1) I admire Slater as a player, but I think he's a grub. So I'm no fanboi.
2) I'm no fan of Melbourne.
3) There was no mid air tackle
4) You can't penalise for 'intent' to tackle mid air
5) The initial penalty against the Dogs was a classic case of the refs applying the mid air tackle rule incorrectly for mine. It was intended to stamp out tackles that take out a players legs in the air resulting in the player falling to the ground in a dangerous manner. If a player is going to create that danger himself via actions such as Slater's there should be no penalty against the defender for accidental contact unless and/or until he engages in an illegality.
6) Slater's been doing this for ages. Has he ever been cautioned or warned about it? Is it definitively illegal? I suspect not. Hence the decision to penalise, and the report, are both bogus for mine. If it IS illegal, should have been sent off. I can't think of much worse you can do on a footy field then boot a bloke in the face, unless perhaps it's gouging. Most injured parts of the body heal. Eyes are a little less forgiving.
Should have been play on. No penalty either way, get on with the game ffs. The reverse penalty and report were bullshit calls. Poll needs a zero weeks option, because that's what he'll get.
If they come out and say such action is illegal all good and well, I have no problem with that in regards future incidents. However up to now that hasn't been the case. Looks like a Storm in a teacup to me.
Edit: I retract my point 3. I believe there was a mid air tackle on review. This renders point 5 invalid in this case.
