Slater innocent: Congratulations NRL judiciary, it was the right call

Spot on agent ! The issue has become a complete joke. It was a blatant shoulder charge but they produce a bunch of ridiculous confections to excuse him so he could play in the Grand Final. The decision only proves that the NRL aren't really that serious about eliminating the shoulder charge to avoid possible player injury. There are far more important considerations like protecting the Bambi's of our game. And you obviously don't qualify as such, you big lumps Taumololo, Scott & Tapine !

This one was definitely a Bambi !

The shoulder charge law states: “Point of contact from the defender must be forceful and from the shoulder or upper arm, with no attempt to wrap the arms in the tackle.” Sure, Slater’s tackle of Sharks winger Sosaia Feki was forceful, but the fullback’s right arm was always the key factor" The question would have to be asked do you even read what you are writing Mr Lord? 1. Billy Slater was guilty of exactly what the law describes. 2.Are you blind? Is the judiciary panel blind? 3.The next part of what you wrote is nonsense because Slater was coming from left of field to right. The point of contact was on Feki's right side. Slaters point of contact was his left side. His left shoulder went into the opposing player his right arm has bugger all to do with it. Why didn't Slater get his left arm up and wrap the player up and drive him over the sideline? As supposedly the best fullback in the world wouldn't you think he can do that ? Answer cause he had had no intention of doing that and he was lining him up for putting his left shoulder into the player. Therefore he is guilty and you are writing absolute rubbish !

Interesting choice of name. Could cause some mayhem. How are you old friend?

Varg Vikernes, you compare Slater to OJ (or approve John's comment) yet you've named yourself after someone who did ten years for murder. Please explain.

Hear hear. Poor old freddy really does make some dumb comments IMO.

Yep, a tackle doing no damage and that was never going to do ao, is viewed by tbe MRC as worse than a spear tackle that could have broken GI's spinal cord and levt him a ventilated quadriplegic. Another fine mess created by the always reactive never proactive NRL.

I wouldnt argue with that. Make the points for a grade 1 shoulder charge 75, tbe same as for the spear tackle.

The trio were made of sterner stuff than to take out the cop out option? You're really going to take this clanger those 3 stooges just dropped and prop it up like some kind of 21st century lawful masterstroke? Get real and get back on your medication! Honestly, I need to get out of this computer simulation, it's driving me insane

Deciding vote was from a Quuuuuuennnnnslannnnderrrrrrr!!!! Slater was always going to get off; another reason is that channel 9 had already invested in a 15 minute special piece just on Billy for the GF day!! That would have been wasted if he was suspended!!

Slater must have very strong pec muscles if they forced Feki into touch. Even if first contact was pec, and that's a big if, it was still his shoulder that did all the work.

All 3 judiciary members retired over 20 years ago. I wonder how they can rule on an interpretation introduced just 5 years ago, especially one as divisive as the shoulder charge. Most players who played in the 80s and 90s and the judiciary members did, want the shoulder charge back and have ruled in such a way. Time to update the panel with more relevant members who played under the new rules

The NRL got what it wanted. A stack of publicity for free and it still continues. Not much to do with the lawyer. He was always going to play. He plays for Melbourne, remember. They just wanted it dragged out. NRL is business first then sport a distant last. What a good opportunity to rival the AFL for news coverage.

Well said, John H.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. A textbook case of a shoulder charge. If they want to let him play they should say he's guilty but we'll pardon him for this considering the circumstances. At least that would be honest.

Yet when there were legal minds on the panel allowed to adjudicate, the rulings were as inconsistent as they are today. And there were calls far and wide for the lawyers and judges to be removed from decisions and a jury of peers put in place because they “understand football incidents” in the context of the game rather than strictly by the written rule. I thought the decision could go either way but am happy with the process. Had the NRL a better prosecutor they may have prevailed.

To my way of thinking this is not a shoulder charge. A shoulder charge is ball carrier and defender running opposing straight lines at each other, with the defender dipping a shoulder towards his opponents chest without attempt at tackling. It can cause dislocated shoulders, chest injuries, broken bones, whiplash, concussion and death. What Salter did is far more typical of a "hip and shoulder" which is as others have mentioned a legal tactic in AFL. It is a safe defensive tactic as it is a broad contact of bodies with impact borne on the entire body surface between the illiac crest of the hip and the muscle mass of the deltoid. The NRL rule as it is should be rewritten to reflect the very slender distinction drawn by the Judiciary last night.

#Rupert Oh don't worry - the AFL and the 'MRO' (this year a 'Match review officer' instead of panel) - DO get many things wrong. That said - the back page comment is quite right. Out of curiosity - having looked at the footage which to me looked absolutely fine (from an AFL perspective - player has the ball, it's a half bump and half tackle.....half pregnant so to speak....Slater was all twisted - in that his right arm is trying to go across the front and made first contact and his left leg also tries to come across the front. He'snot committed fully to either tackle or bump - but he didn't get him high, didn't jump/leave the ground. ). So I check the rules and the Feb 2017 amendment and it's seemingly all about the arms. Well - if the right arm is the first contact (across the front of the player being tackled and in the vicinity of the ball from which the tacklee fends that arm/hand away) and the left shoulder is what he's supposedly charged with - straight away it sounds a bit dubious. The NRL would have looked ridiculously soft (which we know it isn't) to uphold that charge. The AFL is sometimes TOO outcome based - but - there is much to be said that you don't get charged for culpable driving for speeding, but, if you speed and kill someone......the outcome IS a factor so even were this to be accepted as a shoulder charge - well - there was no 'outcome'.

You are absolutely right David. Glad it wasn't Gingell, Politis, Fittler and Fletcher on the judiciary panel.

I think Aussie Rules tends to get things right more often than Rugby League. A Back Page comment from last night: 'In Aussie Rules, Friend would have got 6 weeks and Slater applauded because of his bump on the opponent.'