The NRL got it right: Billy Slater shouldn’t have been charged for his boot to the head of Bulldogs forward David Klemmer.
In reality, he shouldn’t have been put on report.
If Slater meant to kick Klemmer in the head while defusing a bomb on Thursday night, then he is more talented than Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris combined.
The incident does, however, raise the question of when accidental contact to the head of an opponent is an isn’t allowed.
Klemmer was, without doubt, trying to put pressure on Slater, but probably would’ve passed to one side of the fullback, given the line he was running.
It’s therefore tough to argue that Klemmer initiated the contact. In-fact anyone suggesting that is basically saying that Klemmer meant to run into the boot of Slater.
Now, we know rugby league forwards are tough, but that is just lunacy.
Slater didn’t deserve to be charged with dangerous contact, but neither did someone like Parramatta forward Darcy Lussick last week.
Darcy Lussick was hit with a grade one careless high tackle charge after round two.
His contact left Dale Finucane dazed, but the Bulldogs forward fell into the tackle leaving Lussick with little to no chance of avoiding contact to the head.
Still, Lussick took the early guilty plea, and is now walking the suspension tight-rope with 90-carry over points to his name. If he sneezes again this season he’s likely to miss a week.
The NRL is a confusing beast at the best of times, but it seems there is now different grades of accidental contact to the head.
Several judiciary cases last year highlighted the unachievable reaction times that would be needed to avoid hitting a falling ball-runner in the head.
Still, Lussick now has to be cleaner than freshly fallen snow to avoid suspension in the near future.
Is it fair that Lussick has carry over points from his tackle while Slater, already with 75 points against his name after a high hit on North Queensland winger Antonio Winterstein last weekend, gets off? No.
Even though the two incidents are wildly different the outcome is the same.
An opposition player has been hit in the head.
This was a win for common sense. Lets hope the same concept applies the next time we see an unavoidable high tackle.
Razza
Guest
CRAP. Slater should be sitting in a folk of a gumtree chewing on gumleaves because he is definitely protected like a few other high profile players who seem to dodge the bullet when it comes to being found guilty of an infringement on the field and others cop it hard. If you watch Slater in that incident in slow motion, you will see him redirect his foot while he is looking at the defending player so it comes in contact with him. As greater a player Slater is, he can be dirty at times and that incident showed it, what a joke, pathetic. '"GO THE EAGLES"
81paling
Roar Rookie
This was a really bad look for the game, to see a player injured on the ground after having made contact with another players boot whilst in the air. The outcome is for whatever reason that the incident goes no further and that is fine but, Slater does need to change the way he catches the high ball as it is along the lines of players using their elbow to fend off another player. When the debate is done rightly or wrongly, Mothers will hesitate letting their kids play the game if they perceive that players are getting injured because they are being kicked in the head. Hopefully Billy changes his style without having to be penalised to do so but, if he does not then the League must for the good of the game.
daniel
Guest
Great call there Paul!
Kung Fu
Guest
Absolutely agree!!! A player like Slater with his instincts knew EXACTLY was he was doing!
Five Dock Chris
Guest
Billy Slater cops abuse - not because he is a tremendous talent, not because he is a Storm or Qld player either. Its because he is a lowlife grub. Cooper Cronk is a great player, a Storm player and a Queenslander, but nobody is on these feedback pages calling Cooper a grub - because he isn't one. Slater is. Simple.
condor
Guest
all these storm players saying that billy is entitled to protect himself in the air. i wish winterstein had got his elbow into billys face last week, would that be the same argument. oohh winterstein could see billy was gunna foul him, so he lifted his elbow to protect himself. as far as i know u are not allowed to kick a guy in the face, whether u think he's going to foul you or not. its the refs job to protect the man in the air, if he gets hit in the air he gets a penalty, if he kicks a guy in the face the penalty goes against him. back in the day if a bloke went for a take like that and got barreled in the air he was brave because he knew he was putting himself in a dangerous position. now the catcher knows he can put himself in the most dangerous positions and cant be touched. i just reckon that if the catcher is allowed to protect himself by karate kicking the opposition in the face, then the tackler should be able to hit him whenever he wants
soapit
Guest
gutless no, dirty little grub yes
Steggz
Guest
Side note, but Nani was incorrectly sent off because it needs to be deemed as reckless/violent conduct. Dangerous play doesn't automatically equal a red.
Steggz
Guest
My leg isn't going to go straight out. If it were bent, I wouldn't have any issues with what Slater did. It's still dangerous to lead studs first.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don't think he meant it but he shouldn't be kicking his leg out. I bet Craig smith wishes the match reviewers had this interpretation of protecting yourself by raising the leg...
Schuey
Guest
Contrast the nrl's decision on slater with Nani's recent red card for man united against real madrid in the champions league. Nani did not intentionally kick arbeloa in the stomach as he only had eyes for the ball that was coming from over his left shoulder. Under the letter of the law nani was rightly sent off for dangerous play. Intention is irrelevant. The fact it was clearly an accident was irrelevant. Interesting contrast to league.
Vivalasvegan
Guest
Billy Slater cops abuse every game, just about every tackle, because he is a tremendous talent. He gives as good as he gets and pushes the boundaries on occasion. The jump and kick didn't look too flash but he was looking away, was high in the air and I reckon was vulnerable to being taken out. The young lad went down like he was being ravaged by an invisible tiger. The refs kept the dogs in the contest and to suggest that they are biased toasted Storm is laughable. To call Slater gutless, as some of you have, makes me laugh. He might push the envelope at times but gee whizz in a game of tough hombres, he is as tough as anyone. Just try to enjoy Slater, Smith, inglis, Thurston, Gallen etc while you can. They are players people will be discussing for decades to come.
yewonk
Guest
exactly does he not need to land on his feet
yewonk
Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnK_EFfmSG4 it was not an accident and he does this plenty look at 0:08 in this clip
bozo
Guest
In about 1967, Bob Batty playing fullback for Manly Warringah at Brookvale Oval extended his leg towards a defender and Bob was put away for a while. Difference may be that Bob was a great club player but had no profile beyond that.
Sylvester
Guest
I'm in camp that thinks there was no need for Slater to extent his leg in that manner. Klemmer's timing was spot on in that by the time he made the extra couple steps (without Slater's boot in his face) is pretty likely Slater's other foot would have touched the ground, making the contact legitimate.
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
Yeh Meh - you're spot on. Klemmer has obviously tried to tackle Slater using his neck, his whole neck, and nothing but the neck. It is absolutely obvious now that you've mentioned it. How could we all have missed it ?
Snowmann
Guest
Stevie wonder is that you?...or are you just on crack?.it's 10:30pm day after incident and even though most normal people acknowledge that Klemmer was about a metre away from Slater and that Slater made first contact, not to mention the still shot of the incident right next to this article clearly showing Klemmer getting kicked, you still wanna use that dribble that Slater was tackled in mid-air. Meh alright..
Snowmann
Guest
Try telling that to the idiots in the commentary on channel 9, the way those idiots were defending Slater you'd think Klemmer recklessly tried to eat Slater's boots. What a disgrace from a bunch of muppets.
Meh
Guest
I agree with the refs that Billy should have been put on report for dangerous contact (he should not have put his boot out that was completely unnecessary) however the penalty should of stayed with the Storm because the Bulldogs player was attacking the player in the air. In my opinion that was the first infringement and the reversal of penalty was the wrong decision. I can't comment on whether Billy should of missed a week or two but there needs to be protection of the player going for the high ball.