Um. Well, how about by attempting a legitimate tackle for starters Billy?
Two wrongs ordinarily don't make a right but they obviously do when it comes to the NRL judiciary.
So as long as you're trying to stop the opposition scoring then it's ok to commit a foul, to tackle outside the laws of the game because what else can you do?
What kind of excuse is that?
And what does that now say to every other player who in future does the same?
It says, clearly, unequivocally, that this is a fair and reasonable way to act.
Despite the game's lawmakers specifically rewriting the rules to protect the players and remove these no-arm shoulder charges permanently from the game.
The question was never "how am I meant to stop him" but how was I meant to stop him within the laws of the sport.
Because if it's not then why bother ever citing anyone for foul play?
And just because it's his final game and swansong and fairytale finish is irrelevant.
He did the crime. The only thing that's important is making sure he also did the time. So he gets off and as I said no great surprise.
As for the NRL I think the consequence of letting him play will now linger long after finals
Day and just like Billy himself, they've only got themselves to blame.