If you want proof of corruption in the NRL, watch the Tigers v NQ game

[Eggspert]

Ridiculous decision. Poor old Tigers busted their guts against a top 4 team away from home for 79:59 sec to get robbed.

NRL gets defensive & offended & wants everyone to not question & not disrespect their refs but decisions like that bring the game into disrepute more than anything.

Imagine losing a GF to a decision like that FFS.

[Rooster_6]

So Holmes was in his ear piece? Watch it again...u got any vision?

Sorry not Holmes, it was Townsend who challenged it.

https://youtu.be/Y6FvbpRdg1I

[stringaz]

Ever since they manufactured the 2014 premiership and there were no repercussions for it, the horse had proverbially bolted.

They can swing the money around wherever they want it to go with their manipulation in the middle. I heard in the last few weeks that a win for a club can equal something around 200K. Let alone what a premiership means for the "area" the team comes from.

Ashley Klein is not incompetent. I watched him ref the first origin beautifully in that first 20 minutes. Then the Blues started marching on and the tone changed.

I still refer to that game against souffs where latrell smashed joey in the face, Manu had to literally break game protocol for action to be taken. Only to be screamed at by klein and no duty of care shown.

Same as dylan browns knees into hutch. They took 20 minutes and all of half time to put him on report.

Even our own coach and insiders knew we were rorted against the riff a few weeks ago.

There is also the question of sports betting that hangs as a cloud over the sport.

Its deadset turned political. Need to remove the current regime if anything will change. Funnily enough we might miss David Gallop these days.

[Bruce Pickett]

Having said all that, I still like Caps challenge. And the 2 point field goals.

What I hate and want to destroy is the 6A.

The bunker increasingly intruding in general play is very, very dangerous. They have turned RU into a joke. They are starting to do so in RL They should be limited to:

1. Help .adjudicate on try IF the ref requests. They are not to overturn on field ref decision for a try.
2. Captain challenge.

They should not be looking at foul play. Leave that to MRC, ref and touchies.

[King Salvo]

People may or may not remember a Roosters game last season 2nd game against Brisbane where Keighran kicked a late penalty goal to win the game 21-20

The lead up to this

E Buther loses the ball in attempting to play it and the ref rules knock on

Tedesco uses the captains challenge not for the knock on ruling in the play the ball but the alleged earlier high tackle by Flegler on Sitili

The Bunker upholds the challenge for the high tackle and the Roosters were awarded a penalty.

The debate about this penalty was that it was viewed that play had continued on past that tackle and thus no challenge should have been allowed.

I recall the NRL ruling was that since the play had not progressed to the next tackle after a correct play the ball that during this stoppage in play Tedesco could challenge as the incident occurred during the same tackle.

I don't see the difference in this ruling in allowing the challenge as play hadn't progressed either and there was a stoppage in play.

By the sounds of it both the Ref and Linesperson saw the escort which if so raises another question why it was not penalised onfield instead of it having to be challenged by the Cows and referred to the bunker for them to then recommend that a penalty be awarded.

[Rooster_6]

People may or may not remember a Roosters game last season 2nd game against Brisbane where Keighran kicked a late penalty goal to win the game 21-20

The lead up to this

E Buther loses the ball in attempting to play it and the ref rules knock on

Tedesco uses the captains challenge not for the knock on ruling in the play the ball but the alleged earlier high tackle by Flegler on Sitili

The Bunker upholds the challenge for the high tackle and the Roosters were awarded a penalty.

The debate about this penalty was that it was viewed that play had continued on past that tackle and thus no challenge should have been allowed.

I recall the NRL ruling was that since the play had not progressed to the next tackle after a correct play the ball that during this stoppage in play Tedesco could challenge as the incident occurred during the same tackle.

I don't see the difference in this ruling in allowing the challenge as play hadn't progressed either and there was a stoppage in play.

By the sounds of it both the Ref and Linesperson saw the escort which if so raises another question why it was not penalised onfield instead of it having to be challenged by the Cows and referred to the bunker for them to then recommend that a penalty be awarded.

What was the stoppage in play?

[Inflictor]

People may or may not remember a Roosters game last season 2nd game against Brisbane where Keighran kicked a late penalty goal to win the game 21-20

The lead up to this

E Buther loses the ball in attempting to play it and the ref rules knock on

Tedesco uses the captains challenge not for the knock on ruling in the play the ball but the alleged earlier high tackle by Flegler on Sitili

The Bunker upholds the challenge for the high tackle and the Roosters were awarded a penalty.

The debate about this penalty was that it was viewed that play had continued on past that tackle and thus no challenge should have been allowed.

I recall the NRL ruling was that since the play had not progressed to the next tackle after a correct play the ball that during this stoppage in play Tedesco could challenge as the incident occurred during the same tackle.

I don't see the difference in this ruling in allowing the challenge as play hadn't progressed either and there was a stoppage in play.

By the sounds of it both the Ref and Linesperson saw the escort which if so raises another question why it was not penalised onfield instead of it having to be challenged by the Cows and referred to the bunker for them to then recommend that a penalty be awarded.

The ref asked what are you challenging so he had no idea about the escort. The linesman didn't call it and is based on Townsend saying he nodded at him. Nothing but hearsay.

Annesley will work all night on some way of making it the right decision.

[King Salvo]

Sorry not Holmes, it was Townsend who challenged it.

https://youtu.be/Y6FvbpRdg1I

I have no problem with the penalty as i viewed it as an escort - the debate would be if it warranted a penalty or not.

The issue may well be why it was not penalised onfield straight away as apparently/allegedly both the ref and touchie saw it and the touchie also gave the ref the heads up.

Was the ref delaying calling full time to give the Cows the opportunity to challenge and having the bunker look at it instead of them making the decision.

[BenCumminsIsACheat]

I have no problem with the penalty as i viewed it as an escort - the debate would be if it warranted a penalty or not.

The issue may well be why it was not penalised onfield straight away as apparently/allegedly both the ref and touchie saw it and the touchie also gave the ref the heads up.

Was the ref delaying calling full time to give the Cows the opportunity to challenge and having the bunker look at it instead of them making the decision.

You're even dumber than I thought if you actually think that was a penalty

[Eggspert]

Let's just cut to the chase - it wasn't an escort, interference, block play, whatever you want to call it. Challenge or no Challenge 99.99% of people know a penalty shouldn't have been given.

Kyle Feldt had a good old giggle knowing he tricked them & they would fall for it.

[King Salvo]

The ref asked what are you challenging so he had no idea about the escort. The linesman didn't call it and is based on Townsend saying he nodded at him. Nothing but hearsay.

Annesley will work all night on some way of making it the right decision.

The ref's not going to tell them what they can challenge though so of course they will ask what that are challenging and the ref didn't hesitate to refer it one has to say.

Seemed like the ref didn't want to make the decision - flick it to the bunker instead - possibly why he didn't call full time - gave the Cows the chance to challenge

[Bruce 38-0]

The only stoppage in play unfortunately is the WT player falling to the ground in an voluntary tackle as opposed to running and getting tackled. The WT player who tripped Feldt only had eyes for the kickoff - that’s where he is looking - and then runs with eyes on the ball to the ball. They was robbed.

The other point that should be made is against Feldt and hair boy Townsend even asking for it. Definitely not in the spirit of the game and should be called out for it for what it really is - cheating or is it called gamesmanship these days.

[Andrew Walker]

What I find most scary in all off this is the person defending this decision is or has been educating our children in schools

[King Salvo]

You're even dumber than I thought if you actually think that was a penalty

I obviously spend too much time viewing your posts.

[milanja]

The ref's not going to tell them what they can challenge though so of course they will ask what that are challenging and the ref didn't hesitate to refer it one has to say.

Seemed like the ref didn't want to make the decision - flick it to the bunker instead - possibly why he didn't call full time - gave the Cows the chance to challenge

The game should not have restarted at all after the tigers try, the ref blew the whistle for the try at 78.32, you get 90sec for the conversion before they call time off. Game over.

which in itself is a silly rule, they call off time for stoppages in play in the final 5min, but allow time to run during conversions. Rules to contradict rules, gotta love the clarity from this great game of ours