Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Number6, post: 2977786, member: 9008"] If Slater tries to go front on with arms he risks taking his own head off more than Feki’s doing what he did And tackle would have more likely been ineffective. This wasn’t a cocked shoulder front on (both players vectors into each other) shoulder charge that the rule was designed for. Yes it could still go wrong like every tackle in the game so unless I want national Oztag league then that isn’t an argument. Don’t see it as a high risk event. For me if the rule is no shoulder charge deserves a minor penalty. But I imagine his lawyer will argue it is a shoulder to shoulder contest if saying a shoulder charge and put his hand on him so not a shoulder charge at all then top it off with pulling all the heartstrings and sentimentality. Not to mention commercial risk in rubbing out a legend for his last game. It’s really no win situation NRL keeps creating for itself. The only way NRL comes out of this without too much negative publicity after the game is if Roosters win despite Slater having a blinder. As for argument about need big penalties agree if u do that has to be done that instant. Operant conditioning research is very clear if you punish you do it straight away to discourage behaviour not at some point maybe down the line. People argue if death penalty is worth it as a deterrent so why would maybe missing a game of footy be more powerful than that? But if you do want a deterrent in the judiciary it’s better to have a penalty such as fine and community service consistently applied rather than the obvious reluctance to consistently penalise the Slaters, Smith’s and co rather than coming down on them hard once every few years to send a message... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 311 (members: 0, guests: 311)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now