RIP NRL

[carcharias]

He didn't watch it on Fox though, that was just a bit of bullshit.

I'm pretty certain he didn't watch it at all.

ha

yeah

I spend all this time in here and then I don’t watch the grand final?


you’re no cop.

 

[Canard]

ha

yeah

I spend all this time in here and then I don’t watch the grand final?


you’re no cop.

Your motivation would never be just pure trolling, surely not.

 

[carcharias]

Your motivation would never be just pure trolling, surely not.

Oh f**k yeah.

If people are gonna make pathetic week long “we were robbed “ calls ..about footy ..I’m gonna put shit on them..

people like you.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Oh f**k yeah.

If people are gonna make pathetic week long “we were robbed “ calls ..about footy ..I’m gonna put donkey on them..

That’s pretty hardcore

 

[carcharias]

That’s pretty hardcore

well thankyou

I like hard core

 

[Canard]

Oh f**k yeah.

If people are gonna make pathetic week long “we were robbed “ calls ..about footy ..I’m gonna put donkey on them..

people like you.

Did you get the idea from watching Fox?

 

[carcharias]

Did you get the idea from watching Fox?

nope
I got it from studying the raiders excuses posts in here.
Loads of material.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Thought it would’ve been obvious which way I was leaning. merkin shouldn’t have restarted the tackle count. You’re all happy to go with the original error only because it is detrimental to Easts. They were probably denied a rushed kick at best. Anyway I was questioning your impartiality and you still haven’t convinced me.

I'm not looking to convince you
It's not a question of guessing what could've happened. As soon as he changed his call then that is considered a mutual infringement

You were happy for the rule to apply when the ball hit your trainers head, but not in this instance
Can't have it both ways

 

[ACTPanthers]

This f**king guy.
Thinks he can speak with absolute authority to the collective mind set of a fan base base off some perceived slight by at best, a group of 2-4 fans who were sitting near him.

Make sure you dont forget your shoes on the way out

I’m Switzerland in this whole thing, but f**k me I laughed at this post! I’m serious, I couldn’t breathe, there were tears... Bravo my good man. Bravo.

 

[ACTPanthers]

well thankyou

I like hard core

I bet you do, you saucy man

 

[SBD82]

Rooster immediately went from D to A and did what they know.

At least they didn’t go A to M.

 

[carcharias]

I’m Switzerland in this whole thing, but f**k me I laughed at this post! I’m serious, I couldn’t breathe, there were tears... Bravo my good man. Bravo.

I’m Australia
No way the raiders lost the game because of that 6 again call.

 

[Valheru]

I'm not looking to convince you
It's not a question of guessing what could've happened. As soon as he changed his call then that is considered a mutual infringement

You were happy for the rule to apply when the ball hit your trainers head, but not in this instance
Can't have it both ways

It's not a mutual infringement though. There is no precedence to suggest it is and it is not explicit in the rules.

The rules state the ref is the sole judge of what constitutes a mutual infringement. Obviously they didn't feel the raiders missing the chance of a 2nd kick due to not hearing the correct call being made was an infringement.

There is precedence in the trainer one as that type of incident being ruled a mutual infringement.

 

[Canard]

I’m Australia
No way the raiders lost the game because of that 6 again call.

Newsflash, A tatted up bogan from the Shire isn't representative of Australia.

 

[carcharias]

Newsflash, A tatted up bogan from the Shire isn't representative of Australia.

ha
I have no tattoos .

 

[Canard]

ha
I have no tattoos .

You've told some lies in this thread, but not even your own mother believes this one.

 

[carcharias]

You've told some lies in this thread, but not even your own mother believes this one.

Ha
FMD
Now I’m lying about tattoo’s?

 

[Game_Breaker]

It's not a mutual infringement though. There is no precedence to suggest it is and it is not explicit in the rules.

The rules state the ref is the sole judge of what constitutes a mutual infringement. Obviously they didn't feel the raiders missing the chance of a 2nd kick due to not hearing the correct call being made was an infringement.

There is precedence in the trainer one as that type of incident being ruled a mutual infringement.

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

He didn’t even admit he called 6 again

 

[ACTPanthers]

You've told some lies in this thread, but not even your own mother believes this one.

Ha
FMD
Now I’m lying about tattoo’s?

I really don't think carch is lying about tatts. He and I have had debates before about employing people with tattoos.

 

[carcharias]

I really don't think carch is lying about tatts. He and I have had debates before about employing people with tattoos.

yes we have.

would I lie about that or watching the grand final?
It’s ridiculous.