The Slater shoulder charge thread - Update: Now Charged
- Thread starter EXPLORER
- Start date
- Status
dogluva
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 17,686
- Reaction score
- 8,338
What gets me in all of this, irrespective or whether he did or didn't commit a shoulder charge, is the fact that a lot of the coverage of this has been about it being unfair to rub him our of a GF.
The type of game should make no difference. It made me burn when I read this part that said
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...s/news-story/c756654a4e102a230b1ab5b00668adcf
THE NRL have gone to the unusual length of releasing a statement to explain why Billy Slater was not charged for kicking David Klemmer in the head during last night's clash against the Bulldogs.
Slater was this morning cleared of any wrongdoing by the Match Review Committee, who deemed the Melbourne superstar's feet came into contact with Klemmer accidentally as he leapt for a bomb.
The NRL later released a statement, stating: "Whilst on first view it was an incident of concern, the Match Review Committee found that player Slater was in the air competing for the ball when contact was made between his foot and the neck of player Klemmer, who was not contesting the ball.
"In our opinion the contact was accidental and player Slater did not breach his duty of care. We did not view the contact as careless.
"A player from the defending team is entitled to contest the ball in the air under the assumption he will land before an opposition player attempts to tackle him."
Melbourne won the grand final rematch 22-18 in what ended up a tense game, but the incident allowed the Bulldogs to roar back into the match before the Storm machine clicked into gear to take a 22-6 lead. In their second comeback, the Dogs then took the game to the wire in the final minute.
Slater tried to play down the incident after the match.
"I have to have a look at it," he told Channel 9.
"I just go up for footy and try to protect myself as best I can.
"What they (the referees) saw in it, I'm not sure."
On-field referee Ben Cummins said at the time: "What you've done is kick him going through the air, that was an act of prior foul play."
Fair or foul? What the rules say
Storm captain Cameron Smith thought the Storm deserved the penalty, because Slater had been tackled in mid-air.
"But you're not allowed to make contact with Billy when he's in the air," the angry skipper said.
He added later that the decision to penalise Slater and put him on report was "mystifying''.
"The instruction I was given was Bill touched him first. But you are not allowed to touch players in the air,'' he said.
"Bill has been going up for high balls like that for as long as I can remember. It was unintentional by Bill.
"Klemmer put himself in that position, and he hit Bill in the air.''
Bellamy also claimed Klemmer should not have touched Slater at all.
"What's Billy supposed to do with his foot ... is it supposed to disappear?'' Bellamy said.
"If he's off the ground, he's not to be touched.
"Our catchers are supposed to be protected. If they are in the air, you can't touch them.
"It was a huge call. He's protected himself and he's the one that gets penalised. I don't understand that.''
Having trailed 10-0 at half-time, the incident dragged the Bulldogs straight back into the game with winger Sam Perrett scoring from a perfectly placed cross-field kick from five-eighth Josh Reynolds.
The Storm appeared to hit back in the 59th minute when Cooper Cronk scored, but the video referee ruled prop Bryan Norrie had obstructed - ever so slightly - Martin Taupau in back play.
Four minutes later, they had their try when winger Matt Duffie soared through the air and latched onto a perfectly weighted Cronk kick.
Smith's conversion from out wide extended the lead to 16-6.
Another try to Lagi Setu minutes later seemed to bury the result, before tries to centre Krisnan Inu and another to halfback Kris Keating with four minutes remaining brought them back to 22-18.
The type of game should make no difference. It made me burn when I read this part that said
Wasn't his justification for kicking Klemmer in the face that he was protecting himself??
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...s/news-story/c756654a4e102a230b1ab5b00668adcf
THE NRL have gone to the unusual length of releasing a statement to explain why Billy Slater was not charged for kicking David Klemmer in the head during last night's clash against the Bulldogs.
Slater was this morning cleared of any wrongdoing by the Match Review Committee, who deemed the Melbourne superstar's feet came into contact with Klemmer accidentally as he leapt for a bomb.
The NRL later released a statement, stating: "Whilst on first view it was an incident of concern, the Match Review Committee found that player Slater was in the air competing for the ball when contact was made between his foot and the neck of player Klemmer, who was not contesting the ball.
"In our opinion the contact was accidental and player Slater did not breach his duty of care. We did not view the contact as careless.
"A player from the defending team is entitled to contest the ball in the air under the assumption he will land before an opposition player attempts to tackle him."
Melbourne won the grand final rematch 22-18 in what ended up a tense game, but the incident allowed the Bulldogs to roar back into the match before the Storm machine clicked into gear to take a 22-6 lead. In their second comeback, the Dogs then took the game to the wire in the final minute.
Slater tried to play down the incident after the match.
"I have to have a look at it," he told Channel 9.
"I just go up for footy and try to protect myself as best I can.
"What they (the referees) saw in it, I'm not sure."
On-field referee Ben Cummins said at the time: "What you've done is kick him going through the air, that was an act of prior foul play."
Fair or foul? What the rules say
Storm captain Cameron Smith thought the Storm deserved the penalty, because Slater had been tackled in mid-air.
"But you're not allowed to make contact with Billy when he's in the air," the angry skipper said.
He added later that the decision to penalise Slater and put him on report was "mystifying''.
"The instruction I was given was Bill touched him first. But you are not allowed to touch players in the air,'' he said.
"Bill has been going up for high balls like that for as long as I can remember. It was unintentional by Bill.
"Klemmer put himself in that position, and he hit Bill in the air.''
Bellamy also claimed Klemmer should not have touched Slater at all.
"What's Billy supposed to do with his foot ... is it supposed to disappear?'' Bellamy said.
"If he's off the ground, he's not to be touched.
"Our catchers are supposed to be protected. If they are in the air, you can't touch them.
"It was a huge call. He's protected himself and he's the one that gets penalised. I don't understand that.''
Having trailed 10-0 at half-time, the incident dragged the Bulldogs straight back into the game with winger Sam Perrett scoring from a perfectly placed cross-field kick from five-eighth Josh Reynolds.
The Storm appeared to hit back in the 59th minute when Cooper Cronk scored, but the video referee ruled prop Bryan Norrie had obstructed - ever so slightly - Martin Taupau in back play.
Four minutes later, they had their try when winger Matt Duffie soared through the air and latched onto a perfectly weighted Cronk kick.
Smith's conversion from out wide extended the lead to 16-6.
Another try to Lagi Setu minutes later seemed to bury the result, before tries to centre Krisnan Inu and another to halfback Kris Keating with four minutes remaining brought them back to 22-18.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 19,587
- Reaction score
- 16,637
They have probably ordered in some Chinese are are sitting around laughing at how the Rugby League world is waiting with baited breath at their decision.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 19,587
- Reaction score
- 16,637
Bulldog_4_Life
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 4,411
OFFICIAL: NOT GUILTY
Bulldog_4_Life
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 4,411
Slater is free to play on Sunday night
Interestingg
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,161
- Reaction score
- 6,228
Lol. It was a textbook shoulder charge. By the rules he gets suspended but I hate the roosters more than the storm so I don’t care about this instance of corruption
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 15,644
- Reaction score
- 11,320
Im happy he is playing as he deserves it but ffs it is a shoulder charge weather we agree on the rule or not in the current rules its a shoulder charge bye bye roosters
dogluva
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 17,686
- Reaction score
- 8,338
Was it ever gonna be anything else....can't spoil the fairy tale and can't upset Cam Smith who believes Billy's shat don't stink.
NOW even though many were divided on their opinions about it, the NRL has set a precedent for similar incidents in the future. AND it should not matter who it is, superstar or not.........
NOW even though many were divided on their opinions about it, the NRL has set a precedent for similar incidents in the future. AND it should not matter who it is, superstar or not.........
Interestingg
Kennel Addict
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,161
- Reaction score
- 6,228
Melbourne to win by 20 and Trent Robinson to be sacked next year opening up an extra 2 million in their salary cap to sign SBW
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,741
- Reaction score
- 7,927
Agreed
If I’m an nrl coach I know how I’ll be training my backs to defend
UndeadShadowMan
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
- Messages
- 3,619
- Reaction score
- 3,616
Tarnished if Storm wins GF & Roosters pissed off with the decision. Win win situation if your a Bulldogs fan as long as Roosters don't win.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,942
- Reaction score
- 4,909
Will be cheering for the Roosters that hard!
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 19,378
- Reaction score
- 3,600
They can still be penalized and sin binned, no way they would ban Billy from this, he is a draw card.
- Status