Normally I tend not make offer opinion on judiciary decisions.
This Bird decision; well now I’m getting suspicious about who how why they are determined. Bird’s was two strong centres asserting themselves for ascendency in a tough game situation. Yes, push and shove near the end and some Manly players ran in to milk out a penalty ( like all club players do ). Not much in it.
Last year Fui I think copped 3 weeks( was it year before on big Paulo from eels?)) for ‘hip drop’. It looked like a standard tackle around the legs that became a supposed ‘ hip drop’ in nothing more than the tackle momentum. Cameron Munster effected an apparent classic ‘ hip drop’ and told that’s ok last week. Imo nothing deliberate in both comparison examples. Suspicious that with Kaufsusi getting suspended the NRL didn’t want to cheese off the Melbourne fan base by ousting Munster another Melbourne star also? You can’t blame people for suspicion when it’s there to compare on the vision.
Sometimes the inconsistency such as Frizz touching a ref was astounding. In the following weeks about 4 or 5 ref touches occurred and similar and innocuous as Frizz , but that the Frizz one was a judiciary orphan wasn’t it? Was any explanation given for why Frizz and not others. I think Hayne touched a ref accidentally soon thereafter?
All strange in my view. Someone will explain to me I guess.