See ya Slater

[Valheru]

It wasn’t a shoulder charge though. Don’t be saying “I know it, you know it”... I know under NRL rules it was not a shoulder charge. And I know the shoulder charge rule was never brought in for east west shoulder to shoulder contact

Yes it was and it doesn't matter what the rule was brought in for, there is no distinction between north/south and east/west in the current rules.

It was a clear shoulder charge and the judiciary just ignored the rules.

 

[The_Shield]

Yes it was and it doesn't matter what the rule was brought in for, there is no distinction between north/south and east/west in the current rules.

It was a clear shoulder charge and the judiciary just ignored the rules.

What rule did they ignore? It seems to me that your the one ignoring the rules

 

[Morehead St]

You want evidence of my opinion? I just gave it to you

See ya slater

Err...no.

 

[Valheru]

What rule did they ignore? It seems to me that your the one ignoring the rules

The rule that says you can't shoulder charge.

 

[The_Shield]

The rule that says you can't shoulder charge.

But they proved it technically wasn’t a shoulder charge

 

[Valheru]

But they proved it technically wasn’t a shoulder charge

No they didn't

 

[MilkShark]

Normally when there is a topic such as this you will see some of the supporters from that club come out and say yeah we are lucky and I don’t believe they should have overturned the decision.

But I haven’t seen one person just admit to it. I guess these vicderps know better than absolutely everybody else including every single ex league playing commentator (qlders included) that said it was a shoulder charge.

 

[Twizzle]

Has a transcript of the NRL judiciary’s ruling been released? My understanding is that the judiciary members deliberate their decision, call all parties back into the hearing room and then literally say their verdict (i.e. guilty or not guilty).

It was slater and his lawyer that said he make first contact with his right hand and hit with a pec. I don’t think the judiciary elaborated on their reasons for reaching a decision.

yeh the reasons were given, after the decision was given the transcript was read out my the media commentator outside the judiciary

there were 2 reasons the other was regarding the first point of contact

 

[thorson1987]

Normally when there is a topic such as this you will see some of the supporters from that club come out and say yeah we are lucky and I don’t believe they should have overturned the decision.

But I haven’t seen one person just admit to it. I guess these vicderps know better than absolutely everybody else including every single ex league playing commentator (qlders included) that said it was a shoulder charge.

Nope. We are just sitting back enjoying all the salt in here.

 

[The_Shield]

No they didn't

Well you just keep believing in your big conspiracy theory then

 

[Springs09]

But they proved it technically wasn’t a shoulder charge

If that is 'technically proving it wasn't a shoulder charge' then the only way to make a shoulder charge in rugby league is to have your other arm behind your back or pointed straight towards the ground and for the 'first point of contact' to be with the very point of the shoulder, not the pec or tricep regardless of whether the arm is tucked or where the impact comes from.

And the judiciary panel doesn't 'technically prove' anything, just like a jury doesn't technically prove anything.

 

[Valheru]

Well you just keep believing in your big conspiracy theory then

It's not a conspiracy theory if it is the logical and accepted conclusion.

 

[MilkShark]

Nope. We are just sitting back enjoying all the salt in here.

That reply has nothing to do with what I said vicderp.

 

[The_Shield]

If that is 'technically proving it wasn't a shoulder charge' then the only way to make a shoulder charge in rugby league is to have your other arm behind your back or pointed straight towards the ground and for the 'first point of contact' to be with the very point of the shoulder, not the pec or tricep regardless of whether the arm is tucked or where the impact comes from.

And the judiciary panel doesn't 'technically prove' anything, just like a jury doesn't technically prove anything.

When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.

 

[The_Shield]

It's not a conspiracy theory if it is the logical and accepted conclusion.

 

[firechild]

When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.

They proved nothing. The same as a defense lawyer in a criminal case isn't obliged to prove anything.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate that either you are, or have the intellect of a 9 year old.

 

[The_Shield]

They proved nothing. The same as a defense lawyer in a criminal case isn't obliged to prove anything.
Your posts in this thread demonstrate that either you are, or have the intellect of a 9 year old.

Fine then, they successfully convinced the judiciary panel that it wasn’t a shoulder charge. Geez people are so pretentious here

 

[Springs09]

When I said they proved, I was referring to Slater and his lawyer.

And with the way the rule is written, with no use or attempted use of the arms, then that allows a lot of leeway.

Then according to you the only way a shoulder charge should be penalised is if they have both arms behind their back.

The arms are always going to be in use in some way.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

So I hear it was a shoulder charge?

 

[The_Shield]

Then according to you the only way a shoulder charge should be penalised is if they have both arms behind their back.

The arms are always going to be in use in some way.

It’s not according to me, that’s the actual rule. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter. The way the rule is worded at the moment played to Slaters advantage