Moses is accused of bluffing amid a massive Tigers deal, saying, “He’s in a staring contest with Parramatta.”
Three days before their season opener, Parramatta find themselves “in a staring contest” with their best player, who has not committed to re-sign beyond 2023.
Mitchell Moses, the halfback for the Eels, has been considering his options all summer long as he considers returning to the Wests Tigers.
Moses received a five-year offer from the Tigers for $1.4 million, far more than the four-year offer of $1.25 million that was on the table to stay.
Paul Kent, the co-host of NRL 360, thinks the 28-year-old has chosen Parramatta, but he is delaying signing in the hopes that his club will extend the four-year deal by a full year.
On NRL 360, Kent stated, “I think he’s in a staring contest with Parramatta.”
“Even though it’s much less than what the Tigers are offering, he’s happy with the financial part and wants to stay at Parramatta for the extra year.”
The Tigers have acknowledged he’ll remain in Parramatta and have all but given up on him visiting. Parramatta says it’s over if it takes five years.
“He’s making an effort to remain composed, Parramatta will go well; you have five.”
Then veteran reporter Phil Rothfield chastised Moses for keeping the Eels waiting so long for his response.
He declared, “He’s not Jarome Hughes, he’s not Daly Cherry-Evans, and he’s not Nathan Cleary.”
“It is incomprehensible that he has kept the club waiting this entire off-season when he is being offered $5 million over four years, the club he loves and played juniors there.” It’s an excellent offer.
Brent Read retorted that Moses is “tempted” to return to the Tigers, where he made his NRL debut, citing the $2 million disparity in the offers as the reason it was “a big decision.”
It’s clear that he believes he has a better chance of winning a premiership at Parramatta. He seems like a great fit for the Tigers, and I would be all over him. They require that, according to Braith Anasta.
“You have to be prepared to win a comp if you’re going to spend that much money,” Kent retorted.
He has made one grand final and is 28 years old. He can move you from six ahead to 22 ahead in even time, therefore I believe he’s a front-runner. His difficulty has always been moving people from six behind to two ahead. You have to believe that you will win a competition in order to pay that type of money.
NRL football chief Graham Annesley has acknowledged that the Bunker erred in judgment and that Joey Many’s game-winning try against the Panthers ought to have been given.
The obstruction rule should be plain-cut, but as it stands right now, it’s fifty shades of gray, leaving coaches, players, and fans completely perplexed. This is especially true after the Roosters were denied a clear four-point shot in their 22-16 loss to the Panthers.
The Roosters scored two late tries to make the result appear much more respectable, but the defending premiers were clearly superior and would have won by a larger margin.
However, the final gap was only six points, and Manu’s try, which could have altered the game’s outcome, was rejected by the Roosters.
Former Golden Boot winner Chris Butler saw what he believed to be an obstruction 20 meters away from the action after the player danced through the defence and beautifully brought the ball down.
After breaking past the line, Jared Waerea-Hargreaves paused, but Dylan Edwards, the fullback for Penrith, had no prospect of catching up to him.
Butler stated, “He must stop before interfering with any defenders; at this point, he prevents Dylan Edwards from sliding and helping to defend this play, which is an obstruction.”
He also explained the distinction between Jake Trbojevic’s obstruction a week prior, which prevented Manly from obtaining another crucial try against the Eels, and Manu’s disallowed try.
“I backed two obstruction decisions made by the Bunker last week,” Annesley told News Corp.
“I discussed how the play must not be turned back through the opening left by a defender’s tackle. Instead, the lead runner must proceed through the defensive line.
“The choice (for the Manu no-try) made last night did not take into account either of these criteria.
“Given the situation, the Bunker is free to assess if a defender might have stopped the attempt.
“I think the on-field call shouldn’t have been overturned and the try would have been scored regardless.”
The fact that Liam Martin interfered with Sitili Tupouniua and Luke Keary as they came over in cover defense and rushed through as the lead runner made the decision even worse. Sunia Turuva was given a try for the Panthers.
Nevertheless, it seems that Annesley was content with that choice.
Roosters coach Trent Robinson was visibly irritated when questioned about Manu’s unsuccessful try during his news conference following the game.
“In our one, Sitili was taken down; would he be able to salvage the try? No, he wasn’t. Robinson stated, “I don’t think he (Edwards) would have gotten there either on Joey Manu.”
“I seem to recall there being two
“I don’t want to exaggerate, but sometimes their decisions are clear-cut, and other times they have a decision-making component that changes depending on when they use it. That is most likely what took place.
Edwards also alters his line, so they were black and white with the call and black and white with the obstruction. However, they left it up for interpretation regarding the one where there was an obstacle.
To be honest, I don’t think we get it all wrong. We give them careful scrutiny, therefore there are highlights. Although it didn’t work out for us tonight, it might later.
