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

[Apey]

Nothing in it, 0 weeks.

 

[madunit]

It's be almost impossible to prove it was intentional given he uses this action all the time & has avoided contact with players faces in the past. Also, he's in the air for a few seconds with eyes on the ball, not Moeller. The time between catching the ball & seeing Klemmer is what, a second at most?

There's just not enough reaction time to attempt to kick someone, while falling back onto your feet.

It was an accident that's been waiting to happen for years with Slater. Short of a confession of intent to kick from Slater, I can't see how he'll get suspended.

Legal or not is virtually irrelevant given it will be seen as accidental & that is the case I'd expect Slater to run with at the judiciary.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

He kept a rival who was trying to perform an illegal tackle from doing so.


Not that there is any evidence that he actively and deliberately utilsed his boot in this way. That was the result, but there can be no intent proven even if it wasn't quite legitimate to prevent himself being illegally tackled.

Sorry I must have forgotten the part where our game did not have a ref and also I forgot about the tackle that klemmer made. Remind me again, oh wait it never happened cause slater stuck the boot out.

Klemmer has every legal reason to pressure the catcher without the fear of being kicked in the head. Unlike slater who performs a reckless/dangerous move to maintain possession.

 

[BranVan3000]

You lot make out like its some horrible intentional plan he had to kick Klemmer in the head. Everytime a bomb goes up for Slater to defend, he has always kicked a leg out forward. It's how he keeps rivals at a distance so he can take a clean, uncontested catch.

He'll get no suspension.

Maybe players should start punching the air in front of them while running the ball, and if a player runs into it, then its their own fault

 

[High Flyers]

Umm.. Yes

Quality image there mate

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Not that there is any evidence that he actively and deliberately utilsed his boot in this way.

Apart from his confirmation after the game that he actively and deliberately uses his boot that way.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Maybe people have this idea that if a bomb goes up, the defending team should catch the ball uncontested as if it's their right.

The bomb should be contested by anyone, and sticking your leg out so you can defend a bomb "uncontested" is reckless.
Being tackled in mid-air is a different story though, but no tackle was made in this instance.
The problem here is Slater enforced an uncontested defense of the bomb, which he has no right to do.

 

[The General]

Seriously though how is it that all these "accidents" always end up with Slaters boot in peoples faces. Stomping on the players head at the play the ball, sliding in and kicking players as they attempt to score tries, kicking players while catching the ball. One mighty big coincidence.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Sorry I must have forgotten the part where our game did not have a ref and also I forgot about the tackle that klemmer made. Remind me again, oh wait it never happened cause slater stuck the boot out.

Klemmer has every legal reason to pressure the catcher without the fear of being kicked in the head. Unlike slater who performs a reckless/dangerous move to maintain possession.

He has absolutely no right to make any contact with a player in the air. End of story. Slater didn't kick him. He ran into his boot with his arms raised as he attempted a tackle - an illegal tackle. That's why the refs blew the penalty to the Storm initially. They had it right. The dopey merkins then went and did what they always do and they over-thought it.

As others have said it's just the bias rantings of butt-hurt fans of other clubs who don't like Slater and/or the Storm. If it was their player the story would be very different.

 

[Evenflow]

The real shame about this incident is it will take focus off what was the biggest disgrace of the night, the absolutely abhorrent obstruction call against the Storm when Cooper Cronk scored.

Spot on. Besides a few dodgy calls there's been over all games in the opening weeks I've actually though the refs have been really good. That was until tonight where they were absolutely disgusting (both ways) and the most disgusting of all was the Cronk try. It was the difference between an easy win to a close one.

As for the Bill thing, move on haters nothing to see here. We should really be concentrating on what a gutsy effort it was by the Storm to get the points after such an arduous start to the season travel wise and such a short turn around............

 

[madunit]

It's not illegal to force an uncontested catch attempt by the catcher though is there.

 

[typicalfan]

No suspension, massive overreaction. The way I see it is both players performed a play that could have potentially injured the other.

Just remember that Klemmer was going in for a mid air tackle, the refs determined this on the field and he had his arms out ready to make the tackle. There is no way in the world he would have pulled out when he was the distance of Slaters leg away from him in fact it was pretty much touch and go, enough for the refs to be undecided until they felt they would put Slater on report. Slaters leg was in the air long before Klemmer collided and Slater did flinch, anyone would seeing a 199cm monster about to tackle you when you are essentially defenseless. If the NRL have not made a determination to get him to get it out of his game for the first 10 years of his career, it would be a bit lax for them to only start looking at it now.

Those talking about the attempted mid air tackle as a hypothetical are not talking about what actually happened.

Bit hypocritical of Bulldogs supporters crying dirty player when they have Mr Bitey on their books.

 

[typicalfan]

Maybe players should start punching the air in front of them while running the ball, and if a player runs into it, then its their own fault

Yeah, that is what people are suggesting and it is totally the same thing.

 

[no name]

He kept a rival who was trying to perform an illegal tackle from doing so.


Not that there is any evidence that he actively and deliberately utilsed his boot in this way. That was the result, but there can be no intent proven even if it wasn't quite legitimate to prevent himself being illegally tackled.

Where is the evidence that Klemmer would have made an illegal tackle?
You have just made a strong argument for Klemmer re intent, Slater is the one who made the illegal contact.

 

[Timmah]

It's punishable, but it's not serious enough for a ridiculous suspension. 0-1 weeks max.

 

[High Flyers]

2 weeks. Cut down with early plea and good behaviour bond. Immediate parole, and released into the custody of Bellamy.

Classic

 

[Evenflow]

Section 15 from the Laws of the Game


http://www.webcitation.org/5maMKeFVP

Lol keep clutching.

 

[BranVan3000]

Yeah, that is what people are suggesting and it is totally the same thing.

Yeah it is. Two wrongs don't make a right. Slater kicking out in the air is an illegal play and not in the spirit of the game, regardless of if he is protecting himself.

 

[Game_Breaker]

He has absolutely no right to make any contact with a player in the air. End of story. Slater didn't kick him. He ran into his boot with his arms raised as he attempted a tackle - an illegal tackle. That's why the refs blew the penalty to the Storm initially. They had it right. The dopey merkins then went and did what they always do and they over-thought it.

As others have said it's just the bias rantings of butt-hurt fans of other clubs who don't like Slater and/or the Storm. If it was their player the story would be very different.

So he attempted it, but never made it :lol:

Unfortunately, that isn't illegal.
Sticking your leg out so you can defuse a bomb uncontested is a careless/reckless action. If a player gets injured because of those actions then its Slater's fault

Its a risky play that maybe works for him 99% of the time, but that 1 % is where it gets dangerous. This incident is part of that 1%.

 

[Hindyscrack]

He's been leading with the leg/boot out for years. He should be cited for it, or at least given a warning to change his approach or face sanctions.