2018 Grand Final Melbourne v Roosters

NRL and other Australian Rugby League Discussion
hobbo
Member
Member
Posts: 10198
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 5:03 pm

Re: 2018 Grand Final Melbourne v Roosters

Post by hobbo » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm

Hopefully we’ll all get to see Billy receive a fitting final send off on the back of the medi-cab .
We need mongrel ..
No more plodders !


User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 22865
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:06 pm

Has any wish on players getting injured ever come true? So far the only team maimed are the Roosters.

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5698
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:10 pm

Im going for the chooks but not overly fussed either way. But if Melbourne wi I'll have to turn the tv off after the game ch9 just go so overboard on some players.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:10 pm

Fade To Black wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 9:34 pm
Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 9:24 pm
The Patriot wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 9:07 pm
mike wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 9:02 pm
I’ve read it all. Doesn’t change a thing. The NRL are so inconsistent it is a major reason why it struggles to gain a new audience at times. A terrible decision and a blight on the integrity of the NRL.

Could you please explain how it is a terrible decision. Keeping in mind you read the live blog and saw the evidence presented.
Technically he “read” the evidence presented.
First an foremost it was not argued that it wasn’t a shoulder charge. It was argued that it was an unfortunate collision that put Billy in the position of making the contact with a shoulder.
Second.
Despite what you think. The way the shoulder charge rule is stated it is not a black and white ruling.
It must be argued that the player made no attempt to make contact with the arms when affecting the tackle.
It includes that the attempt to make the contact with the arms does not have to be a successful attempt.
Now after reading the ruling and watching the tackle you have to be 100% sure that slater is not trying to make any sort of conventional tackle.
He didnt make any attempt whatsoever to make a proper tackle, his arm was pinned to his side preparing for nothing else but shoulder-first contact. His spin that he "thought Feki was going to step inside" was pure BS, Slater didn't slow down one iota in anticipation of a sidestep.
Just hope he is on the receiving end of a bellringer on Sunday. That'd be sweet, sweet karma.
I agree with FTB it's a shoulder charge every day of the week. I don't care if he thought he was being stepped, I don't care if he was running fast, what I see is a guy cock his arm and make shoulder-on-shoulder contact with the winger and send the winger sprawling over the sideline.

I don't care if Slater watches footage before games, or whether he felt first contact on his pec; I don't care if the lawyer supposes that hip contact caused the bulk of the collision that send Feki flying... it was a shoulder charge to 99% of viewers and if you have to break it down into slow-mo technical crap about raised arms and thought processes then you've got a stupid system of determination.

I mean, they ping blokes for doing a crusher whether or not they meant to. They ping blokes for tripping even if it's an involuntary reaction to being stepped. The same should happen to shoulder charges, if shoulder charges are to be banned - if you turn shoulder into a bloke you have charged him, despite the intentions.

Now personally I don't think shoulder charges should be an easily banned offence; I think 200 points is too much. I also would be happy for side-on shoulders to be accepted as a try-saving action, so long as there was no medical advice against it; i.e. if there is no huge or increased risk of a perpendicular shoulder collision vs straight-on.

But it was a shoulder charge and the bloke who won man of the Origin series despite missing a game has now sidestepped through the eye of the judiciary's needle to play on Sunday. And I want Melbourne to win, I just don't like the way this has panned out.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 4138
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm

Post by formerguest » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:18 pm

He charged at Feki with his shoulder and a right arm that would have been about as useful as a Trex arm in affecting any sort of tackle. Ridiculous decision, regardless of the player involved or the magnitude of the game that would have been missed.


User avatar
WT2K
Member
Member
Posts: 4236
Joined: Thu 04 May, 2017 5:18 pm

Post by WT2K » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:24 pm

Hope napa has his shoulders ready for Sunday.
No more plodders!
:sign:

User avatar
TIGER
Member
Member
Posts: 3499
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:40 am

Post by TIGER » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:38 pm

I didn't see the slightest attempt to make a conventional tackle.

The defense that said the first contact was with the pec, hahaaaa really!!!!
I'm not an expert on anatomy but I'm sure your pec isn't located on your upper arm.

In saying that, i think the shoulder charge ban was brought in to stop those front on collisions where they plant the feet, cock the arm and drive.
So I don't think he deserved to miss the GF for it even though I still think he never attempted to make a tackle, it was more of a bump.

Surely now the NRL have to tweak this rule further, the technicalities around it are ridiculous.

greatodensraven
Member
Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sat 15 Dec, 2012 7:11 pm

Post by greatodensraven » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:48 pm

Sheesh Billy’s pecs are so big they wrap around his shoulders! Pretty ridiculous decision.

The refs should’ve just sent him to the bin for 10 on the night for a professional foul rather than go through this process & making a further mockery of the judiciary.

At the end of the day wasn’t the shoulder charge ban bought in to stop blokes getting blind-sided & belted with a shoulder? Feki had full view of Billy & could prepare for the impact so even though the tackle was illegal it wasn’t dangerous. Sin bin would’ve been enough I reckon. Maybe the rule needs to be more specific.

In saying that I’m glad Billy is playing. You want the best on show for these big games, just a shame Cronk will likely be a passenger at best.

supercoach
Member
Member
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 2:38 pm

Post by supercoach » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:01 pm

Great decision, call the tackle what you like, but it was not deserving a suspension.

Billy might be a grub, but he is the best no1 I have seen and I am glad he gets a chance to win a GF in his last game

More importantly it gives Melbourne more hope of beating the Bondi Parasites

Needaname
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 1:02 pm

Post by Needaname » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm

Here’s one I’ll put to you.
Now this scenario is despite the ruling tonight I just want to know what the legal outcome of this is.
If Feki kicked the ball down the sideline into the in goal at the instant he was meeting slater and they still collide the same way with the same amount of impact what is the ruling if both players end up on the ground effectively taking each other out?

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6175
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:38 pm

Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm
Here’s one I’ll put to you.
Now this scenario is despite the ruling tonight I just want to know what the legal outcome of this is.
If Feki kicked the ball down the sideline into the in goal at the instant he was meeting slater and they still collide the same way with the same amount of impact what is the ruling if both players end up on the ground effectively taking each other out?
Still a shoulder-charge against Slater - he was in the motion of making the charge when the football was kicked. If Slater made a legitimate tackle, it would have been fine - simultaneous.

Other thing I'll throw out there - Slater is lucky Feki wasn't hurt. What if Feki had collided with a cameraman or struck the sideboards and fallen unconscious?

Needaname
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 1:02 pm

Post by Needaname » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:40 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:38 pm
Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm
Here’s one I’ll put to you.
Now this scenario is despite the ruling tonight I just want to know what the legal outcome of this is.
If Feki kicked the ball down the sideline into the in goal at the instant he was meeting slater and they still collide the same way with the same amount of impact what is the ruling if both players end up on the ground effectively taking each other out?
Still a shoulder-charge against Slater - he was in the motion of making the charge when the football was kicked. If Slater made a legitimate tackle, it would have been fine - simultaneous.

Other thing I'll throw out there - Slater is lucky Feki wasn't hurt. What if Feki had collided with a cameraman or struck the sideboards and fallen unconscious?
Yes lucky he was.

But on your point above. Aren’t you aloud to go shoulder to shoulder to chase/protect a ball?

User avatar
Dan Blanco
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu 04 May, 2017 7:31 am

Post by Dan Blanco » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:47 pm

Go Roosters.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 4138
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm

Post by formerguest » Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:53 pm

Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:40 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:38 pm
Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm
Here’s one I’ll put to you.
Now this scenario is despite the ruling tonight I just want to know what the legal outcome of this is.
If Feki kicked the ball down the sideline into the in goal at the instant he was meeting slater and they still collide the same way with the same amount of impact what is the ruling if both players end up on the ground effectively taking each other out?
Still a shoulder-charge against Slater - he was in the motion of making the charge when the football was kicked. If Slater made a legitimate tackle, it would have been fine - simultaneous.

Other thing I'll throw out there - Slater is lucky Feki wasn't hurt. What if Feki had collided with a cameraman or struck the sideboards and fallen unconscious?
Yes lucky he was.

But on your point above. Aren’t you aloud to go shoulder to shoulder to chase/protect a ball?
Yeah, but not 90 degrees at speed.

Needaname
Member
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun 24 Apr, 2016 1:02 pm

Post by Needaname » Wed 26 Sep, 2018 12:10 am

formerguest wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:53 pm
Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:40 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:38 pm
Needaname wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 11:29 pm
Here’s one I’ll put to you.
Now this scenario is despite the ruling tonight I just want to know what the legal outcome of this is.
If Feki kicked the ball down the sideline into the in goal at the instant he was meeting slater and they still collide the same way with the same amount of impact what is the ruling if both players end up on the ground effectively taking each other out?
Still a shoulder-charge against Slater - he was in the motion of making the charge when the football was kicked. If Slater made a legitimate tackle, it would have been fine - simultaneous.

Other thing I'll throw out there - Slater is lucky Feki wasn't hurt. What if Feki had collided with a cameraman or struck the sideboards and fallen unconscious?
Yes lucky he was.

But on your point above. Aren’t you aloud to go shoulder to shoulder to chase/protect a ball?
Yeah, but not 90 degrees at speed.
It’s a bit hard to do and stay on your feet I’d say so it would be a penalty, attacking player taken out without the ball. Fair call.

The way I see the slater tackle is this, he went in to that collision to affect the maximum impact he could. I don’t believe he collided with Feki with his shoulder but I do believe he went into it with the intention to lead with his shoulder. His aim was to knock Feki into touch. Not to sit him on his bum, Slater was not trying to stop his momentum, he was trying to alter his direction of travel.
I believe even with more time slater wouldn’t have made a conventional tackle.
That said. The way it was argued tonight and it was a well prepared argument in defence, they were successful in defining his tackle on Feki as not a shoulder charge. As I said I still believe slater intended to knock him into touch with as much force as he could produce but the way that collision ended up it didn’t look like a shoulder charge. It will be interesting in seeing how any similar incident is ruled in 2019 and onwards. Don’t change the rule, maybe alter the way it is graded as I don’t believe a head high tackle doesn’t carry the same weight.

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29902
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW..

Post by Geo. » Wed 26 Sep, 2018 12:52 am

Roosters so I can get another premiers t-shirt to wash the car...
Wests Tigers don't need a Coach.. The playing group has taken over..
happy tiger wrote:
Thu 25 Oct, 2018 12:17 am
OK I was wrong
happy tiger wrote:
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 12:13 am
I know at times I'm not always the brightest light in the kitchen

Fade To Black
Member
Member
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue 21 Feb, 2012 5:51 pm

Post by Fade To Black » Wed 26 Sep, 2018 5:57 am

hobbo wrote:
Tue 25 Sep, 2018 10:04 pm
Hopefully we’ll all get to see Billy receive a fitting final send off on the back of the medi-cab .
I'd drink to that mate!
KO'd by a simultaneous shoulder charge and studs-up boot to the head whilst attempting to score a try :master:

Carn Roosters, make it happen.

User avatar
Harvey
Member
Member
Posts: 3808
Joined: Mon 22 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
Location: Leumeah

Post by Harvey » Wed 26 Sep, 2018 6:54 am

He had to be found not guilty. Can’t win the Clive Churchill medal if he doesn’t play.

It’s not the same as the Wally Lewis medal.

Post Reply