RIP NRL

[AlwaysGreen]

The scars of Papali's massive legal hit on Carch's crush Gal all those years ago really run deep.

Yep, and I know, groupie, that's peptide munching, racist, grub, attention whore, multiple losing origin captain, ball hog stat padding premiership winner Gal.

 

[TheDalek079]

Premiership winning Gal. Won more premierships than Canberra in the last 20 years

 

[carcharias]

The scars of Papali's massive legal hit on Carch's crush Gal all those years ago really run deep.

Yep, and I know, groupie, that's peptide munching, racist, grub, attention whore, multiple losing origin captain, ball hog stat padding premiership winner Gal.

You blokes are the ones who continually bring it up.
I actually couldn’t care less.

I prefer to talk about the time my team won the comp.
Good times.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

You blokes are the ones who continually bring it up.
I actually couldn’t care less.

I prefer to talk about the time my team won the comp.
Good times.

We've won it 3 times.

Even better times.

And Mal cried better than Gal.

 

[carcharias]

We've won it 3 times.

Even better times.

And Mal cried better than Gal.

Both pretty crook looking criers to be honest.

 

[Valheru]

That’s just being disingenuous
Cummins f**ked up and affected play

He didn’t even admit he called 6 again

Disingenuous? You are the one who is a stickler for the rules and I am just conveying the rules to you.

Cummins said he was asking if it was 6 again, not calling 6 again. Accepting that as false, from there he has sole discretion with the other ref as to whether it was a mutual infringement or not, he decided it wasn't thus the right call was made.

 

[bull rider]

Disingenuous? You are the one who is a stickler for the rules and I am just conveying the rules to you.

Cummins said he was asking if it was 6 again, not calling 6 again. Accepting that as false, from there he has sole discretion with the other ref as to whether it was a mutual infringement or not, he decided it wasn't thus the right call was made.

Why the f**k was he waving his arm around like he was caught in a rip then?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Why the f**k was he waving his arm around like he was caught in a rip then?

Maybe the idiot gesticulates his question. Like when asking for the bill in a restaurant, you wave your hand as if writing with an invisible pen, to borrow a Seinfeld

 

[Game_Breaker]

Disingenuous? You are the one who is a stickler for the rules and I am just conveying the rules to you.

Cummins said he was asking if it was 6 again, not calling 6 again. Accepting that as false, from there he has sole discretion with the other ref as to whether it was a mutual infringement or not, he decided it wasn't thus the right call was made.

Hahahaha
Once he waves his hand, that’s the call

“Oh he was simply asking a question”
You’re not that gullible in real life?

 

[Valheru]

Hahahaha
Once he waves his hand, that’s the call

“Oh he was simply asking a question”
You’re not that gullible in real life?

I said "Accepting that he called 6 again it is up to him if it is a mutual infringement". He said it wasn't.

What are your thoughts on that keeping in mind the rules which you are so careful to follow?

 

[Game_Breaker]

I said "Accepting that he called 6 again it is up to him if it is a mutual infringement". He said it wasn't.

What are your thoughts on that keeping in mind the rules which you are so careful to follow?

He also said he didn’t call 6 again when the vision clearly showed he did. He lied in order to avoid the mutual infringement ruling

 

[Canard]

Does anyone, including Roosters fans, genuinely believe the recent press about their potential salary cap issues?

You have to be pretty gullible.

 

[Valheru]

He also said he didn’t call 6 again when the vision clearly showed he did. He lied in order to avoid the mutual infringement ruling

As I have shown you, there is nothing in the rules that says it is a mutual infringement.

 

[Game_Breaker]

As I have shown you, there is nothing in the rules that says it is a mutual infringement.

The rules don’t explain what a mutual infringement is, so you haven’t shown anything

You just have to have your head in the sand to genuinely believe it isn’t

 

[super_coach]

Nearly three weeks on and we are still talking about. Give it a break, nothing is going to change the result.
99% of people think it was a rubbish call, but it was only one call out of a thousand. Every game this year there has been rubbish calls and usually against the less favoured team. If BJ had thrown a proper pass it would have probably game set and match.

Anyway next GF the Chooks not only will have the refs but they will also have their home ground

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Nearly three weeks on

It hasn’t even been 2 weeks

 

[horrie hastings]

Nearly three weeks on and we are still talking about. Give it a break, nothing is going to change the result.
99% of people think it was a rubbish call, but it was only one call out of a thousand. Every game this year there has been rubbish calls and usually against the less favoured team. If BJ had thrown a proper pass it would have probably game set and match.

Yes I have been away( actually still away) and I was hoping this thread had run it cause by now but it just seems to be going around and around in circles , wish the mods would close it, it’s reached it use by date.

 

[Valheru]

The rules don’t explain what a mutual infringement is, so you haven’t shown anything

You just have to have your head in the sand to genuinely believe it isn’t

It says the referee has sole discretion as to what a mutual infringement is. They ruled the 6 again incident wasn't.

I know that doesn't fit your narrative but a Canberra scrum feed would not have been the correct decision as per the rules.

 

[Game_Breaker]

It says the referee has sole discretion as to what a mutual infringement is. They ruled the 6 again incident wasn't.

I know that doesn't fit your narrative but a Canberra scrum feed would not have been the correct decision as per the rules.

I’ll explain it slowly so you can understand

Cummins didn’t even admit he called 6 again so the whole premise of your argument is false

How can he rule the 6 again is not a mutual infringement if he lied about even signalling 6 again?

The reason he lied is because if he told the truth he would’ve been forced to rule he caused a mutual infringement

Do you understand now?

 

[Valheru]

I’ll explain it slowly so you can understand

Cummins didn’t even admit he called 6 again so the whole premise of your argument is false

How can he rule the 6 again is not a mutual infringement if he lied about even signalling 6 again?

The reason he lied is because if he told the truth he would’ve been forced to rule he caused a mutual infringement

Do you understand now?

No he wouldn't be forced to do so because the rules don't say he has to.

Understand now?