See ya Slater

[Canard]

Meet me at the casino, i'll pay for your buy-in, I want half the winnings

So $20 then

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Honestly I would be pissed if Tedesco made the same tackle and was forced to miss the GF. As much as I would rather Slater out, I can see valid reasons for clearing him.

 

[SBD82]

Wait. Are people actually saying that wasn't a shoulder charge?

It's downright insane that the NRL created such a shitty rule, but to suggest that what Slater did was anything other than a shoulder charge is f**king absurd.

 

[blaza88z]

Haha, you seem to have changed your argument a little. Hmmm I wonder why

His hand is there and I didn't dispute that, my point was is that his arm/hand makes no difference on the outcome of the tackle, it's a shoulder charge

I think they'll play the technicality card and say what you guys have been saying before me but if you watch it in real time it's clear as day it's a shoulder charge, my concern is that going forward what if we see one of these tackles go wrong and one guy has to get carted off on a stretcher, does the defending player have a right to be let off because his hand glanced first? That's the precedent if he gets off here, the NRL can't apply procedural rulings to things like this, it's nothing but a shoulder charge and spare me this "you can get legally knocked out in Rugby League", sure you can by way of accident.. but there's nothing accidental about it when you lead with your shoulder with no use of the arms

 

[bileduct]

Wait. Are people actually saying that wasn't a shoulder charge?

It's downright insane that the NRL created such a shitty rule, but to suggest that what Slater did was anything other than a shoulder charge is f**king absurd.

Under the NRL's definition of a shoulder charge it isn't.

The debate is about what the rule actually is, not what you think it should be.

 

[SBD82]

Under the NRL's definition of a shoulder charge it isn't.

Yes it was. Even if his hand makes contact, he wasn't using it to make the tackle.

 

[Canard]

His hand is there and I didn't dispute that, my point was is that his arm/hand makes no difference on the outcome of the tackle, it's a shoulder charge

I think they'll play the technicality card and say what you guys have been saying before me but if you watch it in real time it's clear as day it's a shoulder charge, my concern is that going forward what if we see one of these tackles go wrong and one guy has to get carted off on a stretcher, does the defending player have a right to be let off because his hand glanced first? That's the precedent if he gets off here, the NRL can't apply procedural rulings to things like this, it's nothing but a shoulder charge and spare me this "you can get legally knocked out in Rugby League", sure you can by way of accident.. but there's nothing accidental about it when you lead with your shoulder with no use of the arms

So the only way to be knocked out is "by accident"?

That will do me

 

[bileduct]

Yes it was. Even if his hand makes contact, he wasn't using it to make the tackle.

That's your opinion.

Watch him play in the GF next weekend.

 

[sempmrh]

His hand is there and I didn't dispute that, my point was is that his arm/hand makes no difference on the outcome of the tackle, it's a shoulder charge

I think they'll play the technicality card and say what you guys have been saying before me but if you watch it in real time it's clear as day it's a shoulder charge, my concern is that going forward what if we see one of these tackles go wrong and one guy has to get carted off on a stretcher, does the defending player have a right to be let off because his hand glanced first? That's the precedent if he gets off here, the NRL can't apply procedural rulings to things like this, it's nothing but a shoulder charge and spare me this "you can get legally knocked out in Rugby League", sure you can by way of accident.. but there's nothing accidental about it when you lead with your shoulder with no use of the arms

I think in the situation you're describing, the contact to the head (which is what I'm assuming you mean by "knocked senseless") would supersede whatever happens with the other arm of the tackling player.

Perhaps the wording of the shoulder charge rule needs to be reviewed again in the off season.

 

[SBD82]

That's your opinion.

Watch him play in the GF next weekend.

Of course he will. And his defence team and the NRL will use the same bullshit that's being used in this thread about whether or not a hand - which had zero influence in the tackle - touched feki.

 

[blaza88z]

So the only way to be knocked out is "by accident"?

That will do me

So you're saying you can be knocked out in rugby league legally and it not be an accident, so there's a rule in there that permits you to knock someone out, am I understanding you?

If so, you're an idiot, if not.. well, you're still an idiot.

 

[bileduct]

Of course he will. And his defence team and the NRL will use the same bullshit that's being used in this thread about whether or not a hand - which had zero influence in the tackle - touched feki.

But the rule isn't based on whether or not that hand had any influence in the tackle, it's based on whether or not there was an attempt to use the arm or hand in effecting a tackle. Slater has clearly put his right arm out toward Feki, and his hand makes first contact.

Under the shitty rule that's not a shoulder charge.

 

[Canard]

So you're saying you can be knocked out in rugby league legally and it not be an accident, so there's a rule in there that permits you to knock someone out, am I understanding you?

If so, you're an idiot, if not.. well, you're still an idiot.

This is geniused

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Regardless whether Slater gets suspended or not, he’s still gonna get the Churchill medal so he still retires on a high

 

[SBD82]

But the rule isn't based on whether or not that hand had any influence in the tackle, it's based on whether or not there was an attempt to use the arm or hand in effecting a tackle. Slater has clearly put his right arm out toward Feki, and his hand makes first contact.

Under the shitty rule that's not a shoulder charge.

The wording is below:

"• The contact is forceful, and;
• The player did not use, or attempt to use, his arms (including his hands) to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player."

I'd argue that even if the hand makes contact, it was incidental and he did not use, nor attempt to use, his hands or arms to tackle.

The idea that someone could make a hit from side on with the left shoulder and claim that the right hand was in any way a part of the tackle just seems ridiculous to me.

 

[bileduct]

The wording is below:

Yeah dude, I quoted the rule a page or two back.

 

[SBD82]

Yeah dude, I quoted the rule a page or two back.

Perhaps you should have read it too.

 

[bileduct]

Perhaps you should have read it too.

I did.

I'm sorry that you are having trouble accepting that somebody doesn't agree with your opinion.

 

[SBD82]

I did.

I'm sorry that you are having trouble accepting that somebody doesn't agree with your opinion.

Ok. Thanks. Nice chat.

 

[Canard]

I can understand people saying it's an illegal play but It's a bit rich to argue there is no grey in this case, and this is a textbook example of a shoulder charge.