Should Slater miss the Grand Final for his shoulder charge?

[Gareth67]

Damn the judiciary decision - what the hell would they know , every Tom , Dick and bluudy Jeremy is being put on report - charged or even given a few weeks off ( that is for a leading with the head offence - cockel doodle doo ) . The decision should be appealed and taken to the High a Court , who gives a sparrows fart how long it takes to set a date for said hearing , just as long as the dirty little grub misses the game !

The game should be advertised as the clash of the rorters - I won't be watching to see that smug look of referee C.Smith will have on his face after the game .

 

[SEAT 1A]

Did Latimore get charged if so, ring the MEL wig.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I dont blame Slater for being found not-guilty and to wish harm on him for that is pretty low and i cant condone that at all.

The issue lies in 2 areas;

1. The MRC has to be more stringent in their assessment of foul play. They have to be certain their ruling cannot be overturned before handing out a penalty especially suspensions.
2. Involvement of lawyers. This basically follows on from point 1. The fact is a lawyer will find a flaw in the ruling which effectively makes it null-in-void. The example was last night where the key point was shoulder charge but 1st contact was via the pec which is not shoulder or upper arm negated the rule and the suspension. Even this nanosecond frame, albeit ridiculous, created the doubt of the true definition of shoulder charge. It therefore had to be overturned.

If the ruling has to change it should be deemed something like shoulder charge/barge as the offense. If Slater was charged with a barge play there was no challenge to that and it would cover off a myriad of other such plays like Napa's tackles.

The final point is, if this happened during a round game there would be a high probability this wouldnt even have been challenged. The fact that it is the GF and Slaters last game created the necessity only.

 

[Willow]

I just read this thread and I wonder why some people worry so much.

I know of a case where someone beat a hammer into their partner's skull while they were asleep, killed outright. Charges were laid, it went to court. But, dozens of people showed up in support of the accused. The magistrate ruled a non-custodial sentence. The accused walk free. Why? Because there were extenuating circumstances. It was tragic case with no winners.

And here we are debating over a tackle. Just like in life, things are not always that black and white. Every case needs to be taken on it's merits. When we forget that, we're pretty much stuffed.

In this case, No one was hit in the head.

The NRL stuffed up with their black-and-white rigid rule. I don't care about Slater. But too many players are being penalised for simply playing the game.

 

[ALSGI]

I just read this thread and I wonder why some people worry so much.

I know of a case where someone beat a hammer into their partner's skull while they were asleep, killed outright. Charges were laid, it went to court. But, dozens of people showed up in support of the accused. The magistrate ruled a non-custodial sentence. The accused walk free. Why? Because there were extenuating circumstances. It was tragic case with no winners.

And here we are debating over a tackle. Just like in life, things are not always that black and white. Every case needs to be taken on it's merits. When we forget that, we're pretty much stuffed.

In this case, No one was hit in the head.

The NRL stuffed up with their black-and-white rigid rule. I don't care about Slater. But too many players are being penalised for simply playing the game.

Nope.
Comparing a killing to a shoulder charge in footy is powerful but, really stupid.
Really stupid.
FMD.
Go and talk to the victim support groups if you disagree.
What a f**kced up post.

 

[rednwhites]

I just read this thread and I wonder why some people worry so much.

I worry because there is a rule for everyone but it doesn't apply when it suits the NRL who love to protect their favourites.

 

[Willow]

Nope.
Comparing a killing to a shoulder charge in footy is powerful but, really stupid.
Really stupid.
FMD.
Go and talk to the victim support groups if you disagree.
What a f**kced up post.

And yet you quote it.
Petty response. And lucky you, that you didn't know those involved.

But by all means go out of your stupid way to get offended by the experience of others.

Btw, you don't have to go to these great lengths to say the word "f**ked" with different spelling. Just speak your mind and let others do the same.

 

[Willow]

I worry because there is a rule for everyone but it doesn't apply when it suits the NRL who love to protect their favourites.

I agree that there is a massive inconsistency.

I recall numerous players being exonerated at the tail end of their careers... which at one time I thought was so outrageous.

It's not new, and unfortunately it happens in all sports. What I can't understand is the never-ending surprise that it generates.

 

[rednwhites]

I agree that there is a massive inconsistency.

I recall numerous players being exonerated at the tail end of their careers... which at one time I thought was so outrageous.

It's not new, and unfortunately it happens in all sports. What I can't understand is the never-ending surprise that it generates.

There's inconsistency and then there's outright prejudice. This is prejudice. I don't care if Billy Slater defecates golden eggs he should have been made to cop it sweet. Tyson was made an example of just for barely brushing a referee on his way back to the defensive line. We lost him for a week, even after contesting it because it wasn't going to cost the NRL anything. What happens round 4 next year Willow, when Tariq leans into someone with his shoulder? You and I both know.

If the players can't find justice in the judicial system, and the fans are treated with such blatant contempt it is a wonder that we all cop it laying down.

 

[Willow]

What happens round 4 next year Willow, when Tariq leans into someone with his shoulder? You and I both know.

I suspect there'll be another rule change by then.

The NRL made the mistake by doubling down on this. They probably won't admit it but it's pretty obvious.

The rule was put in place because players were using their shoulder to go for the head. It was highlighted when Greg Inglis used his shoulder to take out Dean Young, at least that's the popular view. I think it was already in the pipeline before that.

In any case, most people agree that this had to stop. Unfortunately, the NRL has since gone beyond the original reason for the rule.

They decided that any shoulder charge had the potential to cause harm. Well... FMD... then we should ban tackling altogether.

IMO, the NRL have no choice but to review this rule and go back to a case-by-case basis.

Essentially, if there is no contact with the head, it should not be penalised. Anything else is just looking for a penalty which imo means the game is losing its way.

 

[rednwhites]

I suspect there'll be another rule change by then.

The NRL made the mistake by doubling down on this. They probably won't admit it but it's pretty obvious.

The rule was put in place because players were using their shoulder to go for the head. It was highlighted when Greg Inglis used his shoulder to take out Dean Young, at least that's the popular view. I think it was already in the pipeline before that.

In any case, most people agree that this had to stop. Unfortunately, the NRL has since gone beyond the original reason for the rule.

They decided that any shoulder charge had the potential to cause harm. Well... FMD... then we should ban tackling altogether.

IMO, the NRL have no choice but to review this rule and go back to a case-by-case basis.

Essentially, if there is no contact with the head, it should not be penalised. Anything else is just looking for a penalty which imo means the game is losing its way.

Agree with your opinion here. I like a good shoulder charge at the body.

In the interests of fairness though, the suspension shave have stood and THEN the rule should have been changed. Agreed that this will be the next thing to happen.

 

[Willow]

Agree with your opinion here. I like a good shoulder charge at the body.

In the interests of fairness though, the suspension shave have stood and THEN the rule should have been changed. Agreed that this will be the next thing to happen.

Yeah, we have no argument there.

That said, I don't think it was an easy fight for Slater. The whole process was long enough, 3 hours plus the travel and preparation.

If it was an open-and-shut case, you'd have to think it would have been dealt with quicker.

Unless of course they all just sat around drinking for 3 hours and having a chuckle. Somehow I don't think so. But I'll leave such theories to Frank and his Youtube musical combo.

 

[Frank Facer]

There's inconsistency and then there's outright prejudice. This is prejudice. I don't care if Billy Slater defecates golden eggs he should have been made to cop it sweet. Tyson was made an example of just for barely brushing a referee on his way back to the defensive line. We lost him for a week, even after contesting it because it wasn't going to cost the NRL anything. What happens round 4 next year Willow, when Tariq leans into someone with his shoulder? You and I both know.

If the players can't find justice in the judicial system, and the fans are treated with such blatant contempt it is a wonder that we all cop it laying down.

Yep. I know heaps of fans who are spewing on the NRL for Slater getting off. In one way I would like all of Sydney except for Easts fans to boycott watching the Grand Final, but it still would be too late, as Slater gets to play.

I am thinking of taking the $4 for Slater to get the Clive Churchill medal. Odds of 3 to 1 are not very good, but I half expect him to get it.

 

[dragonssamy61]

I just read this thread and I wonder why some people worry so much.

I know of a case where someone beat a hammer into their partner's skull while they were asleep, killed outright. Charges were laid, it went to court. But, dozens of people showed up in support of the accused. The magistrate ruled a non-custodial sentence. The accused walk free. Why? Because there were extenuating circumstances. It was tragic case with no winners.

And here we are debating over a tackle. Just like in life, things are not always that black and white. Every case needs to be taken on it's merits. When we forget that, we're pretty much stuffed.

In this case, No one was hit in the head.

The NRL stuffed up with their black-and-white rigid rule. I don't care about Slater. But too many players are being penalised for simply playing the game.

Complete bs willow

 

[dragonssamy61]

And yet you quote it.
Petty response. And lucky you, that you didn't know those involved.

But by all means go out of your stupid way to get offended by the experience of others.

Btw, you don't have to go to these great lengths to say the word "f**ked" with different spelling. Just speak your mind and let others do the same.

You sould remember this your self

 

[Willow]

You sould remember this your self

lol. So you're saying I should shut up?

I'm very sorry if my words offended you. But I'm more concerned that the point of my post has gone over your head. Happy to elaborate, but by all means feel free to be outraged, if that is your preference.

 

[ALSGI]

And yet you quote it.
Petty response. And lucky you, that you didn't know those involved.

But by all means go out of your stupid way to get offended by the experience of others.

Btw, you don't have to go to these great lengths to say the word "f**ked" with different spelling. Just speak your mind and let others do the same.

Petty?

Comparing a killing to a shoulder charge just to highlight extenuating circumstances is stupid beyond belief. To say you know the people involved is even worse you fool.

I work with victims of crime, so I know too many people that have lived the experiences you quoted.

Dumb.

 

[Gareth67]

Do you chaps see what I mean about that diorty little beggar Slater now ? He has caused this cat fight on our forum , with usually sensible people having a go at one another - what the f**k ! Send him to purgatory and you can throw in Smith and Bellamy as well .

 

[Gareth67]

Yep. I know heaps of fans who are spewing on the NRL for Slater getting off. In one way I would like all of Sydney except for Easts fans to boycott watching the Grand Final, but it still would be too late, as Slater gets to play.

I am thinking of taking the $4 for Slater to get the Clive Churchill medal. Odds of 3 to 1 are not very good, but I half expect him to get it.

Frank - you silly billy , why don't you go for the trifecta ? Slater for the Clive Churchill Medal plus Smith as the captain of the 1st team to win back to back G.Finals and finally Bellamy as the coach of the worst cheats the game has ever known , easy money my friend.

 

[Willow]

Petty?

Comparing a killing to a shoulder charge just to highlight extenuating circumstances is stupid beyond belief. To say you know the people involved is even worse you fool.

I work with victims of crime, so I know too many people that have lived the experiences you quoted.

Dumb.

Dude, you're the one drawing the long bow. I can see you're upset but you've gone off with the wrong assumption.

My post was in response to a few rigid views in this thread. If a court of law can see a reason for leniancy then is it that hard to accept that a lower tier sporting judiciary may do the same? And this set you off?

As for your personal insults (yes that's what I meant by 'petty'), I have tried to keep my own experiences at an arm's length on this. You made it personal and have passed moral judgement on someone you know nothing about, which is unfortunate.

Telling me or anyone to f**k off to a victim's support group is a hit below the belt, and bad form imo. But I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and offer an olive branch if that helps.