See ya Slater

[Surely]

That picture is after contact. Feki is halfway out the sideline. You got a pic from a little earlier?

 

[Danish]

The main problem I have with it was that he wasn't sin-binned for using an illegal tackle to prevent a try. This discussion wouldn't be happening if the refs had made the correct ruling on the field.

I blame Todd Greenberg.

You are 100% correct.

If he got binned in the first place, the pressure to charge would have be reduced.

If the NRL also just left the shouldercharge rule where it was when first introduced, and not decided to come down with a ridiculous “suspend everyone” hardline tactic that saw multiple players charged after innocuous hits (Tapine, Radley, etc), they also would have a lot more wriggle room to just declare it penalty sufficient.

As it stands they’ve now painted themselves into a nice shitty corner of their own creation. Either enforce the dumb rules they were so adamant had to be put in place for “player welfare”, or go full on hypocrite and allow him to play.

If he is allowed to play, I hope this leads to the end of this pathetic shouldercharge rule. It’s been a blight on the game for years

 

[lazza]

Don’t forget he had a history of leading with his feet too. He will do whatever it takes to save a try first, player safety is second.

 

[lazza]

but if you get it wrong and hit high with a shoulder charge/contact, it's a mandatory minimum of 10 weeks, with severe loading for repeat offences. That should be enough deterrent to ensure players would only use it safely.

Doesn’t help the bloke who cops a broken jaw or even accidental head clashes. The nrl doesn’t trust players to do it safely so they implemented the rule - or it was to please the mums to show that the game is safe to play.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

So if Slater had've been disciplined on the field, as he should've been (weak as piss refs) he would've had less chance of being charged? Is that right or a fallacy/guesswork?

 

[Headless Chook]

 

[Penrose Warrior]

There are plenty of options to tackling a bloke over the sideline that don’t involve tucking your arm in and dropping your shoulder. Any roosters fan can tell you about Scott f**king sattler, for example.

And for the record, please tell me one tackling technique that is NOT supposed to have first contact made with your shoulder? Hitting with your shoulder is step one of any tackle that isn’t being made by terrible defenders like Thurston, Soward, or Lockyer.

Shoulder first contact is expected in any tackle. It’s making a legitimate wrapping motion with your arms that matters. Slater tucked one arm and let the other fling about wildly. It was an obvious as you like shoulder charge.

Now personally I have ALWAYS been against the shouldercharge rule. Go back to when they first outlawed it and I was one of the most vocal people on this forum arguing against it. But it’s now the rule, and it ain’t going anywhere. So it has to be enforced.

OK, that's your opinion. I don't think he had any legal options that would've allowed him to a) stop Feki or b) be knocked out. Try wrapping your arms around someone coming back at you from a sideline at pace while you fly across field laterally even quicker. It's really tough, unless you jump up and bear hug him - then you risk taking him high.

Slater has massive previous form and most of the coverage of this issue has either been to do with this, or the blow smoke up his arse brigade that are the sort of people that contributed to him being man of the series when he missed a game, and wasn't the best in the other two.

 

[MilkShark]

 

[johnny plath]

View attachment 23703 View attachment 23704
1. Right hand is the first part of Slater to touch the player. At top speed he attempted to use his right hand to take hold of Feki and push him out.
2. The next body part to hit Feki was Slaters left arm/hand.
3. The third body part is his shoulder.
4. Fourth body part is his hip.

No rugby league supporter in their right mind would ever call this a "text book" shoulder charge. The rule was brought for the Mark Geyer type front on contact big hits where you pick em off in front.

Now of-course, I hope Billy gets off cause I'm a storm fan. But taking that aside, as a league fan, this ruling has to overturned. By definition of the rule, Billy attempted to use his arms and hands to grab or hold on to Feki's right arm. He couldn't hold on or grab because of the impact of the collision.

Rules is rules... And as the rule says "attempt" to grab or hold the opposition player. The fact Slaters first contact with Feki is with his right hand and arm, gives weight to the evidence Billy wanted to grab or hold him. As long as Slater's testimony is "I attempted to grab or hold his right arm before contact with my shoulder" then I can not see, based on how the rule is written, how a judiciary could find Billy anything else other than not guilty.

And as for forceful contact? Feki didn't even miss a beat. Got up like a real man and got on with the game. Hardly forceful contact. Every tackle could be labelled forceful.

Its an extremely sad day for Rugby League if this type of collision is outlawed. Bigger hits in AFL these days.

Those angles show f**k all. By that logic you could argue that the spectator in the first row just behind slater is touching Billy on the back. All of this right hand reach is bullshit ... he's f**king running and thats where his right arm is in his stride, while his left arm is braced for the impact. If according to all the billy lovers, he is the greatest fullback ever, its a pretty shit effort.. why wouldn't a ball and all upper body tackle have taken feki out, Everything about Slaters position shows no though or attempt at a legal or technically correct (like you'd expect from the greatest fullback every) tackle. Also, not related to this post, but if people are arguing that points thresholds to get suspended for a grand final should be higher because of the importance of the game, by that logic should all offences committed in a grand final be graded higher and suspension times increased since they were committed in an important game.

 

[firechild]

I never said he was allowed to break the rule. I said under the rules he should be banned. I'm also saying the rule is wrong for on-line, east to west tackles. As black and white as the rule is now, it doesn't work. When you shoulder charge a guy front on in the line, you have options. When you're executing a sliding, on-line tackle, your options are much less. As I said, Slater could have led with his arms and been either knocked out or feebly gone round the legs. But he knew he had to save a try with the best - albeit illegal under the black and white rules - option. I'd also suggest it's near on impossible to make head-high contact when making a shoulder-first side-on tackle. First contact is always going to be the opposition's shoulder. Which negates the reason the shoulder charge was banned in the first place.

The Ainscough one has no relevance.

All you've done is successfully argued that it should have been a penalty try, i.e. If he hadn't made an illegal play, a try would have been scored.
He deserves a week off but this whole discussion is moot because the NRL will find a way to reinterpret the rule to let Billy play.

 

[SLRBRONCOS]

I am sure Feki felt nothing but Slater's shoulder. I reckon Slater had enough time to go for a tackle - didn't need to charge him.

 

[johnny plath]

Whilst I will say the NRL gets it wrong way, way more than they should...looking at 32 pages of this thread, there's not much chance they can ever please some or most of the people when views are completely at one end of the spectrum or the other, seemingly 50/50 split.

Even the Waqa Blake one, that looks to me from the goal line that he's clearly tried to initiate contact with his left arm, and the force of his body comes through and shoulder makes the contact.

Just because the shoulder takes on the majority of the contact, it doesn't (in my books) make it a shoulder charge. Under the rules Slater probably deserves to go, and maybe his record of leading with the shoulder puts him in the danger zone, but purely on this incident I can't see how he could've done anything else whilst trying to save a try in a sudden-death match. He goes in with arms first, he probably gets knocked out. He goes low, Feki scores.

too f**king bad, well done cronulla you have out manouvered the storm defence and are rewarded with a try... that logic is f**king geniused, I mean what else could jamie ainscough have done in the 1999 grand final to stop that try in the dying moments.. the winger was already on the way to get the ball down, fair enough to take his head off...what other option was there.

 

[MilkShark]

I am sure Feki felt nothing but Slater's shoulder. I reckon Slater had enough time to go for a tackle - didn't need to charge him.

Of course he had. Gould overnight has come out and said he didn't have time to make a normal tackle.

WTF?

This game is built on being the bigger faster and stronger team / man, that is how you score points. If you are beat for speed than bad luck, points are scored.

If slater had gone around the legs it would have been one of the most amazing try savers ever, but instead he took the easy option and made an illegal tackle.

 

[carcharias]

too f**king bad, well done cronulla you have out manouvered the storm defence and are rewarded with a try... that logic is f**king geniused, I mean what else could jamie ainscough have done in the 1999 grand final to stop that try in the dying moments.. the winger was already on the way to get the ball down, fair enough to take his head off...what other option was there.

Attack the ball?

 

[Bobby DIGital]

So if Slater had've been disciplined on the field, as he should've been (weak as piss refs) he would've had less chance of being charged? Is that right or a fallacy/guesswork?

He should be suspended irregardless of if he was binned or not. Players shouldn't be binned for illegal tackles IMHO.

I really hope the NRL don't bend for another one of their primadonnas. If Luke was suspended in 2014, then Slater deserves to be suspended this week. He's got away with far too many grub tactics over the years. He deserves to sit on the sideline crying while his mates run around.

 

[carcharias]

Billy suspended
Cronk out injured
Roosters win
Cam makes his losers speech

Make it happen

 

[johnny plath]

Attack the ball?

sorry if it didn't come across that I was being sarcastic.. I say too f**king bad and Feki should have scored like he was entitled too... just like melbourne were entitled to score in 99, not have a head taken off.

 

[Danish]

OK, that's your opinion. I don't think he had any legal options that would've allowed him to a) stop Feki or b) be knocked out. Try wrapping your arms around someone coming back at you from a sideline at pace while you fly across field laterally even quicker. It's really tough, unless you jump up and bear hug him - then you risk taking him high.

Slater has massive previous form and most of the coverage of this issue has either been to do with this, or the blow smoke up his arse brigade that are the sort of people that contributed to him being man of the series when he missed a game, and wasn't the best in the other two.

If a player has no recourse to stop a try within the rules, then they let the try be scored. Or they can elect to deliberately break those rules and be sin binned/sent off and potentially suspended depending on what method of foul play they elect to deploy.

Honestly I don’t get what angle you are going for here with this “what other option did he have?” line of thinking. There is always another option - to let the man score the try that you have no legitimate recourse of stopping.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

All you've done is successfully argued that it should have been a penalty try, i.e. If he hadn't made an illegal play, a try would have been scored.
He deserves a week off but this whole discussion is moot because the NRL will find a way to reinterpret the rule to let Billy play.

I'm not arguing against that. Maybe it should've been, although I'm sure they would've ruled there was a slight chance if he went lower with arms the try could've been saved.

And for the record I agree, with the rules the way they are he should be suspended. I would just change them in the future. And if those rules need to be changed after Melbourne are denied a premiership by losing Slater, that's a pretty good scenario as far as I see.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

If a player has no recourse to stop a try within the rules, then they let the try be scored. Or they can elect to deliberately break those rules and be sin binned/sent off and potentially suspended depending on what method of foul play they elect to deploy.

Honestly I don’t get what angle you are going for here with this “what other option did he have?” line of thinking. There is always another option - to let the man score the try that you have no legitimate recourse of stopping.

Cmon, that's not an option at fast pace in a sudden-death semi-final.

As I've said a few times now, it is illegal. By the rules he should be suspended. I would change the rules for lateral, on-line tackles. There's very little danger in the Slater one, the Waqa Blake one, head high contact etc just doesn't happen.