@berniecoen@FOXNRL So you wanted the officials to change the rule interpretation right there on the spot? The decision wasn’t a disgrace. You could argue the interpretations & guidance to officials is a disgrace if you want. But you can’t say the decision was. The decision was correct.
@JaydenLawson@ImPaul23 “Ill intent” does mean it wasn’t reckless or careless, which are specifically named in the Laws of the Game.
I suggest watching the angle from behind.
Why is everyone saying it’s not a send off because Ponga’s head made contact. Why does it matter? It was a shoulder charge. It was reckless. It resulted in direct head contact. Send off. #origin
@JaydenLawson@thealaskanfinch That’s post contact, not wrapping and you cannot see where Ponga’s left shoulder is contacting. So that photo really shows nothing.
@Simon_9000_@LMcKirdy7 So it was a fix, but also Murray & Strange had 2 tries disallowed in questionable circumstances? Weird way to manipulate a result I must say…
@tabet_matthew The best bit of the rigging was when they disallowed Murray’s try and then Strange’s try. If I was rigging the game I’d definitely make 2 pretty questionable calls against the team I was trying to manipulate the outcome for.
@DavidStacka@ShanteBadger@whits106 Absolutely. I see it when 9 and Fox call a game. One network reacts negatively to a decision. All their viewers blow up on social media. The other network doesn’t even mention it being an issue. Then you open up X & you realise the viewers on the other broadcast are in a lather!
@thealaskanfinch Oh dear where do I start with this.
1. No, it is not only reckless contact that is penalised. The laws say it’s misconduct whether it’s reckless, careless or intentional.
2. Ponga was attempting a shoulder charge. That is an illegal tackle. How is that not reckless?