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!

See ya Slater

Valheru

Coach
Messages
17,509
It wasn’t a shoulder charge though. Don’t be saying “I know it, you know it”... I know under NRL rules it was not a shoulder charge. And I know the shoulder charge rule was never brought in for east west shoulder to shoulder contact

Yes it was and it doesn't matter what the rule was brought in for, there is no distinction between north/south and east/west in the current rules.

It was a clear shoulder charge and the judiciary just ignored the rules.
 

The_Shield

Juniors
Messages
1,895
Yes it was and it doesn't matter what the rule was brought in for, there is no distinction between north/south and east/west in the current rules.

It was a clear shoulder charge and the judiciary just ignored the rules.
What rule did they ignore? It seems to me that your the one ignoring the rules
 

MilkShark

First Grade
Messages
5,155
Normally when there is a topic such as this you will see some of the supporters from that club come out and say yeah we are lucky and I don’t believe they should have overturned the decision.

But I haven’t seen one person just admit to it. I guess these vicderps know better than absolutely everybody else including every single ex league playing commentator (qlders included) that said it was a shoulder charge.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
150,734
Has a transcript of the NRL judiciary’s ruling been released? My understanding is that the judiciary members deliberate their decision, call all parties back into the hearing room and then literally say their verdict (i.e. guilty or not guilty).

It was slater and his lawyer that said he make first contact with his right hand and hit with a pec. I don’t think the judiciary elaborated on their reasons for reaching a decision.

yeh the reasons were given, after the decision was given the transcript was read out my the media commentator outside the judiciary

there were 2 reasons the other was regarding the first point of contact
 

thorson1987

Coach
Messages
16,907
Normally when there is a topic such as this you will see some of the supporters from that club come out and say yeah we are lucky and I don’t believe they should have overturned the decision.

But I haven’t seen one person just admit to it. I guess these vicderps know better than absolutely everybody else including every single ex league playing commentator (qlders included) that said it was a shoulder charge.

Nope. We are just sitting back enjoying all the salt in here.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
But they proved it technically wasn’t a shoulder charge

If that is 'technically proving it wasn't a shoulder charge' then the only way to make a shoulder charge in rugby league is to have your other arm behind your back or pointed straight towards the ground and for the 'first point of contact' to be with the very point of the shoulder, not the pec or tricep regardless of whether the arm is tucked or where the impact comes from.

And the judiciary panel doesn't 'technically prove' anything, just like a jury doesn't technically prove anything.
 

The_Shield

Juniors
Messages
1,895
If that is 'technically proving it wasn't a shoulder charge' then the only way to make a shoulder charge in rugby league is to have your other arm behind your back or pointed straight towards the ground and for the 'first point of contact' to be with the very point of the shoulder, not the pec or tricep regardless of whether the arm is tucked or where the impact comes from.

And the judiciary panel doesn't 'technically prove' anything, just like a jury doesn't technically prove anything.
When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
7,704
When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.
They proved nothing. The same as a defense lawyer in a criminal case isn't obliged to prove anything.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate that either you are, or have the intellect of a 9 year old.
 

The_Shield

Juniors
Messages
1,895
They proved nothing. The same as a defense lawyer in a criminal case isn't obliged to prove anything.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate that either you are, or have the intellect of a 9 year old.
Fine then, they successfully convinced the judiciary panel that it wasn’t a shoulder charge. Geez people are so pretentious here
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.

Then according to you the only way a shoulder charge should be penalised is if they have both arms behind their back.

The arms are always going to be in use in some way.
 

The_Shield

Juniors
Messages
1,895
Then according to you the only way a shoulder charge should be penalised is if they have both arms behind their back.

The arms are always going to be in use in some way.
It’s not according to me, that’s the actual rule. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter. The way the rule is worded at the moment played to Slaters advantage
 
Top