stevied
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,617
I'll probably get howled down here but, to my way of thinking, the NRL has dropped the ball regarding the Slater shoulder charge decision.
Firstly, I believe Slater to be an outstanding fullback, possibly the best the game has seen. I also think he has become a real role model and ornament to the game. A niggling primadonna earlier in his career but an ornament now. I thoroughly believe that he deserves to finish his career by playing in an NRL grand final. Most fans, commentators and journos would like to see this happen. However, I believe that he should not be playing on Sunday. The rule is black and white; if contact is made using the shoulder and no arms, it is a shoulder charge and this equates to 200 points and a one week suspension. There is no grey. Slater made a shoulder charge and one of his opponents on Sunday, Boyd Cordner said as much.
Now why did the League decide to outlaw the shoulder charge? Because a young player died from the effects of such a tackle. Yes, A PLAYER DIED.
The NRL wanted to send a strong message that such a tactic would not be tolerated, hence the 200 points and automatic suspension. But, here we have a situation, where the rules of the game were waived. The League had a chance to show strength and make player safety a priority. It also had a golden opportunity to change the public's perception of them as a weak, inconsistent rabble. But, no, the decision was predictable and shortsighted. What will constitute a shoulder tackle in the future? Only ones that are front on and not preventing a try? Or only ones that don't involve a star player competing in his last grand final?
Sadly, the NRL has created another problem for itself, not with a lack consistency but with a lack of balls.
Firstly, I believe Slater to be an outstanding fullback, possibly the best the game has seen. I also think he has become a real role model and ornament to the game. A niggling primadonna earlier in his career but an ornament now. I thoroughly believe that he deserves to finish his career by playing in an NRL grand final. Most fans, commentators and journos would like to see this happen. However, I believe that he should not be playing on Sunday. The rule is black and white; if contact is made using the shoulder and no arms, it is a shoulder charge and this equates to 200 points and a one week suspension. There is no grey. Slater made a shoulder charge and one of his opponents on Sunday, Boyd Cordner said as much.
Now why did the League decide to outlaw the shoulder charge? Because a young player died from the effects of such a tackle. Yes, A PLAYER DIED.
The NRL wanted to send a strong message that such a tactic would not be tolerated, hence the 200 points and automatic suspension. But, here we have a situation, where the rules of the game were waived. The League had a chance to show strength and make player safety a priority. It also had a golden opportunity to change the public's perception of them as a weak, inconsistent rabble. But, no, the decision was predictable and shortsighted. What will constitute a shoulder tackle in the future? Only ones that are front on and not preventing a try? Or only ones that don't involve a star player competing in his last grand final?
Sadly, the NRL has created another problem for itself, not with a lack consistency but with a lack of balls.