‘Them’s the rules’ is an awful excuse.
I get why the shoulder charge needed to be banned. I didn’t like it at first but I get it. Shoulder charges can be a high risk, poorly controlled method of tackling.
Players were getting injured and as awareness of the consequences of head trauma increased it wasn’t tenable for the game to allow this tackle to continue.
Instead of carefully weighing up the best way to minimise the risk while maintaining the integrity of the game, the NRL impulsively jerked its knee and implemented a one-size-fits-all ban on the shoulder charge.
A grade one shoulder charge carries a 200-point penalty. That’s two games, pending discounts for early guilty pleas, for anything that’s deemed to be a shoulder charge.
The absurdity is that the shoulder charge was banned to prevent concussions, yet a shoulder charge that makes absolutely no contact with the head stills gets 200 points.
But wait, it gets worse.
A grade one careless high tackle carries zero points and ‘just’ a $1,500 fine as a penalty. A grade two careless is 150 points.
You’ve got to get to a grade three careless high tackle to get to 200 points which is the same as a grade one shoulder charge.
The problem with this is a high tackle is defined by the NRL as “contact with the head or neck” yet there are two gradings of ‘head high’ tackles which are deemed better – in this era of concussion awareness – than any shoulder to shoulder contact shoulder charge.
If we’re trying to minimise the risk of players sustaining head trauma and concussion injuries how is it that a tackle defined by its contact to the head has to get to a grade three before it’s treated as seriously as ANY shoulder charge, regardless of where contact is made?
Every week we see high tackles where the on-field penalty is deemed sufficient.
Billy Slater threw his body at Sosaia Feki to stop him scoring. It was a shoulder charge. No doubt about it. The arm was tucked and he led with the shoulder. It was brilliant.
In the 2011 Four Nations Tournament, Slater shattered his collarbone in five places performing a similar tackle before it was outlawed.
(Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)
The bravery to do it again, albeit seven years later, is almost unfathomable. But the game was on the line. Isn’t this exactly what we want from our heroes?
Slater didn’t make contact with Feki’s head.
He didn’t put Feki at risk of concussion – which is why the shoulder charge was outlawed in the first place.
He doesn’t deserve to miss a game – let alone a grand final – let alone his last ever NRL game.
Slater has played 318 NRL games. He sits second in the all-time leading try scorers list.
He’s won a Dally M, two Churchill medals and a golden boot as the world’s best player. He’s the best fullback I’ve ever seen. He doesn’t deserve to go out like this.
But all that is irrelevant. It’s not just about Billy’s fairytale, a rookie in his first season wouldn’t deserve this.
With an ill-considered, knee-jerk response rule the NRL has put itself in a position where it either needs to rub out one of its greatest players for his final game or compromise the integrity of their judicial system.
No win.
Worse again, is that regardless of which path it takes the NRL has hijacked the grand final lead up with its own incompetence. Again, no win.
The answer was so simple, ban the shoulder charge.
All shoulder charges attract an on-field penalty and a fine but only shoulder charges that make contact with the head attract a suspension.
Make it a massive suspension. Make it four or five or six weeks. That was the behaviour we were trying to eradicate from the game – not tackles like Slater’s.
That tackle should never have been made illegal, it’s what the game is all about.
I hope the NRL, the match review committee, and the judiciary find a way to get Slater off. I hope they find the intestinal fortitude to change this ill-conceived rule.
I want to see Billy Slater play one last time and for to have the farewell he deserves, win, lose or golden point.
I don’t want to see anyone else rubbed out for displaying the selfless courage our game demands.
Now, let’s talk about the seven-tackle restart rule…
The Barry
Roar Guru
It's probably too late to discuss this one. It's an interesting point. I'm well aware that concussions can occur with no head contact. I don't know the percentages but far more concussions come with some form of head contact. When was the last time you watched a game and someone went off concussed or for a HIA and there was zero head contact in the tackle. This shoulder charge wasn't the type of tackle you're referring to and didn't cause any injury. There was no head contact and no concussion. By all means keep it illegal but there should be a grade one charge worth 100 points that allows the judiciary to say "that's a shoulder charge" but you're free to play next week without all the pec contact and where is his right arm malarkey.
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
Your article suggests that direct head contact is required to cause concussion, that is untrue. Severe concussions can occur with no head contact, the injury is sustained by a sudden change of movement affecting the brain inside the skull. Ice hockey is a great example of this, high speed collisions with no head contact result in the majority of concussions but direct head contact via punches etc result in a very small % by comparison and that includes the fact that they fight almost every game.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Agreed. I’ve checked the NRL wording as well (wish I’d had the presence of mind to do it late Friday night). By the strict definition of the wording his right hand makes this not a shoulder charge. He’s clearly using his right hand in the tackle, makes first contact with that hand and I think it’ll be enough for him to get off.
punter
Guest
Normal tackle was not going to save the try.
punter21
Guest
Anybody with common sense should see that its not a shoulder charge. Watch it again. Play it in slow mo. His chest is square at the point of impact. Then his hands come around (but does not wrap) before he pivots off his right foot and “THROWS” ("forces" if you like) with his right shoulder using the momentum of the collision (instead of force generated from the shoulder) to bundle Feki into touch. Let the mighty Queenslander go back to back and go out in style. #LetBillyPlay!
Cadfael
Roar Guru
You are missing the point, it is still a shoulder charge. Nowhere does it say that there has to be contact with the head.
Jeff cain
Guest
How can slater be banned from the final when the linesman and referee didn’t even give a penalty for the incident I mean they both saw what happened and by not penalising slater at the time surely they are saying it was a legal tackle I can understand someone being suspended for doing something illegal that hasn’t been seen by the referees and is picked up after the game and it goes to the judiciary if it’s illegal what slater did then surely a penalty try should have been awarded
MW7
Roar Rookie
Some good points but I don't understand why he couldn't attempt a normal tackle? Some people, Billy included, said its because Feki could have stepped back inside. However, that is by the by. The tackle was illegal, and if he couldn't make a successful tackle legitimately then that's when you just have to admit that you got beaten in that moment.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#The Barry I've done my little bit of research, and the Feb 2017 amendment and the use of the hands/arms seems crucial as the 'forceful contact' can't be denied ('dangerous' contact certain could be denied which is why you'd argue there needs to be a distinction between perhaps an onfield penalty and a post-match sanction). Anyway - the interesting thing is Slater's right hand is across the front of the opponent and in the region of the ball - and that hand gets fended off away from the ball. But that is definitely the first point of contact. The interesting thing is he's a bit 'half pregnant'. He's front on and not side on, he's reaching across with his right arm and yet from the waste down he's turned for side on contact because his left leg is coming across in front and not behind. That's the main issue I reckon - he wanted to get his left leg across in front to block the run/space to the line. It's certainly clumsy. But - you'd think to be a shoulder charge that the hands would be down and he'd be coming in shoulder first?? Wouldn't he? As looking at it again - it's not really even a 'hip and shoulder'. The first contact is with that right hand. That doesn't normally constitute a left shoulder led 'charge'. To me - this doesn't fit the hanging judges criteria. Had he just barreled in low and hard leading with that left shoulder and with no interest in the ball.....then fine.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I’m not sure that is the premise of the article Keith. I didn’t mention fairness once.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Sorry Adam , that’s not what I’m saying. Make every shoulder charge illegal and a penalty but not every shoulder charge deserves an automatic suspension. We already have that in place for high tackles, grapple tackles, contrary conduct, tripping, striking, dangerous throws, dangerous contact where the on field penalty can be enough. The inconsistency that everyone is complaining of is that shoulder charges are treated differently.
The Barry
Roar Guru
He likes to be called BJ or BigJ...
The Barry
Roar Guru
Your “cousin” gave you a history of the website...yeah right.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I’m not suggesting that side on shoulder charges be made legal. I’m comfortable with the refs blowing up every shoulder charge they see...front on, side on, whatever. No discretion. Automatic penalty. I’m just saying not every shoulder charge needs to be an automatic suspension. It doesn’t make sense. Lifting, striking, dangerous contact, tripping, kicking etc can all have players found guilty but avoid suspension. There needs to be a grading that allows that to happen for shoulder charges. This tackle doesn’t deserve a suspension. There’s force in every tackle. We should be doing everything we can to make the game safer but the only way you can eliminate risk is to not play.
Glenn
Guest
Yes, very well said Steve.I saw Langlands, L. Johns and Thornett play but not Churchill- and every fullback since- you-re absolutely right. Even in the modern game Slater wasn't anywhere near the best- Lockyer was far better and Minichello at least as good as Slater IMO.
Glenn
Guest
Slater is guilty- again!- and should miss the GF. This is the Slater who occasionally used to find his foot or knee in the vicinity of the face of a player in the act of grounding the ball over the try line, who lifted his leg to the horizontal into the face or chest of an attacking player when he (Slater) was jumping up to catch a bomb and now with a shoulder charge under the existing rules. Every time he says "it was unintentional or accidental"- who knows and who cares? There is no place for players in the game- attacking or defending- using the blunt end of a knee, shoulder,elbow or their heads- when a tackle is being made, it is just far too dangerous. The worst cases (like Greg Inglis' hit on Dean Young) deserve harsh penalties, milder one's like Slaters still must be penalised and one match is ok) Whether he "deserves" to play in the GF is irrelevant. And Slater is overrated, he was quick and a good ball chaser, but anyone who saw Churchill, Langlands or Les Johns play wouldn't put him in that class as a full back. Talk of immortality is absurd.
Ray Paks
Roar Rookie
'"Don't get hung up on the fact this is Billy Slater. It shouldn't happen to anyone" YEAH RIGHT! It's pretty simple, did he perform an illegal tackle? yes! verdict - 1 match suspension
jeznez
Roar Guru
Fully agree that it is the front on one that is the biggest issue. But significant force can still be dealt on a side on hit, I shudder to think what the on-field and video referees will do if a front on shoulder is banned but a side on allowed. They'll have protractors out in super slo-mo! Otherwise it becomes referee's discretion and one more things for the fans to argue about and coaches to blow up at, when their view doesn't match the official's
adam smith
Guest
While I agree with your sentiment Diplomat, when has the NRL ever applied consistency to its rulings? In over 30 years watching NRL, ARL or SuperLeague, the only thing consistent at the judiciary, is the inconsistency.
Rob
Guest
Nothing like the same impact. Very different situation. The intent has a lot to do with the result.