Didn't get to watch the game live. Was listening on radio while stuck in the long weeking traffic back into Sydney. Watching the replay, I had a couple of looks at the Harper no try at around the 11 minute mark where he had a foot on the touch line coming back into play. Should the Bunker have had a closer look at  Aidan Sezer involvement - tackling/pushing Harper into touch without the ball, prior to him regathering. Sezer wasn't trying to tackle him in the motion of kicking. He took him out of play briefly by running him off the ball chase after he had kicked. Could have given Eels another attcking opportunity?? Whether they could have done anything with an extra opportunity remains debatable.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Good question. There was another incident where Papali was deliberately holding back a player think it was Harper when Gutho scored a try and I reckon it was definitely a professional foul. He should have had at least 10 in the bin and a possible 8 point try in my opinion. The referee wasn't that great.Tigers were good but definitely got away with a lot especially holding down players trying to slow the play the ball 

    • Surprised they didn't rule an obstruction against Eels for coming into contact with a defender.

    • That is not how the rules work mate. If a try is scored despite a professional foul, the player does not go to the bin. 8 point tries are only given if there is foul play after the try is scored.

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Coryn Hughes replied to Roy tannous's discussion Jdb junior paulo 👉🚪👋
"This is where the backrowers are so important there a halves best friend if there hole running hitting outside in targeting defenders running a fade basically it gives the halves reads and options that's what we want to look out for around Pezet…"
10 minutes ago
D_STOFFBERG replied to Herbert Hamilton's discussion Fight off spoon again
""
45 minutes ago
Yobz replied to Yobz's discussion 2026 Disrupter Rule - Why wasn't this a penalty to the Eels?
"If the purpose of the rule is to not have "one hand interfering with the opposition player", it should be worded as such."
57 minutes ago
SuperEel 22 replied to Yobz's discussion 2026 Disrupter Rule - Why wasn't this a penalty to the Eels?
"1. The rule is dumb and incredibly vague.
2. It's a coin toss decision
3. According to The Bunker in this game, basically making it look like you're going to go with 2 hands is good enough.
Can't wait for this stupid rule to ruin a rep/finals game."
1 hour ago
More…