As you may know, Billy Slater has been given the all clear and avoided suspension. He is going to retire after the grand final. Whether or not it will be in a blaze of glory remains to be seen.
I’m not going to act like a ‘Slater hater’ because truth be told, I’m not. He revolutionised the fullback role like no other and when he retires, he’ll be my dream team custodian. I personally believe he did it and yes he had his hands up but he could have wrapped his arms around Sosaia Feki.
However, this isn’t intent on just talking about Billy Slater.
This is more so to talk about the shoulder charge ban. The controversial decision to rule it out began in 2013 and many to this day still question it. Do I agree with it? Not at all.
Now this will begin a cycle. In any situation a player is about to score a try, an opposing player will then use the shoulder charge to stop it. Put on report and at the judiciary “Billy Slater did it and he didn’t get suspended.”
That will become a problem and we all know that saying about how every problem has a solution. That’s completely correct as I have the solution. Remove the ridiculous ban on the shoulder charge once and for all.
I get it not everyone is a fan of it and player safety is important but let’s make it simple, a shoulder charge is fine but if you hit someone in the head, a send off no questions asked.
See? That was simple, understandable and straightforward.
This leaves us with two questions.
1) Should use of the shoulder charge be reinstated? Yes
2) Should Billy Slater ended up getting suspended? Yes.
I’ve had my say so now it’s your turn my fellow Roarers. What do you think? Also, feel free to answer the two questions above before.
Bernie Vinson
Roar Rookie
In Rugby its called a no-arms tackle which is a better definition so the ambiguity is lessened - a side-on shoulder charge that is marginally late is just as dangerous because it is a cheap shot. I cant wait for Sunday and if Toupou makes a break and going for the line what is Billy to do. Of course the Sydney herald has written only pro NRL stories since the decision - so much for the separation of media when Nine took over Fairfax.
Albo
Roar Rookie
So it shouldn't have been a penalty ? The referees got it completely wrong then ?
Fight fair
Guest
Nailed it!
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
Calm common sense from The Barry cuts through all the BS, hyperbole, and pearl clutching.
Steve
Guest
It was not intentional, but Feki was definitely hit by Slater's shoulder. The NRL have not made it clear whether an intentional or unintentional shoulder charge carries the same weight of disapproval, so it was a shoulder charge that should have received the required punishment and not be swayed by Slater's plea that it started as one thing and ended up as another thing. The NRL should be consistent in all it's deliberations. I am less interested in watching the game in the future following this poor decision.
Bill
Guest
100% agree Barry! Simple and how it should have been from the start. You’re making an awful lot of sense lately ;-) Bill
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I've had numerous looks at the tackle (again) this morning, and although not many will agree with I am about to say, I actually think the tackle was not even close to a shoulder charge. If you watch the impact over and over again, Feki's shoulder collects Slater's jaw (showing that Slater was front on in the tackle). The vast majority of the impact is Slater's chest with Feki's shoulder (and part of the rule of the shoulder charge - other than being forceful - is that impact by the defender is made using the shoulder or upper arm. Slater's chest is not part of his shoulder or upper arm). Yes, Slater braces his arm, but had he not done that, I think there would have been a possibility of Slater breaking his collar bone. The arm brace is more to tense that portion of his body for impact. For me, it was a completely legitimate tackle. Slater hit front on while traveling across field...again, won't get too much agreement, but, take another look for yourself?
El Loco
Roar Rookie
I'm saying he judiciary, after hearing from both sides and reviewing copious evidence in a fair trial, decided it was legitimate enough.
Peter
Guest
You're kidding right? All Melbourne fans are the same. They think they're hard sione by although they usually get the rub of the green. Slater deserves a fairytale ending but it was a shoulder charge. He shouldn't be playing, not to mention when he dropped it cold but they called it a dropkick
Paul
Roar Guru
hear, hear...
Paul
Roar Guru
So if that wasn't a shoulder charge, it must have been a legitimate tackle. Is that what you're saying?
Nat
Roar Guru
No, I can't agree with this. The shoulder charge penalty was introduced for very good reason and to say a fine is enough of a deterrent is wrong. It is a safety initiative. People have died and become seriously injured through shoulder charges that made no contact with the head. This rule extends all theway down from NRL to u8s. It has to stay but adjudicated according to the offence and that's where Billy and an SBW-esk tackle differ. Further, what is a large enough fine? Billy isn't short of a dollar, do you think he would have considered his electricity bill before taking Feki out the way he did. If Billy makes that same tackle in the 79th minute this weekend to save the game, who's paying that fine? I feel your objection to the shoulder charge rule is for your viewing benefit only with no consideration to the players.
Paul
Roar Guru
"He revolutionised the fullback role like no other". Really? Can you please tell me ALL the things he did that were revolutionary, that no-one else had ever done before? I'm not for a second suggesting Slater's not a great player and is certainly Hall of Fame material at least, but I can't see anything in his play that I'd call "revolutionary", he just dd the same things others have done, but better.
Paul
Roar Guru
Effectively, this is what the judiciary did last night TB. The only problem was, there were no gradings. I have no issues with Slater playing because both sides had a fair go and rightly or wrongly, a decision was made, but the Law needs to be changed before next season to accommodate your suggestion
kev merrion
Guest
shoulder charge is ok but wat happens if it causes bad injery to the players neck then wat ?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Cheers mate Even though we’ve disagreed on this issue over the past 24 hours, I’ve really respected your take and explanation of your position.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Well said...
El Loco
Roar Rookie
This is another article misrepresenting the judicial process. You say that in future people will use the shoulder charge and say "Billy did it and didn't get suspended". Incorrect - Billy didn't do it, according to the judiciary, therefore no grounds for suspension. No precedent has been set that you can get away with a shoulder charge, only that with an appropriate defence, you can demonstrate that you didn't commit one. And that's completely fair.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
This type of tackle/ collision was never the intent of the ban in the first place! Common sense prevailed. Leave it as it is.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I like that grading idea. I think if you want to remove the extreme examples of behaviour (shoulder to head) you hve to restrict the milder ones (Slaters one) too, and this would do that.