I don't know what's worse

[Guest]

The bias against us by the refs or the bias against us in the Channel nine commentary.
Ray Warren, Sterling, Gould....I thought Rothwitt and the imbecile from Fox hated us.
But these 3 clowns on 9 have taken it to a new level.

[Tommy Smith]

Gould doesn't hate us ... the other two clearly do.

Gus is probably just trying to appear impartial.

[milanja]

And yet they always want maloney on the footy show, or sbw or pearce.

Media ban from the chooks maybe?

Where's ralphy? we should forfeit this season and fcuk up the guaranteed 8 matches of tv rights, how much could they possibly sue is for??

[Guest]

King Wally is ok, but Warren and Sterling.......where's the cement truck?

[milanja]

King Wally is ok, but Warren and Sterling.......where's the cement truck?

dont mind sterlo at all, he actually thought our dis allowed was a try, robbo thought the opposite.

[Tommy Smith]

It was clearly a no try. As Gus said one EXACTLY the same was allowed earlier in the year.

Consistency, ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

[kurtsherlock6]

And suprsingly Cummins called it no try when he refered it to the video refs. As the cheating prick had called it no try it was a bit hard to over rule. I must admit though at the game my 1st reaction was no try.

[stsae]

It was clearly a no try. As Gus said one EXACTLY the same was allowed earlier in the year.

Consistency, ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

It was probably technically by one step a no try but watching The Wankos first try tonight Creagh is hit by a decoy then just slips off the tackle when The Wankos score but it's given.

Far worse than ours when the decoy touches no one he only did his job and fooled the defence.

Consistency.

[TheLoneRooster]

Nailed it (as usual) backwards - consistency. And of course if unfavourable consistency is going to be applied, Easts will cop it.

[The Brain]

It was probably technically by one step a no try but watching The Wankos first try tonight Creagh is hit by a decoy then just slips off the tackle when The Wankos score but it's given.

Far worse than ours when the decoy touches no one he only did his job and fooled the defence.

Consistency.

Yes but Pearce ran shepherd

[Hawkeye]

See this is where they've totally f@cked up the obstruction rule and over complicated it to the point that it has a inconsistent interpretation.

Growing up watching footy, it was a shepherd if you ran behind a teammate and obstructed a defender. So if you ran behind a teammate and no defender was obstructed, there was no penalty ....simple ! easy to interpret !!

Now its all about running behind someone "to gain an advantage", and this is where we get inconsistency based on whoever is the video ref or numbskull in pink. As Gus said last night, under the current rule he thought no try, but two weeks ago exactly the same situation was awarded. Watching it last night Gus thought no try, Sterling thought try.

Whose the dope responsible for mucking up what use to be a straight forward rule into what nowdays has evolved into a video ref lottery ...... bet it was Bill Harrigan ??

[TheLoneRooster]

Top post Hawkeye. It has introduced ANOTHER area for the refs to exercise their discretion.

[stsae]

See this is where they've totally f@cked up the obstruction rule and over complicated it to the point that it has a inconsistent interpretation.

Growing up watching footy, it was a shepherd if you ran behind a teammate and obstructed a defender. So if you ran behind a teammate and no defender was obstructed, there was no penalty ....simple ! easy to interpret !!

Now its all about running behind someone "to gain an advantage", and this is where we get inconsistency based on whoever is the video ref or numbskull in pink. As Gus said last night, under the current rule he thought no try, but two weeks ago exactly the same situation was awarded. Watching it last night Gus thought no try, Sterling thought try.

Whose the dope responsible for mucking up what use to be a straight forward rule into what nowdays has evolved into a video ref lottery ...... bet it was Bill Harrigan ??

Great post mate.

And yes the ego formerly known as Harrigant is responsible.

I honestly would cop it if we hadn't seen a worse one allowed the other week.

No consistency is especially hard to take when it's involving the Vidiot.