Slaters shoulder charge, gooone.

[takethe 2]

I’m flabagasted

[ROC181]

Fergo, Toupo and Teresco should now implement the shoulder charge and claim every Einstein’s, Darwin and Newton’s theory.

[IRoosterManI]

And people still think there is no agenda with the NRL? You better believe the NRL have huge sway on who wins the comp... we were never meant to win in 2013.. just look at the stats.

[rented tracksuit]

We may as well not even show up in Sunday but if we do, unleash farking hell!

[Easts to Win]

This decision has me fired up ! I reckon our boys will be seething . Bring on Sunday !

[player 1]

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew has asked panel members to consider the following.

"1. Was there forceful contact with the shoulder or upper arm? Bellew says if your answer is no, then he is not guilty.

"If you answer yes you need to consider: 2. Was the forceful contact made without Slater using or attempting to use both his arms including his hands to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

"3. Was Slater's conduct careless? I remind you he is charged with a careless act, not an intentional act."


Say no more.

[Andrew Walker]

The judiciary are just the tip of the iceburg. We have absolutely no chance on Sunday. The judiciary, the refs and bunker and media are all stacked against us and the commentators will try and sway bunker decisions against us. From what I’m reading, organised crime is involved in a storm win and it’s big, big bucks invested for a win. There’s no way we are ‘allowed to win’ see how they suspended Mitchell and Napa? We were the only ones standing in the way. Now we stand no chance at all with slater playing and an injured Cronk.

They didnt clear Mitchell to play and wanted us to lose. This proves my point that the NRL are involved in match fixing themselves.

Whilst I think NRL is corrupt You have proved nothing with this post. Made some serious allegations on what you have read Provide a link that quotes this organised crime and big betting on Melbourne to win

[chopstiks]

It’s totally obvious now that there is one set of rules for certain players and a totally different set for others. Your Smiffs, Billy’s, and the likes have clearly benefitted from this their entire career which to me casts doubt now on just how great there truely are. Regularly, these guys get away with crap that the ‘other half’ don’t, thus making them appear better than the rest.

The ansolute fix in favoritism for Slater from the NRL has been shown through his Origin award this year and now this which is going to leave a lot of fans very a very negative opinion of a guy that should be remembered for so much more.

The scary thing is that those 2 are pegged as future NRL administration.

[bondi.boy]

When the Storm win...Sutton's style of refereeing sure seems to suit the Storm...boo them and the refs/NRL continually.
In fact, any referee's style seems to suit the Storm...didn't they get the first 4 or 5 penalties against us in Adelaide?

Boo Slater, boo the whole lot of them...Smith, the lot of them.
If Slater gets the Clive Churchill Medal...boo him senseless.

SuperLeague wins again.

[elo]

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew has asked panel members to consider the following.

"1. Was there forceful contact with the shoulder or upper arm? Bellew says if your answer is no, then he is not guilty.

"If you answer yes you need to consider: 2. Was the forceful contact made without Slater using or attempting to use both his arms including his hands to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

"3. Was Slater's conduct careless? I remind you he is charged with a careless act, not an intentional act."


Say no more.

So basically, every shoulder charge that doesn't make contact with the head is legal again......as it should be. Let's get it on.

[Spirit of 66]

Judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew has asked panel members to consider the following.

"1. Was there forceful contact with the shoulder or upper arm? Bellew says if your answer is no, then he is not guilty.

"If you answer yes you need to consider: 2. Was the forceful contact made without Slater using or attempting to use both his arms including his hands to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player.

"3. Was Slater's conduct careless? I remind you he is charged with a careless act, not an intentional act."


Say no more.

It would be good to hear the official answer to these questions. The defence was saying the forceful contact was through Slaters pectoral muscle, that he did attempt to use both his arms and that he took all possible care.

I look forward to Greenburg’s frame by frame video explanation, presumably validating all three of these defences.

[rented tracksuit]

The scary thing is that those 2 are pegged as future NRL administration.

Terrifying.

[Easts to Win]

I can’t believe the shoulder charge is back ! Our boys better get the same treatment as that piece of crap Slater did .

[Jacks Fur Coat]

So basically, every shoulder charge that doesn't make contact with the head is legal again......as it should be. Let's get it on.

Exactly...that's the common sense "pub test" that the overwhelming majority would support I imagine.

[Rooster_6]

So basically, every shoulder charge that doesn't make contact with the head is legal again......as it should be. Let's get it on.

Wrong, this was an independent tribunal.

The NRL still penalised the tackle and handed down the one match suspension.

That's the kicker in all this... that it's not even an NRL ruling.