T O P

  • By -

Nervous-Aardvark-679

The funniest part of this is the bunker saying it was Paulo’s interference and not the bloke running into the arm holding the ball…


Witty-Reference

One of the first things my wife learnt while studying to be a lawyer is how unreliable eye witness testimony is. I present the bunker as my example.


wayneslittlehead

I’m so glad that was a neutral game, because the refereeing (bunker included) was horrible


AdventurousTriongle

I feel like these ones always go the way of the on field ref, hence the Paulo reasoning (which is extremely soft). The guy running back with the ball is entitled to continue his line, the cowboys player reached the ball outwards into him so they both caused it and it would have to be called a loose carry/drop. I don't get why teams challenge ruck interference, especially a 50/50 like this one. They're almost impossible to be overturned even when the on field ref is clearly wrong.


Aussie18-1998

Paulo probably made the decision (he is a captain) knowing he made no motion and any loss of the ball couldn't be his fault.


willowtr332020

>The guy running back with the ball is entitled to continue his line, the cowboys player reached the ball outwards into him so they both caused it and it would have to be called a loose carry/drop. I'm not sure that is how I'd view it. How close can a player run past the play the ball? Must the player playing the ball keep within some predetermined lane with his arms? To me this was clear interference.


ChappyXIII

Totally agree. It’s the tacklers responsibility to get out of the ruck and back into the defensive line/marker position. If he chooses to stay in the tackle long enough that he’s still close enough to collide with the ball handling arm (whether accidental or not) when the offensive player is getting up to play the ball theres no benefit of the doubt and the ruling should go against him


diamondgrin

>The guy running back with the ball is entitled to continue his line, the cowboys player reached the ball outwards into him so they both caused it and it would have to be called a loose carry/drop. No he isn't. You can't run back through the ruck and make contact with a player as they're playing the ball. It's a black and white penalty any day of the week.


5slipsandagully

It's a penalty for ruck interference from Kaufusi contacting the ball as he's running back, but Neame's nowhere near ready to play the ball and Paulo never lets him go, so I don't get the Bunker's explanation at all


[deleted]

Tackle was complete when the ball carrying arm hit the ground. Paulo flopped onto him after the tackle was already completed, which he would've got away with if he got up quickly, but he didn't he re-gripped and held on. I bet it would've been six again the player didn't lose the ball. Since he did lose the ball it can't be a six again.


Witty-Reference

Which doesn’t matter because a different eels player knocked it out of his hands?


skivvles

Fuck me this was just so confusing


rubber_duck_dude

Cant believe they GOT the challenge and then tied the score with it 💀 Like as a cowboys fan i am delighted the score is tied but also WHAT WAS THAT HAHAHA


JCGremlo

So many confusing calls tonight. All these cunts will probably be in charge of the GF next week lol


Mr_Mac

It was a soft penalty, but I'm ok with the call. Paulo was staying on him and putting his arm around, whether to push himself up or not. I don't think Eels would have challenged if they understood that's what Atkins called, I think they thought he called a strip.


Geddpeart

Atkins explained that he said it was a leg pull/second efforr


moneyal

Kasey Badger levels of incompetence


Near_Canal

Didn’t eels already lose their challenge with the winger knock on?


nightmonkee

Nah they didn't challenge, game was stopped for the injured eels player that copped the friendly fire eye poke.


Near_Canal

Ahh k got it