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."
