The last man to miss a grand final through suspension has thrown his support behind retiring Melbourne star Billy Slater to beat a shoulder charge ban and play in the NRL decider.
Former hooker Issac Luke is the most recent member of unenviable list of players to have been rubbed out of a grand final through suspension after missing the 2014 finale for South Sydney.
Slater's grade one charge on Saturday means he will miss the decider for his try-saving bump on Cronulla's Sosaia Feki unless he's found not guilty at the NRL judiciary next week.
The Storm are pushing to have the case earlier than usual on Monday.
Luke, who felt the pain of watching from the sideline four years ago at the Rabbitohs, took to social media to voice his support for Slater.
"I reckon he should play," Luke said on Twitter.
"No matter what the crime is ... Because that last week sucks not being apart (sic) of it even though the club done everything for me to be part of it."
Luke is one of several big names on a list of players to have missed grand finals through suspension, alongside the likes of Melbourne skipper Cameron Smith, rugby league Immortal Arthur Beetson and legendary Balmain prop Steve Roach.
Smith has since said missing the 2008 decider against Manly still haunts him, while Roach admitted 20 years after the 1988 grand final that his absence still caused him pain.
Slater won the support of several former players on Saturday after stand-in Sharks captain Luke Lewis also questioned how he could be charged following Friday night's match.
He also received backing from an unexpected source, with Penrith boss and Nine Network commentator Phil Gould tweeting a message of support from former judiciary chairman Paul Conlon.
"He braced for inevitable contact a metre from the corner post," the message from Conlon said.
"What he actually did could not be actually said to involve unacceptable risk of injury. There was no contact with the head of Feki - therefore no danger.
"For the sake of the game of RL, I hope an experienced and sensible judiciary panel will see it that way."
Share
