I really don't get how Annesley just pulls out one or two incidents and then drags out the explanation.
Does it really solve anything or make us feel better?
With the Guac try I can see both sides of the argument but I think it was more of a try than not if that makes sense.
Burbo tries to go through the line, Flanno pretty much grabs him so he engaged the contact but quickly moves off to try to stop Guac.
So does Burbo stop in the line or does Flanno prevent him from going through?
Annesley even said Flanno ultimately gets there but wasn't good enough to prevent the try, would he have stopped him regardless? But Flanno had eyes for Burbo first so that was his decision, Burbo didn't "take him out".
I think with the onfield ref ruling try he obviously didn't feel there was anything untoward about it when so so many times they decide to rule no try and let the bunker decide which should be a good indicator.
Also, Flanno didn't really get up having a whinge either, it was more one or two teammates that asked the question.
Saying that, it will be interpreted differently many times this year
Both coach's will say their players should've been better in that situation.
Burbo should've run inside and faster to get through.
Flanno should've hit the deck to make it a no brainer.