that Slater used at least one of his arms in the tackle. I'm sure he'll get charged and it'll go to a hearing. This will be determined in a courtroom situation, with legal eagles arguing it out, and I think he'll get off on the position of his hands/arms.

The game has made a rod for its own back on this. The ban on shoulder charges was introduced to stop players being hit in the head, which is dangerous. Getting hit in the body in these circumstances is no more dangerous than any other tackle. The tackle we saw wasn't high and doesn't warrant a suspension IMHO, and they've really got to examine the rule in the off-season. We've already seen some pretty innocuous tackles lead to suspension under this rule.
 

super_coach

First Grade
Messages
5,061
Not a great fan of Billy because there is a lot of grub mixed in with his brilliance that has been glossed over by the media for years.

As for his shoulder charge last night, yes by definition it was a shoulder charge, but it was not the sort of shoulder charge the rule was implemented to stamp out. We have seen that sort of tackle plenty of times that has not even been questioned. Common sense has to prevail. Although I have my doubts it will.
 

Mr Angry

Not a Referee
Messages
51,764
I do not share the hate.

Cameron Smith and his Storm, QLD and AUS teams just perform with him leading the way.

Billy Slater is a great fullback, and I could only hope my fullback defended his line like Billy does.

Would have been lauded as great defence once. Garry Jack would have been applauded.

These days they frown on that.

Be kind of sad to see him rubbed out for being the last line of defence.
 

This Year?

Immortal
Messages
31,278
I'm gonna give myself a tap on the back for reading 90% of this thread first then have a another sip of my latte because I live in Melbourne and not Mt Druitt anymore and proceed to say nothing about the game because winners just get on with it and f**k the haters.
Enjoy the win and the build up of grand final week. Although I hate the Storm, you are a quality poster and as a fellow rugby league fan I know you will cherish what your club is about to accomplish.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,127
There is some suggestion from the replays I've watched that Slater used at least one of his arms in the tackle. I'm sure he'll get charged and it'll go to a hearing. This will be determined in a courtroom situation, with legal eagles arguing it out, and I think he'll get off on the position of his hands/arms.

The game has made a rod for its own back on this. The ban on shoulder charges was introduced to stop players being hit in the head, which is dangerous. Getting hit in the body in these circumstances is no more dangerous than any other tackle. The tackle we saw wasn't high and doesn't warrant a suspension IMHO, and they've really got to examine the rule in the off-season. We've already seen some pretty innocuous tackles lead to suspension under this rule.
I actually thought it was a pretty good tackle, and I can't stand the Storm and their tactics.

Maybe a bit old school but it wasn't that long ago that such a tackle would not have been at all controversial.

I'm sure that over the years there are plenty of fellow forummers who have seen similar try-saving tackles from players they support, and applauded it. You know who you are.

I totally agree that the NRL have made a rod for its own back. I'm pretty sure I said the same thing when the rule came in.

The thing is, the rule should only apply if the player has been hit in the head. Otherwise, the League is losing its way.
 

Latest posts

Top