If I was James Graham, I'd walk the team off

[trewhella]

Sportsbet have stated they will refund Bulldogs h2h bets or 1-4 winning margin.

Says a bit.

. I still can't work that one out.........quite the PR stunt. Can't ever see the Tab doing that one.....I had a multi dogs to win 1 12 into brisbane 1 to 12. It was around 11 dollars.

[LargeMike]

Sportsbet have stated they will refund Bulldogs h2h bets or 1-4 winning margin.

Says a bit.

Sure does.

About their marketing team.

[2026]

Sure does.

About their marketing team.

It's h2h or 1- 12 margin

[player 1]

Agree totally. I don't see any controversy at all with this decision. It's the rule, deliberate or not. And the kick from in front is also an extension of the rule. If it was Pearce that was out for 5 months with knee damage I reckon a few on here would be filthy.

Some of the other decisions were dodgy, but not this one.

Reynolds is fine - there is no injury. He'll play next week.

And for the record, that penalty was very far from clear cut - despite the many here saying it was. It was within the refs' discretion to rule Graham was attempting a charge down at the ball and was not playing at Reynolds, and that contact was accidental in playing at the ball and not the kicker.

So they had the power to exercise discretion and they used that power to get the wabbits over the line. Then they exercised their discretion to not give dogs a chance to equalise with a penalty kick from the restart for what actually was a 100% penalty. Not like we aren't used to it.

I think the refs and the NRL made a statement tonight and I hear them loud and clear: We will manage games and results as we see fit, in broad daylight, and there ain't a damn thing any of you can do about it.

The roosters/sharks game is next. It's the live game on nine - expect an upset to please the viewers.

[2026]

Reynolds is fine - there is no injury. He'll play next week.

And for the record, that penalty was very far from clear cut - despite the many here saying it was. It was within the refs' discretion to rule Graham was attempting a charge down at the ball and was not playing at Reynolds, and that contact was accidental in playing at the ball and not the kicker.

So they had the power to exercise discretion and they used that power to get the wabbits over the line. Then they exercised their discretion to not give dogs a chance to equalise with a penalty kick from the restart for what actually was a 100% penalty. Not like we aren't used to it.

I think the refs and the NRL made a statement tonight and I hear them loud and clear: We will manage games and results as we see fit, in broad daylight, and there ain't a damn thing any of you can do about it.

The roosters/sharks game is next. It's the live game on nine - expect an upset to please the viewers.

I have my plastic bottles ready : )

[Salvatori Grubber]

hahahaha what's that? celebrating the injury of a player??

oh i can't even!!

How funny's that? Precisely Danish's point.

[player 1]

How funny's that? Precisely Danish's point.

Umm....I don't think you read the rest of his posts. He was glad one of our players got injured and repeatedly said so. That, on a roosters fan forum as well as for other human reasons, is going to attract criticism.

[Guest]

How funny's that? Precisely Danish's point.

Grubman and Hollus lol!

I went fishing and of the all the people I caught two of the more intelligent posters on here.

I will be honest sometimes and I can be deadly serious due to being on a board but I like to take the piss from time to time..

[Pass the Ball]

Penalty every day of the week.

Regardless of whether it was for Souths and decided the game or not, it was still a penalty.

Penalties for dangerous play are in place for a reason.

Emotions run high for players and fans when the game is in the balance but the refs made the correct decision and the Dogs should probably play their next home game in front of an empty stadium.....

[sretsoor]

Reynolds is fine - there is no injury. He'll play next week.

And for the record, that penalty was very far from clear cut - despite the many here saying it was. It was within the refs' discretion to rule Graham was attempting a charge down at the ball and was not playing at Reynolds, and that contact was accidental in playing at the ball and not the kicker.

So they had the power to exercise discretion and they used that power to get the wabbits over the line. Then they exercised their discretion to not give dogs a chance to equalise with a penalty kick from the restart for what actually was a 100% penalty. Not like we aren't used to it.

I think the refs and the NRL made a statement tonight and I hear them loud and clear: We will manage games and results as we see fit, in broad daylight, and there ain't a damn thing any of you can do about it.

The roosters/sharks game is next. It's the live game on nine - expect an upset to please the viewers.

My thoughts exactly. I fail to see any deliberate foul play or attacking the legs in any replay. Graham is clearly diving the ball, misses and crashes into the ground, momentum from both Reynolds and Graham brings the impact. IMO accidental. This game has gone to the pits for me over the years - refereeing and rule changes lead the charge to that and this is just another game, like 90% of NRL games where the result is ref determined.

[milanja]

My thoughts exactly. I fail to see any deliberate foul play or attacking the legs in any replay. Graham is clearly diving the ball, misses and crashes into the ground, momentum from both Reynolds and Graham brings the impact. IMO accidental. This game has gone to the pits for me over the years - refereeing and rule changes lead the charge to that and this is just another game, like 90% of NRL games where the result is ref determined.

I don't know how 100% of others don't see that exact point.

[ROC181]

I don't know how 100% of others don't see that exact point.

My opinion of this is that Graham went to stop the kick. He didn't do it with his shoulder. He didn't do it with his legs. He didn't while Reynolds was in mid air. He wasn't even that late. He did what you normally do when you charge down a kick. The fact that he missed and it eventuated into an injury, to me it's not a penalty much like any other tackle that may cause any injury. Had that happened to one of ours, I think the referee would have judged that as accidental contact without any penalty awarded.

[One Eyed Willy]

I'm happy for them to have awarded that a penalty. Do I think it's a penalty, no, but now they have to be consistent. Every time a kicker is hit, there should be a penalty because that's the standard they have set

[Vasco]

The tackle on Reynolds was an accident. Graham clearly slipped.

Souffs will struggle with him out.

[Johnny Tobin]

Even if it was a fair penalty, what about the constant leg ups they get every week? Inglis dropped the ball cold and was given a penalty. Morris should have been given a penalty and wasn't. That was just in the last five minutes.