butchmcdick
Post Whore
- Messages
- 52,051
Nah, Feldt deserves all the hate he gets for being an obnoxious diving merkin.
View attachment 64108
Smug filthy shitstain
thanks for deardon
you can keep Jensen
Nah, Feldt deserves all the hate he gets for being an obnoxious diving merkin.
View attachment 64108
Smug filthy shitstain
That was the thing I was puzzled about.So an NRL puppet had said the challenge was legit as the ref blew his whistle on the play, but not the whistle for full time.
OK merkins, so why did he blow the whistle on the play but not full time? To check in with the bunker with 0 seconds on the clock?
I don't recall him calling time off either, so did the game end or not?
This whole thing is comical.
There is no proximity requirement to obstruction though is there?
Here are today's odds for the possibility of a full investigation-That was the worst reffing I’ve seen in any sport ever.
I genuinely believe there needs to be a full investigation into Klein’s finances. There is too much money being gambled on this sport for this to just keep getting chalked up to poor decision making
thanks for deardon
you can keep Jensen
I just watched it again, the ref doesn't blow a whistle until after asking Chad "what do you want to challenge?".That was the thing I was puzzled about.
What was the basis of the challenge? Teams can’t challenge a ‘non-call’.
The whistle needs to go for them to challenge.
The only reason why the whistle went was because time was up. There was no call for the Cowboys to challenge.
The point is by the time the cowboys restarted the game, the game was all over I didn’t realised it took a life time for 1 second to end.I think the point you are missing is.. if the bunker seen an indiscretion then tell the ref to call a penalty..but there was no penalty. , but its obvious the bunker has intervened in some fashion telling the ref something.. what? Seemed to me as though Clown was pushing him to ask the Cowboys to challenge.
That's the impression I have too.I think the point you are missing is.. if the bunker seen an indiscretion then tell the ref to call a penalty..but there was no penalty. , but its obvious the bunker has intervened in some fashion telling the ref something.. what? Seemed to me as though Clown was pushing him to ask the Cowboys to challenge.
Imagine if it were Robinson, or Stuart.If a coach gets fined $10000 for criticising the ref, the NRL owes Wests coach $10000. Every reason to blow up but he copped it sweet.
Was it drinkwater saying he looked at the touchy, and the touchy agreed with him that he should challenge? If not him, someone in the team getting advice from the nrl officials. What a disgrace for an alleged professional competitionI think the point you are missing is.. if the bunker seen an indiscretion then tell the ref to call a penalty..but there was no penalty. , but its obvious the bunker has intervened in some fashion telling the ref something.. what? Seemed to me as though Clown was pushing him to ask the Cowboys to challenge.
Was it drinkwater saying he looked at the touchy, and the touchy agreed with him that he should challenge? If not him, someone in the team getting advice from the nrl officials. What a disgrace for an alleged professional competition
Might not have been drinkwater, but it was someone in a post game interview.Drinkwater came off the field with 20mins to go.
Not sure where you got that info from, but it's not correct.
Townsend revealed that he had the support of the touch judge when he requested to challenge.Drinkwater came off the field with 20mins to go.
Not sure where you got that info from, but it's not correct.
I didn't think there was a whistle at allIgnore the bullfrog about the game not being over and concentrate in what is wrong with the second part of this by the NRL spokesperson.
“Although the referee had blown his whistle to stop the game after the last tackle was completed as time had expired, he had not yet called full-time. The whole concept of the captain’s challenge is to make sure any decision by the referee that stops the game can be reviewed. To not do so would effectively deny a team the right to have an officiating error corrected on the last play of a game just because time had expired."
What referee decision was that?
They will retrofit that the referee made a decision here as the excuse on why it should be challenged, but there was no decision.
Isn't it true that an outsider winning isn't a big deal to bookies as they set the market accordingly?
I know f**k all about betting, by the way.