Billy Slater not charged for the shoulder charge on Dugan.
From just before the 10min mark of this video http://www.nrl.com/nrl-hq-round-12-origin-1/tabid/10959/contentid/757016/default.aspx Michael Buettner explains why Slater wasn't charged. From my understanding he seems to say that Slater wasn't charged because Dugan wasn't hurt. Seems to be a dangerous way of dealing with these kind of fouls, especially when they are from the most professional of foulers.
Posted Jun 1, 2015, 9:18 AM UTC
2373
Good Ol' Teflon Billy!
The only cunt in sporting history to kick someone in the face and not only not get reprimanded but also got an in game penalty!
The cunts an amazing player but he needs to get pulled up for bad shit.
Having said all that: I actually don't think there was anything wrong with his hit on Dugan. But the rules are that you can't shoulder charge (which is what I disagree with) and on that alone, he should be charged.
I agree with you op that we shouldn't really judge an infringement by the injury caused. That's a dangerous way to go about things.
So yeah....fuck Billy
I didn't really see the "charge" part of the shoulder-charge. It was more like shoulder-brace for impact. But I am definitely biased, so take that as you will.
Here's the definition of Shoulder Charge from the NRL rules glossary:
Nothing about having to have forward momentum.
but im sure the spirit of that rule is to outlaw players rushing in with their shoulders and putting a hit on other players, not to make bracing for impact like that illegal
don't really think there was anything in that, can't really expect billy to just open his arms wide to 100kg running at him and saying 'YEAH DUGS SMASH ME IN MY MIDRIFF PLS'. of course he is going to brace himself for impact
I think the purpose of the law was to cut down on dangerous play resulting from a player intentionally using their shoulder to give impact to the attackers sternum, ribs and guts. SBW would use stationary shoulder charges all the time and he injured players with it.
Doesn't matter who has more momentum at the point of contact, it's still dangerous as per the law.
Slater had the choice to tackle legally, or if he was scared of the impact, move out of the way.
He intentionally used his shoulder because it protected him whilst putting Dugan in danger. That is a shoulder charge and in my mind exactly what the law sets out to prevent.
fuck the next time someone sees dugs they have to yell this and get his reaction
Okay yeah, based on that he definitely breached those rules enough to warrant a penalty, but I'm not sold on being charged for it.
The degree of intent behind the action is an important factor in most judiciary rulings.
You think he didn't intend to position himself in that way?
Well then. Um interepretation? who knows
The point of a definition is to make it as least susceptible to varying interpretation as possible. That's why it's a definition. I'd be interested to hear how you've interpreted that definition in a way that constitutes billy not doing anything illegal.
This guy knows physics, don't argue with him cause he's right
If he has no forward momentum then it could be argued that he wasn't the one to make contact. Just as it isn't obstruction if the defender makes contact with an attacking player first, you could argue that Slater stopping his run means that he wasn't the one to make contact.
That said, I haven't actually watched it since the match and I was pretty drunk by that point so I can't comment on whether or not he did stop himself before putting his shoulder up.
Except that he originally moved into Dugan's path in an attempt to stop him. Regardless of if he pulled out at the last second or not he did have every intention of making contact.
Yeah but if we follow the very definition of the law I could pick up a ball and then jump onto an unconscious opposition player. So long as I touch their shoulder by that very definition I could make an argument that is a "shoulder charge"
That's fucking stupid, there's got to be some common sense. You said in another comment that there's no gray area then by that logic my argument just now constitutes a shoulder charge which is absolutely ludicrous. That's how I feel about scrutinizing to the letter of the law, there's a reason that there's discretion given to referees and I think they wielded that discretion appropriately on this occasion and apparently the judiciary agree even if from the sounds of it their reasoning isn't particularly sound I still think they got it right.
You. I like you, but is physics really your bitch?
A motorist traveling at 10m/s, was able to bring his car to rest in a distance of 10m. If he had been traveling at 30m/s, in what distance could he bring his cart to rest using the same breaking force?
I like you too Chubbs. And I like your mum. Like, like-like her.
90m. That little counter intuitive one is as old as the hills. And who the hell drives a cart?
Fact of the matter is, this man is a professional athlete paid to, at the very least, understand the rules of the game. To suggest that the only way he was capable of bracing for impact in that situation was to stick his shoulder out is ridiculous, considering that the point of running at him in the first place was to legally tackle him (I'm hoping).
If he's good enough to get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete stunning acts of athleticism and coordination, he's good enough to not drop his fucking shoulder.
I'd suggest going back to rewatch the incident on NRL.com at full speed.
Slater legit has around 0.20 seconds from the time he actually kicks the ball to brace for impact or dodge the tackle completely. It's great you think he's a good athlete but he's not superman, there's a limit to what is actually humanly possible within that window let alone the fact he has to make a judgement call on whether he's going to dummy, step, kick or whatever so he can't just bail out the second Dugan feints towards any motion.
I'm impressed this has even got this much attention considering I think there's far worse examples of dangerous and later contact in the NRL on a consistent basis let alone it seems clear to me it's self-preservation but whatever it's the circus that is Origin.
[deleted]
there is a truck that drives past my work almost everyday with billy's smug prick face on it. It gets me mad every time i see it
The tautliner with him in a pool?
Billy Slater is the only player who can be taken out midair, and have it all be his fault.
LOLz yeah I think that one will go down in history. Uuuum he was gonna tackle me in the air if I didn't kick him in the head!! Riiiight but your foot hit him in the head before he touched you. Absolutely no chance he was gonna wait for you to land and then wrap you up while you're landing.
It's not AFL Billy! People can tackle you when you catch a kicked ball.
I'll get downvoted but if you don't tackle him in the air you won't get your face kicked in.
But if you want to contest the ball from front on running straight it's perfectly acceptable to get kicked, because Only Billy is allowed the perfect position to catch the ball
Yeah that's a fair point.
Thank you, it's funny because I swear I was in the very minority at the time the incident occurred
That reasoning is literally Bart Simpsons, "I'm just going to swing my arms like this!"
No because tackling someone mid air is illegal. I'm not one to think Billy Slater is a clean player. There is just a lot worse then this one he has done. What about in the game before the grand final in 2009. I forget the wingers name he murdered but he deserved weeks for that and played in the GF.
Hold on. Lets take the context away from the incident. HE KICKED SOMEONE IN THE FACE. STUDS. OUT.
Ok, now lets put context back in. He was jumping for the ball, and HE KICKED SOMEONE IN THE FACE. STUDS. OUT.
But you are correct, you cant tackle someone in the air (unless they are the attacking team - dumbest fucking thing i have ever heard). so if Klemmer had have touched him in the air, then yes, it should have been a penalty to Storm. But he didnt get tackled in the air, one of the reasons? HE KICKED SOMEONE IN THE FACE. STUDS. OUT.
Union players have started doing it too, it is now highly illegal (as in red card/send off offence) to do it. There is no justification for it. At all.