Hand, collision speed are central to Billy Slater’s case at judiciary ahead of NRL grand final
BILLY Slater’s right hand and speed at which the Storm champion was running are central to the club’s fight at the Judiciary in Sydney on Tuesday against a two-match shoulder charge ban.
Storm
Don't miss out on the headlines from Storm. Followed categories will be added to My News.
BILLY Slater’s right hand and speed at which the Melbourne Storm champion was running are central to the club’s fight at the NRL Judiciary in Sydney on Tuesday against a two-match shoulder charge ban.
Slater, 35, will be in Sydney on Tuesday to contest the grand one shoulder charge levelled against him by the NRL match review committee, for the 14th minute hit on Cronulla Sharks winger Sosaia Feki.
SUSPENSION: Powerful warning on why Billy must be banned
ULTIMATE GUIDE: Experts split on Dally M winner
BLOG WITH BUZZ: Camera angle that can save Slater
The judiciary, made up of three past players, must be satisfied Slater made forceful contact and did not use or “attempt to use” his arms, including hands, to tackle or take hold of Feki.
The Storm, through Sydney-based lawyer Nick Ghabar, will argue Slater’s extended right arm is an attempt to tackle or take hold of Feki, having realised the collision was inevitable.
Slater said after the game he anticipated Feki would step inside the running line to avoid capture.
The speed of the incident and direction of travel will also be taken into account.
The Storm cannot use previous shoulder charge cases to bolster the not guilty plea.
Slater’s fate, basically, rests on Ghabar’s ability to convince the NRL Judiciary the incident should be seen as a collision and not a shoulder charge.
The NRL tightened its interpretation of shoulder charges last year to stop the potentially dangerous practice of players, often big and powerful forwards, bracing to bump unsuspecting ball carriers.
Storm centre Will Chambers on Monday attempted to hose down the Slater judiciary frenzy.
“It’s none of my business really. It’s in front of a judiciary,” Chambers said.
“There’s no point all talking about it, it will happen on Tuesday night and we’ll have answer.
Chambers stuck to his guns when pressed about the Slater saga, which threatens to cloud, at the very least the build-up to, Sunday’s big dance.
“It’s not for me to comment. Or anyone to really comment on it,” Chambers said.
“It’s in the NRL’s hands and what will happen will happen.”
Storm veteran Ryan Hoffman sat on the fence on Monday about Slater’s chances.
“If I had a coin I’d flip it,” Hoffman said.
“Obviously people don’t deserve to go out like that but you just don’t know what’s going to happen at the judiciary, so your guess is as good as mine.”
While Jahrome Hughes, likely to be Slater’s replacement, if required, said:
“Every fullback would have done what Billy did,” Hughes said.
“You’d want your fullback to do what Billy did. It’s a tough one, but I don’t think anyone would want to be suspended for it.”
If successful, Slater will be free to take his place in Sunday’s NRL decider against Sydney Roosters.
If not, the Storm and Immortal-in-waiting must decide whether to test a point of law within the judiciary’s decision before the Appeals Committee.
The appeals process has been used sparingly in the past, the most recent about a decade ago.
There is nothing stopping Slater taking the matter to court, even after the Appeals Committee, seeking an injunction.
Sydney Swans successfully obtained a Supreme Court injunction less than 48 hours before the 1996 AFL Grand Final, which allowed defender Andrew Dunkley, who was reported for striking, to play.
Dunkley was subsequently banned for three matches after the grand final loss to North Melbourne.
The Storm will consider all avenues, if required, after the judiciary hearing, but the club is mindful of the saga becoming any more of a distraction ahead of Sunday’s game.