See ya Slater

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

I gots them straws though didn’t I??? It’s ok mate, not to late to jump on board the rugby league lovers bandwagon!! Stop being a rugby league hater

Sorry mate i didn't know you were in there mounting Sir Billy's defense at the judiciary after your hours of preparation in here..

I assumed you were just some dribbler typing pages and pages of garbage.. All the while completely oblivious to the fact that he was never going to be suspended and you probably should have found a better use for your time...

 

[TheFrog]

Would love someone to explain why it wasn't a penalty try.

This is the wording of the rule:
The referee may award a penalty try, if in his opinion,
a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts irrespective of
where the offence occurred.

The important word is "may". This indicates discretion to either award or not award. If it said "shall" the ref would be bound by the rules to award a try every time a defending side infringes close to the line, and the game would be even more of a farce than it already is.

Making it discretionary allows there to be guidelines on when a penalty try is given. This situation was clearly outside the guidelines.

 

[coolsteve]

Sorry if said before but by letting slater off, the judiciary has said the refs got it wrong therefore slater should not have been penalised?

 

[myrrh ken]

I heard a cracker

He shouldn’t be suspended because he is married and speaks well and hasn’t had off feild issues.

Ha

That reminds me of when Billy's wife was scared the time that he got king hit at a night club

 

[typicalfan]

Whacking someone with the shoulder and causing injury is fine and dandy as long as the arm is loose.

May as well call the sport off in that case. Dont want anyone to get injured.

 

[King hit]

Last night at trivia some girl on my table wanted him to get of just because she thinks he is cool whilst being ignorant of all the rules.

I heard a cracker

He shouldn’t be suspended because he is married and speaks well and hasn’t had off feild issues.

Ha

Wonder if they remember the salary cap rort and all of his illegal play which has been overlooked his whole career.

 

[thorson1987]

Sorry if said before but by letting slater off, the judiciary has said the refs got it wrong therefore slater should not have been penalised?

What about the previous players that had fought and succesfully beat the same charge?

 

[butchmcdick]

National Parks And Wildlife Officially Declare Billy Slater A Protected Species



Facebook

Twitter

WhatsApp

WENDELL HUSSEY | Cadet | CONTACT

National Parks have today granted rugby league great and Melbourne Storm fullback Billy Slater protection under the Biodiversity Conservation Act (2016).

The announcement comes after the NRL cleared the champion fullback to play in this weekend’s premiership decider.

The NRL’s decision came after a mammoth judiciary hearing whereby Slater’s legal counsel Cameron Smith pleaded the case for a couple of hours.

Slater will join the likes of the Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat, The Leadbeater’s Possum and Yellow-Spotted Treefrog as native species in need of protection.

With Slater in doubt for the Grand Final after what looked to any non-Melbourne Storm fan like a clear shoulder charge in the Preliminary Final against the Cronulla Sharks, the nations wildlife body decided to make sure the boy from Innisfail got the send-off he deserved.

The move is being heralded as a landmark for conservation in the country, with Slater being the first human inducted into the list usually reserved for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish.


National Parks Boss Wally Vautin told The Advocate today that the decision was a national first.

“We saw that Billy, as one of the games greatest players needed to go out in a fitting way,” Vautin said.

“So we decided to step in and add him to the list of native species that are in need of protection.”

“Let the boys play! You need to bend the rules depending upon the narratives in the game!”

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/spo...lly-declare-billy-slater-a-protected-species/

 

[bileduct]

Last night at trivia some girl on my table wanted him to get of just because she thinks he is cool whilst being ignorant of all the rules.

Last night Billy Slater had a bogus charge overturned for a completely legitimate tackle and people are still having a meltdown over it.

 

[coolsteve]

What about the previous players that had fought and succesfully beat the same charge?

What about them?

 

[Timbo]

This is the wording of the rule:
The referee may award a penalty try, if in his opinion,
a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts irrespective of
where the offence occurred.

The important word is "may". This indicates discretion to either award or not award. If it said "shall" the ref would be bound by the rules to award a try every time a defending side infringes close to the line, and the game would be even more of a farce than it already is.

Making it discretionary allows there to be guidelines on when a penalty try is given. This situation was clearly outside the guidelines.

I know people won’t want to hear it, but in Union that would be a send off and a penalty try.

If there’s something that union usually (key word: usually) does quite well, it’s be impartial with the application of the rules. I remember during the 2011 World Cup, the Sam Warburton, the Welsh captain and best player, was sent off after 15 minutes for a dangerous tackle in the semi-final. I was watching it with some mates who only watch union during the Word Cup, and they were blowing up delux with a lot of the sentiment you’ve seen towards Slater; ‘you can’t do that in a World Cup semi! He’s their best player! It was dangerous but it’s ruined the game sending him off!’

The thing is, just like Slater, it was Warburton who f**ked up with the dangerous play so there was no outrage at all that he was sent off.

This f**king nonsense that somehow the NRL will be ruining the grand final by suspending Slater - it’s f**king Slater who’s to blame for pulling off the illegal play. Why are people angry at the league for enforcing a law, as opposed to being angry at Slater for breaking it?

It’s like f**kwits who get done doing 130 in a 70 zone and complain about the cops and the legal system. You broke the f**king law dickhead, and you could’ve seriously hurt someone in the process. f**king deal with it.

Ugh, sorry for the rambling rant, but this has made me so f**king angry. It’s really done some damage to my love of the sport. We have to stop letting the media and the league put ‘stories’ and put individuals above the game itself.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

It's a salt mine in here.

 

[Springs09]

May as well call the sport off in that case. Dont want anyone to get injured.

Exactly, which is why the shoulder charge ban was hypocritical in the first place.

Tucked arm shoulder bump to the chest - 200 points (until last night)
Loose arm shoulder charge to the head resulting in broken jaw - ah we can't have the game getting too soft now can we

 

[Mr Angry]

Billy is bringing out a Country Music song.

"I broke the law, and yet I won".

 

[m0j0]

Swings and roundabouts mate. Brett Finch, while playing for the Roosters, dumped Clinton Schifcofske on his head and then successfully argued that Schif speared himself into the ground.

You win some, you lose some

That's not a win, we would have been better off if Finch got six weeks for that.

 

[m0j0]

Dammit, I'm out of popcorn. Can you guys just stop posting for a bit while I pop out and grab some more?

 

[Quicksilver]

This is the wording of the rule:
The referee may award a penalty try, if in his opinion,
a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is
awarded between the goal posts irrespective of
where the offence occurred.

The important word is "may". This indicates discretion to either award or not award. If it said "shall" the ref would be bound by the rules to award a try every time a defending side infringes close to the line, and the game would be even more of a farce than it already is.

Making it discretionary allows there to be guidelines on when a penalty try is given. This situation was clearly outside the guidelines.

I don’t see how in fairness under that rule that the ref could come to any conclusion but a penalty try.

Feki had one player to beat. That player hit him with an illegal shot as he saw it. If he doesn’t make that hit Feki scores (that’s even the point the defence were making).

What did the ref think would happen if he wasn’t shoulder charged? Was the assumption that Feki would have dropped it? He had one step to take.

This is a far clearer try scoring opportunity than someone chasing a loose ball from a kick and they are often awarded as penalty tries.

 

[OzDragon]

I hope he scores the match winning try. Imagine this thread then lol

 

[MrBlack]

He was always going to get off the charge.

Otherwise it would have looked ridiculous when he accepts the Clive Churchill Medal in a game he didn't play.

 

[YoHadrian]

He was always going to get off the charge.

Otherwise it would have looked ridiculous when he accepts the Clive Churchill Medal in a game he didn't play.

Looks like another booing opportunity right there.