What? Eastwood was sliding across to make the tackle, but a Roosters player was standing in the line. That is not a poor defensive read. That is a Roosters player standing where he is not allowed to.
Things like this is why Roosters fans have no credibility, and why everyone ignores or ridicules your constant whining. You whinge about blatant breaches of the rules by your team, and constantly claim that the refs correctly disallowing your tries is just bias by the refs.
Maybe if you want others to stop treating your whinging with anything less than contempt, you should learn the rules and stop whinging about correct decisions.
Maybe if Eastwood wasn't diving like a soccer player he may have stood a chance. He didn't even bother. He milked it hard. It's shit like that which should not be rewarded.That's why it's a joke. If he legitimately goes for the tackle and is impeded without going for a dive then fair enough, I am happy with the no try - but that's not what happened. Get it ?
The Roosters player did not actually crash into Eastwood. Eastwood ran into him.
My problem is with the black and white rules and their interpretations. Or are you one of the few on here who think the NRL is great and nothing is wrong with the rules (despite the NRLs rapid decline in approval).
And since you seem to be defending the referees, do you want to go on and defend the decision to NOT sin bin Tolman who ACTUALLY impeded Mitchell unlike our player who didn't go ahead and snatch at Eastwood ?
