Despite the initial debate and controversy, most folk agree that banning the shoulder charge is sane.
The cost-benefit assessment is damning – a minor risk of head trauma outweighs all future YouTube highlights. And FYI – despite all the AC/DC and grainy slo-mos, I’m not going to subscribe to your “greatest hits” channel.
Now, before you shout me down, consider this – I agree that Billy Slater’s try-saver was, technically, a shoulder charge. And, as an engineer, I know only two kinds of correct – they’re called ‘technically’ and ‘not’.
Yep, I’ll admit it – by letter of the law, he didn’t use his arm. And, ergo facto, it was worthy of being cited. But here is where we differ.
People keep saying that you can’t change the rule based on circumstance. ‘Rules are rules’ I hear you say. And, while grammatically correct, this hardly makes sense. All rules are circumstantial.
I’ll posit there’s a fundamental difference between applying the strict lettering of a law and applying its intent. Let me explain by way of a famous experiment, and monkeys…
Five monkeys were put in a cage, plus a ladder, with five bananas at the top. Any time a monkey tried to climb the ladder, they’d all get doused with a hose. Pretty simple.
Before long the monkeys were self-policing – beating on anyone who even looked at the bananas. Then, one by one, each monkey was given a banana and immediately swapped out.
As predicted, as each new monkey went to climb the ladder, they were mercilessly beaten. No-one wanted the hose. After a while, the last of the original monkeys were gone, and so were the bananas.
However, the last new monkey still tried to climb the ladder, because, well, he’s still a monkey. And he still got roundly bashed.
My point? Well, it’s an allegory of how laws need to have context. With no bananas, there would be no hose. But the monkey still got beaten. And this is how we’re acting.
The Slater tackle isn’t an example of why the shoulder charge was banned. It wasn’t dangerous, it was a classic play. His citing is just a vagary of the need to write a rule. So why is it wrong for the game to acknowledge this?
I say strike down his citing – or risk beating him well after the bananas have gone…
kiwijack
Guest
Slater is a grub and deserves to be suspended. Just another in a long line of dangerous tackles from Slater, remember the feet first tackles he used to do. Sure Feki wasn't hurt but he could have been and the rules are the rules. Bye Bye Slater.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
'The rule was never intended for this' is the argument
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
You're the first person I've ever heard to defend mobile speed cameras.
Major Bumsore
Guest
#BILLY THE GRUB.
Major Bumsore
Guest
Your blatant bias has come to the surface with that comment. And seriously , comparing an experiment with monkeys as to why this bloke should be given a free pass ? Next time the cops get me on a speed camera I might march that argument out in court . But your honour , what about the monkeys?
Paul
Roar Guru
That's a whole different can of worms, Duncan. I completely agree there seems to be a huge inconsistency here and that clearly needs to be addressed by the NRL at season's end. As it stands though, we have the Laws and penalties in place and unfortunately for Billy ( if he's found guilty), that's the way it is for now.
Paul
Roar Guru
Because you can't change a rule just before a GF that's been in place all season. I also wonder if you and others would even care of this was some 50 gamer and not Billy Slater playing his last game? As others have suggested, there's one Law and rightly or wrongly, that's what we have right now.
Adam
Roar Guru
The facts are pretty murky though. How many shoulder charges get ignored? I think I read somewhere that out of 8 people charged with this offence this year 6 have manage to get off the charge. So that in itself shows the inconsistency in the application of the law and it needs an overhaul and if he gets off the charge, if anything that's consistent.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
That whooshing noise is my point flying over your head. Ask (a) was it a play that we intended to eradicate, then, if not (b) since rules and interpretations can be change at any time, why not now?
Adam Bagnall
Roar Guru
Not even close. For a penalty try, you have to be 100% sure a try would have been scored. Feki wasn't even in the in-goal, and he was upright. Too many variables to consider like knock on, foot in touch, etc.
Adam Bagnall
Roar Guru
Billy still gets his due process at the tribunal, so not sure what point, if any, you are making. End of the day, the shoulder charge is illegal, and he should be found guilty and suspended. There is no argument against these facts. Emotion is not an argument. He didn't hurt the player is not an argument. There was no intent is not an argument.
The Barry
Roar Guru
And others still have not been suspended for similar tackles. Arguments back on...
Dave Jacobs
Roar Rookie
#FreeBilly
peeeko
Roar Guru
others have been suspended for similar tackles. makes you whole argument futile
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
For what it means to a player and a club, a grand final is worth, say, about ten normal club games. That means people want a ten game suspension. Meanwhile, Jake Friend drops someone on his head and gets off. Where's the consistency is this?
Larry1950
Guest
Because he was short of the try line, no guarantee of grounding and wasn't Boyd Cordner in an origin game, that's why. One guarantee on this subject, every Melbourne hater & manly fan will weigh in with the old " I'm sympathetic but rules are rules" comment, bit like Fittler's unbiased view (oops, your roosters jersey is showing Freddie) . I reckon both tackler & attacker contributed to the way the tackle ended up and it was never intended to stop cover defence but that's a consequence of black & white rules. Remember, Napa got off for his first kamikazi hit on Sims so anything is possible.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Similarly, the wet lettuce Mitchell copped was farcical. The chooks have dodged a few bullets already. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - let them all play.
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
Categorically disagree. If we applied rules in a vacuum there would be no need for a tribunal. That's the unreasonable cop approach.
phil
Guest
Uglykiwi is right. It was an illegal tackle which prevented a try, therefore a penalty try should have been awarded. Think Jamie Ainscough and the St George grand final loss some years back. Why was no penalty try awarded and why has this been lost in conversation about this incident?
Evanfinity
Roar Pro
But surely that wacky interpretation will be amended in the offseason. Why not now?