How many weeks for Billy Slaters Karate kick to the head of David Klemmer?

[madunit]

WTF are we talking about obstruction for?

He kicked him in the face because of dangerous play. We already have a charge on the books called "dangerous conduct", and another one calls "kicking". I think its safe to say one of those 2 charges would cover this well and truly.

Since we can all agree that Slater extended his foot intentionally to ward off defenders, can we remove the fact that he was jumping from the equation? What if Slater was still on the ground but decided to raise his leg out in front of himself and kicked the dogs player in the stomach, would the "thats just footy" type arguments hold up?

It was a clear a case of dangerous conduct as you could hope to see on a footy field. No specific intention to kick a player, but a clear knowledge that what he was doing could result in a player getting hit in the face/head. Hell he was relying on that fact, otherwise there would be no deterrent to the defence

First of all, whats with these absurd "what if's"

A judiciary isn't going to make a decision based on, as you describe here, Billy Slater was mimicking John Cleese in the Monty Python sketch about silly walks.

All you are doing there is trying to justify your biased hatred of the team and the player and thus, have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever.

You don't want to see it as anything else other than a blatant intentional incident when there is too much doubt to suggest that is at all the case.

 

[Timmah]

There actually is a precedent for this incident, Luke Patten was penalised for a similar offence many years ago. Can't remember him being suspended though.

 

[bottle]

How anyone can claim that the contact with Slater's foot occurred before the mid air tackle, or vice versa for that matter, is beyond me. Some people must have super power type stop vision eyesight. At normal speed the whole thing appears to be so simultaneous that it is impossible for me to discern which event took place first. I guess personal bias helps in this regard.

 

[BennyV]

Reaction of players is always a key indicator if the play was deliberate and foul. When Slater kicked Skandalis in the head every tigers player including John wanted to beat him to a pulp. Last night there was barely a scuffle after the incident. Klemmer got to his feet quickly and there was no square ups in the next set.

And yes I know that the days of biff are over but a deliberate kick to the head is still a deliberate kick to the head and you'd expect the players involved or around the play to act on it. Which they didn't.

You can hardly use this argument to claim anything. The dogs were on the attack, half of them were probably focusing on the next defensive set after Slater catches the bomb, the other half were looking to defuse Slater when he got to the ground! Following the penalty, it would have been ridiculous for the dogs to fire up at Slater and compromise their rightful penalty by starting a fight.

I'm usually the first to hate on the bulldogs but they did well not going after Slater following this.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

The incident looks OK to me. I've no idea what Klemmer was intending. He wasn't contesting the bomb, that much is clear. Therefore he shouldn't have been so close to Slater when he was in the air as he's not allowed to tackle him until Slater's feet are on the ground. I suspect Klemmer was barging in to try and put Billy off his catch and he muffed it by running into his foot. Whether Slater is allowed to stick his foot out while in the air is a matter for those who make the rules, but no way did he deliberately kick the guy.

 

[BennyV]

It was a clear a case of dangerous conduct as you could hope to see on a footy field. No specific intention to kick a player, but a clear knowledge that what he was doing could result in a player getting hit in the face/head. Hell he was relying on that fact, otherwise there would be no deterrent to the defence

You don't want to see it as anything else other than a blatant intentional incident when there is too much doubt to suggest that is at all the case.

Did you even read the comment you just quoted?!

 

[hitman82]

WTF are we talking about obstruction for?

He kicked him in the face because of dangerous play. We already have a charge on the books called "dangerous conduct", and another one calls "kicking". I think its safe to say one of those 2 charges would cover this well and truly.

Since we can all agree that Slater extended his foot intentionally to ward off defenders, can we remove the fact that he was jumping from the equation? What if Slater was still on the ground but decided to raise his leg out in front of himself and kicked the dogs player in the stomach, would the "thats just footy" type arguments hold up?

It was a clear a case of dangerous conduct as you could hope to see on a footy field. No specific intention to kick a player, but a clear knowledge that what he was doing could result in a player getting hit in the face/head. Hell he was relying on that fact, otherwise there would be no deterrent to the defence

Great post, one of the more rational in this thread.

I've been commenting on Slater's "Flying Crane" for years. He regularly uses it when going up for a high pressure bomb.

It's not a kick att he opposition's face as such - he jumps forward and up, while extending his boots (usually studs out) in the direction of incoming tacklers. They can either stand their ground and tackle Slater when he lands, or keep running and risk copping his boots in the face / eye.

I doubt it's punishable under current rules, but it's definitely something which should be examined, particularly given Slater's past use of legs-first slide tackles at opposition try-scorers.

 

[Danish]

First of all, whats with these absurd "what if's"

A judiciary isn't going to make a decision based on, as you describe here, Billy Slater was mimicking John Cleese in the Monty Python sketch about silly walks.

All you are doing there is trying to justify your biased hatred of the team and the player and thus, have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever.

You don't want to see it as anything else other than a blatant intentional incident when there is too much doubt to suggest that is at all the case.

Slater intended to raise his foot to fend off would be defenders. He actually said straight up thats what he was doing. His deliberate motion to fend with his foot resulted in him kicking someone in the face. I'm not sure how much more cut and dried "dangerous conduct" case you could possibly have.

The judiciary don't have to prove that Slater had every intention of kicking Klemmer in the face to charge him with "dangerous conduct", just like they don't have to prove intention when charging someone with a careless or reckless high tackle.

 

[Timmah]

How anyone can claim that the contact with Slater's foot occurred before the mid air tackle, or vice versa for that matter, is beyond me. Some people must have super power type stop vision eyesight. At normal speed the whole thing appears to be so simultaneous that it is impossible for me to discern which event took place first. I guess personal bias helps in this regard.

By my reckoning in this still, Klemmer's still not tackling Slater, yet Slater's foot's embedded in his neck.

Pretty conclusive first contact was by Slater's foot if you ask me.

 

[Evenflow]

Nope. With the amount of money they paid outside the cap, and the time and energy that went into orchestrating the rort, anything less than a premiership each year they committed the fraud is absolute failure.

They cheated, and they still weren't good enough. This fact must really cut you up.

In hindsight i'm actually glad we didn't win the comp for all those years because if we had we'd have lost more of them than what we did. While i cant talk for other Storm fans i'm honestly well and truly over all that and don't give it a second thought, especially after winning the comp last year. Amazing what a GF win can do ;-)

 

[Timmah]

Slater not charged LINK via Andrew Webster on Twitter.

More LINK - Storm website

 

[bottle]

Timmah, do you have stop vision eyesight that allows you to see that at normal speed, ie, without the benefit of a still shot?

That's my point.

 

[Timmah]

Video review technology now exists and that's what enabled the referees to award the correct penalty overnight.

Pretty straightforward if you ask me.

 

[Shorty]

The incident looks OK to me. I've no idea what Klemmer was intending. He wasn't contesting the bomb, that much is clear. Therefore he shouldn't have been so close to Slater when he was in the air as he's not allowed to tackle him until Slater's feet are on the ground. I suspect Klemmer was barging in to try and put Billy off his catch and he muffed it by running into his foot. Whether Slater is allowed to stick his foot out while in the air is a matter for those who make the rules, but no way did he deliberately kick the guy.

Really?
So just how many players in the NRL, when on the attack, suddenly slow down because a player is in the air?
And as it is, if he's tackled in the air it's a penalty isn't it? Which takes the pressure off the defending team...doesn't really make sense for him to behave like that...

Slater and his constant little ways in which to niggle a player are a taint on his character and he doesn't need to do it, this isn't his first incident with studs.

 

[Usain Bolt]

Slater not charged but Ryles is looking at 3 weeks

 

[chrisD]

The amazing Billy Slater, what can he get away with next?

 

[hineyrulz]

Slater not charged LINK via Andrew Webster on Twitter.

More LINK - Storm website

:lol: Biggest protected species in the game. Now it's ok to kick people but a good shoulder charge which doesn't connect with the head is no good.

 

[Shark Attack]

1 week. Nothing in it

 

[PARRA_FAN]

If hes not charged, I just wonder if another player did the same thing, would he get charged?

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Ok, since Billy wasn't charged, the next question to be asked is whether the refs (the video ref in particular) made the right or wrong call on the penalty?