Slater Decision Another Weak One



  • I’ll probably get howled down here but, to my way of thinking, the NRL has dropped the ball regarding the Slater shoulder charge decision.
    Firstly, I believe Slater to be an outstanding fullback, possibly the best the game has seen. I also think he has become a real role model and ornament to the game. A niggling primadonna earlier in his career but an ornament now. I thoroughly believe that he deserves to finish his career by playing in an NRL grand final. Most fans, commentators and journos would like to see this happen. However, I believe that he should not be playing on Sunday. The rule is black and white; if contact is made using the shoulder and no arms, it is a shoulder charge and this equates to 200 points and a one week suspension. There is no grey. Slater made a shoulder charge and one of his opponents on Sunday, Boyd Cordner said as much.
    Now why did the League decide to outlaw the shoulder charge? Because a young player died from the effects of such a tackle. Yes, A PLAYER DIED.
    The NRL wanted to send a strong message that such a tactic would not be tolerated, hence the 200 points and automatic suspension. But, here we have a situation, where the rules of the game were waived. The League had a chance to show strength and make player safety a priority. It also had a golden opportunity to change the public’s perception of them as a weak, inconsistent rabble. But, no, the decision was predictable and shortsighted. What will constitute a shoulder tackle in the future? Only ones that are front on and not preventing a try? Or only ones that don’t involve a star player competing in his last grand final?
    Sadly, the NRL has created another problem for itself, not with a lack consistency but with a lack of balls.



  • They need to re-word the charge…they left too many loopholes for players to get thru



  • @:

    I’ll probably get howled down here but, to my way of thinking, the NRL has dropped the ball regarding the Slater shoulder charge decision.
    Firstly, I believe Slater to be an outstanding fullback, possibly the best the game has seen. I also think he has become a real role model and ornament to the game. A niggling primadonna earlier in his career but an ornament now. I thoroughly believe that he deserves to finish his career by playing in an NRL grand final. Most fans, commentators and journos would like to see this happen. However, I believe that he should not be playing on Sunday. The rule is black and white; if contact is made using the shoulder and no arms, it is a shoulder charge and this equates to 200 points and a one week suspension. There is no grey. Slater made a shoulder charge and one of his opponents on Sunday, Boyd Cordner said as much.
    Now why did the League decide to outlaw the shoulder charge? Because a young player died from the effects of such a tackle. Yes, A PLAYER DIED.
    The NRL wanted to send a strong message that such a tactic would not be tolerated, hence the 200 points and automatic suspension. But, here we have a situation, where the rules of the game were waived. The League had a chance to show strength and make player safety a priority. It also had a golden opportunity to change the public’s perception of them as a weak, inconsistent rabble. But, no, the decision was predictable and shortsighted. What will constitute a shoulder tackle in the future? Only ones that are front on and not preventing a try? Or only ones that don’t involve a star player competing in his last grand final?
    Sadly, the NRL has created another problem for itself, not with a lack consistency but with a lack of balls.

    Agreed.Many years ago i thought the shoulder charge was great defence and i would applaud it no matter who it was done by,with all the medical evidence and brain damage coming later in life to players i have had to change my opinion.The NRL did the right thing in banning it for safety reasons and people who should know better have now declared it acceptable under some circumstances



  • Can’t agree…no player could seriously miss a GF for basically bumping a winger over the sideline. Yes by definition might be a vague form of shoulder charge, but we see it ten times a year. Who was Nofo or Thomo I think in the second Chooks game got shoulder charged into touch while trying to score a try, not a peep from anyone( may have the game mixed up but it did happen in a close game we lost). Everyone except Texans and Southerners hate Billy, but he is the best no1 in the game for a long time by some distance…okay he has a grubby streak, but it’s a winning streak. The NRL got this call right for a change.


    As I keep saying, if it keeps the Bondi Parasites away from the cup it’s a great call



  • The NRL dropped the ball a long long time a go.

    Its nothing to do with Slater its to do with making knee jerk reactions and changing the rules on the run.

    They got caught out again.



  • Allowing a lawyer time to fabricate a story of what Slater needed to say, as an alternative state of mind to the one which he originally had to ram a player over the sideline is the root cause of him getting cleared. What an absolute load of crap that came out of his mouth, crap that even a local bush magistrate wouldn’t have a bar of.

    There are many reasons this type of “tackle” was banned, brain injury and chance of death among them. Terrible message to send out to players at all levels by condoning it.



  • The problem is the front on shot , places enough doubt to clear him

    He got very lucky imo


  • ForumSupporter

    You can’t suspend the Clive Churchill medalist…



  • The justification for dropping the charge will cause a bit of chaos. I think they said that because the tackle didn’t cause any serious injury/harm it didn’t warrant a suspension. So if that is the precedent that is set by the Slater tackle, you will only be suspended for a shoulder charge if it causes injury or harm to the opposing player.

    Was it worth missing a grand final? No.
    But at the end of the day the rules are black and white. I’m sick of the favouritism some players and clubs get from the NRL.



  • @:

    The NRL dropped the ball a long long time a go.

    Its nothing to do with Slater its to do with making knee jerk reactions and changing the rules on the run.

    They got caught out again.

    Exactly.



  • Do you know what? This decision reminds me of the Serena Williams fiasco. No, Slater hasn’t behaved like a complete tosser or thrown a racket. However, in both instances public opinion won and in both instances the people governing the game were howled down in favour of propping up a hero.



  • I think hero is a strong term for a player that holds themselves above the rules and has no respect for his opponents.

    Milks penalties, dives to get blokes sent to the bin, uses his boots (and studs) to kick out at players while taking a kick or trying to prevent them scoring.

    I can think of a few one word descriptions of Slater, but will stick with grub



  • @:

    I think hero is a strong term for a player that holds themselves above the rules and has no respect for his opponents.

    Milks penalties, dives to get blokes sent to the bin, uses his boots (and studs) to kick out at players while taking a kick or trying to prevent them scoring.

    I can think of a few one word descriptions of Slater, but will stick with grub

    Sorry, perceived hero.



  • The NRL judiciary is weak and it gets shown up every time a player gets serious about mounting a defence. Under most well thought out arguments delivered by professional lawyers they get bamboozled and crumble.



  • Role model and ornament to the game imo he is not.

    Maybe the best full back in the past ten years, maybe not - I won’t go into that.


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics