I’m sorry. I know it’s a great result for the grand final and for Billy Slater and for Melbourne Storm, and the greater vibe and the mojo and all that.
And I know Slater deserved to play his last game in the grand final, and that he’s a champion and a future Immortal, and the greatest fullback we’ve ever seen.
I know all that. But I’m still sorry.
Because it was a shoulder charge. And you’re not allowed to do it.
Look at it again. And again. And again. And it’s a shoulder charge every time.
He didn’t deviate on his line to Sosaia Feki.
He was going straight at him with one thing in mind – stop Feki scoring by bashing him into touch. And the best way to do that? The way to get Feki off the field and at the same time reduce the chance of harm on Slater?
Bunch his shoulder and bash into him thus.
And that’s a shoulder charge is. That’s what one is. If a forward did the same thing in the middle of they field, using the same angles, it’s a shoulder charge.
Forget all that east-west, north-south, front-on stuff. If Slater had hit Feki with the exact same shot in the exact middle of the park, it would be a shoulder charge, at least under the definition of the laws which say it’s illegal to effect a tackle without using one’s arms.
Call it a collision. Call it whatever you want. But it says in the rule book you can’t do it.
And it’s what Slater did.
He didn’t ‘lead’ with his hand. His hands were not at all involved in the tackle. It was shoulder on shoulder, and it was a cracking good hit and it saved a try in spectacular fashion. And it shouldn’t even be deemed a shoulder charge, really.
It’s a pretty cool part of the game, when it doesn’t hurt anyone’s head.
But it can. And that’s why it’s not allowed. And that’s why Slater was penalised, and Cameron Smith didn’t argue because smart kid like him knew it probably should’ve been a penalty try, and that had the referee thrown it up to the bunker it probably would have been, given they’d have slowed it down and seen what everyone could, and that was Billy Slater not using his arms to effect a tackle.
Which is a thing that’s not allowed. It says so in the rules.
(Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)
Yet the high-flying Slater came up on a high-flying private jet with his high-flying team of lawyers in tow. And there he somehow managed to convince the Three Blind Mice, sorry, I mean judiciary members Sean Garlick, Mal Cochrane and Bob Lindner that it was not a shoulder charge, or that he didn’t mean it, or something…
I don’t know, it doesn’t really matter now does it? Billy’s been freed and rugby league has yet again showed it’s not above brushing the rules in certain circumstances.
Well – rugby league didn’t do that. Rugby league – The National Rugby League – charged Slater with the crime.
The NRL employed the referee who penalised Slater on the field. And the NRL setup the judicial hearing and all the stuff around it.
But the men left to make the decision are three independent operators. And that’s how it is.
Perhaps not as it should be. Maybe they should get people who’ll adjudicate according to, you know, the laws.
It’s a funny one. Because it’s not a court of law. Slater didn’t steal money from your grandma.
In rugby league, as in life, it seems there’s a place for sentiment.
Especially when the $1000-an-hour lawyer can fly up in the million dollar jet to make an argument so good that three apparently sentient human beings can see something that walks like a duck and talks like a duck and decide that it’s a Komodo Dragon.
Or a ham sandwich. Or the six o’clock news. Or what have you.
Who are these people? Normal people. Garlo makes pies. Bobby Lindner’s an optometrist. Mal Cochrane’s an old copper. A stickler for rules, according to Roy Masters who you’d suggest might know.
(Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)
But apparently, still, at heart, a sentimental bloke like the other two, men who’ve #FreedBilly because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s the correct thing to do.
If that makes sense. Not sure if it does. Don’t care.
Oh look I don’t know. I suppose it doesn’t matter. I suppose the right decision’s been made, though anyone going up before the judiciary for a shoulder charge in 2019 will be able plead the Slater Clause, particularly if they get the same lawyer, who’ll be quite the gun-for-hire.
And yet, look at those tackles, and look at the Slater tackle, and if you don’t use your arms it’s – according to the rules – an illegal tackle. You can’t see Slater’s as otherwise.
Whether it was worth the 200 points or 100 points, or 75 carry-over the decimal point points, or whatever, is a tale for another time.
In this one Billy Slater ran straight at Feki with the express purpose of banging him into touch using his shoulder. It was super-fast because that’s how Billy does things.
It’s what makes him a champion: he can see and calculate space and rip off these super-manoeuvres at tip-top pace.
And he knew what he was doing. He knew it had to be done. And any argument otherwise has to be backed up with slow-motion footage, which can see things that aren’t there.
Because Slater’s work on Feki in the corner is a duck. A golden duck. And Slater is a golden goose. He is Makybe Diva.
Before the 2005 Melbourne Cup they were going to scratch the Diva unless they watered Flemington. So the AJC watered Flemington, at the behest of a horse. Not really a horse. The horse’s people.
And the Diva became a legend.
And Billy Slater is playing in the grand final on Sunday because he is Billy Slater. And I’m sorry. It’s the best call. But it isn’t the right one.
R N
Roar Rookie
Really nicely written Andy, couldn't agree more!
Jacko
Guest
Settle down Andy......You are wrong on the Slater tackle...live with it......As for the rest of your post I agree....Union is placing far more importance on Concussions etc than League is but league only has Violent contact as its drawcard.....Union has more skill across the park but does not have the gladatorial attitude League has...and yet this has to end soon as courts will determine sooner or later..... Did you know that if 2 people are running side by side for the ball they are allowed to use their shoulders to push each other off the ball? Is that a shoulder charge? Accept that not all shoulder contact is equal.....Not that difficult
kk
Roar Pro
The Diva sure knew where the winning post was located. Congratulations on producing the best piece on this subject.
R N
Roar Rookie
You really didn't need to repeat that!
Andy
Guest
Trump like? C’mon don’t be that guy. Someone puts up a counter argument you don’t like you try to tarnish him by ridicule. Be better than that. Slater made no attempt to tackle the Cronulla player. He ran directly into him with his shoulder in order to save what looked like a certain try. He succeeded. Had he done it in union he would’ve copped the bin or a red card and a penalty try would’ve been awarded. Next year union will be penalising tackles initiated above the chest. Now I know union worldwide is a much bigger game than league but all contact codes are looking into collision management. League is paying lip service to it and mark my words they will regret it. In a decade or so those same legal minds that got slater off will be using his and other tackles as evidence in lawsuits against the league. Don’t think it’ll happen? Do some research as to what is and has been going on in the US. As to never convincing you I am right, that’s not really my aim. I am merely posting my opinion on an opinion website. You on the other hand are stating an opinion (a flawed one in my view) as fact.
Jacko
Guest
yep.....me too
Jacko
Guest
Andy the panel deemed it a non-shoulder charge...right or wrong thats the ruling...Going off on some rant wont change a thing and stating he got off because it was rigged is just Trump-like...Im not a Storm supporter or hater....Im not a QLd supporter or an Australian supporter so I have no pro Slater biases and i saw the tackle many many times...watched all the BS over it...all the hype surrounding the judicary....and I believe they got it right...You are allowed to disagree but I dont care how deep down you want to go ...I will never believe you are right
Lionking64
Roar Rookie
It’s a conspiracy then. Okay I get. Who’s in on it and who directed the judiciary?
Cugel
Roar Rookie
"Guys like us" have watched the game for decades with none of things you are crying about having a significant impact on anything.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
I looked at it, again and again and yet again. Saw a terrific try saving tackle every single time.
Bernie Vinson
Roar Rookie
The thought the NRL Footy show may have received a kick along with the Slater incident but no - courtesy of crikey website. Last night’s Battle of the Footy Shows was fought on three fronts. In Melbourne, it was between Nine’s AFL Footy Show and Seven’s The Front Bar; nationally, it was between the same two programs; and in Brisbane, Queensland, NSW and Sydney, it was between the NRL Footy Show and The Bachelor on Ten. So who came out on top? It was a win in Melbourne for Nine and Eddie, and a small loss nationally. The NRL program, however, suffered a nasty loss in viewers — even though the popular Sydney Roosters are in the final this week alongside last year’s premiers Melbourne Storm. Seven won the NRL markets in Sydney and Brisbane, while Nine was a narrow winner in Melbourne, but lost the other metro AFL markets in Adelaide and Perth to Seven. Was the win a tribute to the departing dinosaur, Sam Newman? In Melbourne, Nine’s AFL Footy Show pulled in 247,000 viewers with The Front Bar averaging 229,000. This is the first win by Nine’s show for months, and comes after an emotional statement from Newman on last week’s episode. Amid speculation the show would be cancelled, the controversial long-time panelist said he was “[ending his] association with this show and the network on the off-chance that this is the final show that we do”. Nine pulled out all the stops with their annual grand final extravaganza. Last night’s AFL show featured performances from Carrie Underwood, Vance Joy and The Living End, as well as a number of special guests in front of a stadium audience at Rod Laver Arena. Host Eddie McGuire also played a package of Newman’s most memorable moments over the past 25 years. While this won out against The Front Bar‘s comparatively low-key coverage, both grand final shows were down on viewers compared to 2017. Nine’s show lost 33,000 from their 2017 figures, and The Front Bar’s dropped from 232,000 to 229,000. Nationally the two footy shows on Nine — NRL and AFL — were watched by 632,000 viewers and The Front Bar by 451,000. Strip out the NRL audiences in Sydney (78,000), Brisbane (51,000), regional Queensland (28,000), and the northern NSW audience of 32,000 and you get an AFL Footy Show audience of around 447,000. All the 451,000 viewers for The Front Bar were AFL fans. Or put it another way, more people watched Ten’s The Bachelor (1.12 million) than watched Nine and Seven’s footy shows combined (1.087 million). The Bachelor had a total of 411,000 viewers in Sydney and Brisbane — game, set and match to The Honey Badger. And before Nine gets ahead of itself, there was a key change in the tech side of ratings which shows how worried Nine is about the weak AFL and NRL shows. Last year Nine separated the coding for the AFL and NRL footy shows, meaning they were rated separately. The AFL show had 432,000 viewers, the NRL show, 460,000 for a total of 892,000. This year the single show coding produced a result of 636,000 — a fall of 256,000 or nearly 29%. The real losses were felt in the NRL program. The Sydney audience last night was 78,000 (down from 159,000 a year ago) while the Brisbane audience (the other key NRL market), the audience fell to 51,000 from 129,000. It seems the absence of a Queensland team in the NRL final saw a massive slide in viewers and doesn’t bode well for Sunday night’s Grand Final on Nine. Regardless of Eddie’s win last night, there will be some tough decisions ahead at Nine.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
And Cameron Smith and Slater did in fact question the validity of the penalty ruling at the time.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
People bang on about this decision "opening a can of worms", setting precedents, signalling the end of life as we know it, yet conveniently forget the numerous prior"not guilty" findings on shoulder charge cases bought before it. The rule is obviously a poorly designed and worded piece of "legislation" that has enough grey areas and holes in it big enough to drive a bus through. The very fact that it even used to encompass a situation such as Slaters shows how flawed it is, much more so than the fact that he was found not guilty. It was never the intent of the rule to capture this sort of collision which is part of the fabric of rugby league as a collision sport. Yes, it needs reviewing, but not because the judiciary "got it wrong" any more than the MRC got it wrong by charging Slater in the first place. The faux outrage about player safety would be better directed as to why Jake Friend is playing then why Billy is playing.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
“Please cease and desist from any further absurdity.” Hilarious statement to use in concert with “Slater fanbois,” let alone the implication the NRL’s somehow manipulated this result. They’re not unfortunate at all. They’re completely validated in their decision, and the only parties worse off are sooks like yourself who want decisions to be based purely on personal opinions of players. Don’t recall this amount of scrutiny over Blake, Boyd, or Nofoaluma. Of course, this is a discussion with someone using a murderer as a handle. Not sure why I’d expect anything else.
Nick
Roar Guru
Just so long as you keep zealots like Phil Gould away at all times, then it would be good. Front Bar is great because you have a capable host (Maher) complimented by two excellent professional comedians with a fan following of footy. The footy show(s) are dreadful because you've have quasi capable hosts complemented by ex-players who can't let go.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Slater is a champion of the game and it's just common sense that blokes like him get more allowance. Look at last year in the 2017 afl prelims, Trent Cotchin knocked out Dylan Shiel with a tackle that would have seen anyone else rubbed out, but because he's richmond skipper and it's a week before the granny, he gets let off. Every code does it. Deal with it
Varg Vikernes
Guest
There is no imputation that the panellists were corrupt. They were the unfortunate ones corralled like lambs to the slaughter in the service of Billy Slater fanbois such as yourself. The NRL knows how to manipulate a result by setting out the circumstance which doesn't necessitate direct interference. Have you not watched any NRL this season? Are you not aware there has been 4 official refereeing standards throughout the course of 2018? Please cease and desist from any further absurdity.
Varg Vikernes
Guest
There is no imputation that the panellists were corrupt. They were the unfortunate ones corralled like lambs to the slaughter in the service of Billy Slater fanbois such as yourself. The NRL knows how to manipulate a result by setting out the circumstance which doesn't necessitate direct interference. Have you not watched any NRL this season? Are you not aware there has been 4 official refereeing standards throughout the course of 2018? Please cease and desist from any further absurdity.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Well said Matt... And the response when you bring up all the tackles exactly like Slaters that were treated the same way...? *crickets
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
You're probably right. Although it will lead to even more ridiculousness - like, what about tackles that are neither straight on or exactly side on? The rule is fine as is - just needs to be enforced consistently and accurately.