'Dear oh dear oh dear!' This bunker blooper will be hard to top for the rest of 2020

We will have to agree to disagree DP. IMO Tino has no right to be in the defensive line on Cooks outside . Cook should be free to slide out without having to negotiate around Mt Kosciosko . I think they got it right but I wouldnt slit my wrists if it went the other way. As for the bunker. Well I can live with the odd bad decision so it won't worry me . As a matter of fact I think on balance , we would be better off without it.

Bad decision by the bunker, but I thought the allowing of the 3rd Eels try v Manly was much worse. So where is this perfect bunker we keep searching for?? Because unless it is, it's no better than leaving everything to the ref in the middle.

Cook got there - he was simply beaten. The 'interference' is just an excuse. Bad bunker.. reason #38 why they shouldn't be there.

All good. The other problem with all this is you’ll never get 10 fans in a room who will all agree on a ruling I respect your footy knowledge and you clearly feel it’s a try. I back my own knowledge in most things footy and I think it was no try. Jimmmy thinks it wasn’t. Cugel thinks it was. The ref thought try. Video ref thought no try Sometimes we just have to say the bloke who’s paid to make the decision has made it and get on with it rather than screaming “No, no, no, no, no” like Gus did just because we don’t agree. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t make the decision wrong I come back to my original comment. It wasn’t a howler. The decoy stopped in the line and that’s always going to make the try hard to give

Lol, the "gap" he was prevented from covering was closer to the decoy runner. If the decoy had actually had any effect it would have been to Cook's advantage, as he woud've ended up in he right spot, instead of overrunning the play, and getting stepped inside. The VR says "prevents Cook to slide" then watches Cook slide too far. Great feel for the game, not.

Sorry TB for some reason the first 5 rants didn’t get posted. I was frustrated and kept writing a response waiting for the Cowboys to play. Basically I believe Cook made a defensive decision to go across and that opened a gap behind him. It was the fact every Souths player was chasing where they thought the ball was going and that’s not the attacking sides fault especially when the Ref gave it a try no defender got knocked over and no attacker ran behind anyone. Old school but that’s the way I see many stupid interpretations at times. There are new interpretations every week as far as I’m concerned and they are regularly not the same. It’s probably why people like ex-players, coaches, and fans disagree. You say rubbish I say glasses. Ref says try, Bunker says no all based on opinions? Again I apologies for sending multi post as they were stuck in the computer or cloud or at the border.

Plus your whole argument that the bunker rules for the scoreboard is flawed because the Eels were leading the Broncos 16-6 when Jennings scored If they were officiating to keep scores level they would have disallowed that try

The Roosters game against the Broncos you referenced was on Thursday Why are you telling me to watch the replay? I’ve described the incident. I clearly saw it Everything you say about Cook moving to the decoy is correct. But as soon as the decoy stops in the line and impedes Cook and then Hughes runs the gap where Cook was, it’s an obstruction If Cook goes to the decoy, who then runs through the line and gets beaten by Hughes it’s a try. But that’s not what happened. The decoy stopped in the line, impeded Cook and stopped him filling the gap that Hughes then ran through. It doesn’t matter if we think Cook wouldn’t have got there or if he made a bad read or if he was confused or if he was beaten twice If you don’t want an obstruction called against you, don’t stop in the line. It’s really that simple. That’s the rule...the rest of what you’ve written (six times FFS!!!) is irrelevant Childish for you to say anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t know the rules and needs glasses...particularly when your understanding of the rule is about a decade out of date

Honestly I think it was the right call. That second Cook is impeded means he has to rush more to the slide which leaves him vulnerable on the inside. Definitely not a howler

Point 2 Cook runs to Tino to stop him catching the ball and scoring. Tino doesn’t change direction and barge Cook over. Point 3 The movement Cook makes opens a hole which Hughes sees and runs to. The gap grows even bigger by the player marking Hughes chasing players that don’t have the football in the opposite direction. Smith delayed the pass and seen Hughes hitting a hole Cook had opened going to someone else. South’s were tackling everyone but the player with the ball. One pass from dummy half and a player goes over untouched wrong footing 3 defenders. No case to answer. Tackle the man with the ball not someone you think is getting it. Case closed.

I put it to you Cook came across to mark Tino who Smith was going to hit with a simple pass and stroll over. Someone had to stop Tino and Cook made a decision to get on him before he got a pass. Smith seen Hughes running to the gap Cook’s decision made and threw the pass straight to Hughes. One pass from the dummy half and over untouched? Seriously the South’s defender marking Hughes ran away to chase players without the ball leaving Hughes with an even bigger hole to run through. The ref got the decision right first time awarding a try. Something you keep endorsing. Hating Melbourne doesn’t mean they don’t score perfectly legit tries.

I put it to you that you regularly say the ref is correct. Few challenges are up held in the bunker challenge. Cook runs across to from Hughes to Tino and Smith fires the past Tino. Cook made a play going across to a man that don’t get the ball. Tino didn’t step or change his line as Cordner did in the Morris try. Like a miracle Tino doesn’t disappear but Cook then turn and chase the pass that went the other way. Hughes doesn’t not run behind anyone he simply goes to the gap Cook’s initial defensive decision made. Cook gets wrong footed with Mitchell a second time over reading Hughes. How many players is Cook entitled to mark on the goal line? Cook caused the contact by going across trying to stop Tino simply stuff. Getting beaten by a decoy ball going to a man outside is basic misread. Because you slip over back on the inside is more than an opportunity. The player that should of been tackling Hughes away was heading defending other Storm players that didn’t receive the ball. It was a reward for players not wanting to actually tackle the player with the ball and over reading everything under pressure. It’s a bloody one pass from dummy half and Souths got fooled chasing everyone but the bloke that caught the ball and scored. Get with it jimmmy we have a serious game on tonight and you got get your head in the game.

1 Cook does move in slightly on the decoy . He makes no contact though. 2 Cook then turns to slide out as every defense does when the ball goes past them. He runs into a man mountain who has stopped in the line.. The gap then opens for Hughes on Cooks outside, as the man outside Cook slides across . 3 The gap is there only because Tino stops in the line and Cook is impeded. 4 Its true Cook does eventually get around Tino and could have made the tackle with a bit of luck but it was a much harder tackle to make with him running across rather than squared up on Hughes. 5 The onus is and should be on the decoys to get the hell out of the way. If they slow or impede the defense it's obstruction. Cook doesn't tackle Tino or milk it by diving . He genuinely wants to slide across. He knows the ball has gone past him and wants to close the gap. 6 I put it to you my Lud that the actions of Tino F did in fact adversely affect my clients rights to make an appropriate tackle and he should be found guilty of this hideous crime and han____ . Oops I'm getting carried away.

Jimmmy stop being TB’s mate and have a good look at Cook and where he comes from. Cook creates an opportunity coming across to stop the decoy. Cook made a decision as Smith aims to pass coming across and the hole opened behind him. Both Mitchell and Cook has an opportunity but they ran past Hughes.

Well I think it’s Friday night? Okay have a look at the replayTB. Cook comes from the goal post towards the ruck to tackle the decoy? The ball goes past him. Cook went to the decoy probably leaving a hole for Hughes behind him he then tries to turn and cover the hole he opened and goes past the Hughes being beaten first by the pass then the footwork by Hughes angling back. It’s being confused and beaten twice from over reading the play. It’s rubbish if people calling obstruction don’t understand the rules and don’t watch what happens with their glasses on. The ref ruled try and he got it right. The bunker was managing the score board (like I said they make it up) IMO.

If the decoy continues he would certainly take Cook out. Cook went to the decoy even after the ball was past the decoy? Cook then had ample opportunity but went to far being beaten back on the inside along with Mitchell. That’s an opportunity. Both Mitchell and Cook were beaten by footwork and the angle coming back inside. If Hughes goes behind a player stopped in the line that’s a shepherd. If Hughes takes space because a defender is stopped an denies an opportunity for Cook to get across and make a tackle that’s obstruction. Cook was tackling the decoy then he missed Hughes because he got wrong footed. How is Cook allowed to defend a decoy and the player hitting a hole outside who then steps him?Cook has to go to the decoy otherwise he would stroll through and score for heaven’s sake. The bunker basically said you can commit to 2 attackers and if you’re beaten I’ll call obstruction in that instance. He wasn’t taken out or denied an opportunity from the vision I saw. Last week Jennings ran from inside out behind (decoy)Lane catching the ball on the outside which was fine. Then Jennings stopped went back the other way behind Lane carrying the ball as Hopa comes in contact with Lane. Hopa is effectively beaten by a Jennings changing direction behind Lane yet the Bunker rules no obstruction? It’s black and white and they say play on try. Like I said they make it up depending on the score board IMO.

I don’t think I remember or clearly... didn’t they look at it and Lane had run through the line? If it’s what I’m thinking of the video ref specifically commented on it Anyway, last nights one was completely consistent with how the law is written and interpreted these days. Maybe they do make it up but that one was fine...

In Thursday’s game just gone? Rubbish I don’t think Cook did anything wrong, he got caught up with the decoy who stopped in the line

I agree with my friend - free to air games must be close to attract the mildly interested so these decisions go the way off the trailing team

What’s your opinion of Jennings try under the posts against Broncos? It’s a shepherd every day changing direction and going behind a player( Lane) standing in front while a defender Hola is coming at him IMO. They make it up as they go.