LeagueNews.co | Jess Malloy
Phil Gould reignited the obstruction debate and accused Nicho Hynes of playing for a penalty after Newcastle was controversially denied a try against Cronulla.
The Knights thought they had leveled the score at 6-6, but the Bunker official ruled that Thomas Cant had obstructed Hynes in the lead-up.
Gould believed Hynes had initiated the contact and did not do enough to avoid the Knights player, calling it a "dodgy act" and players "making a fool of the rules."
Commenting on the incident, Gould said, "Nicho Hynes tackles this man without the ball.
He's not obstructed by him.
Absolutely wrong - Nicho had no intention of sliding over." Andrew Johns agreed, saying, "No doubt Hynes plays at him.
I know he went to him, but they will take this off them." The NRL had previously announced plans to crack down on defenders playing for obstruction penalties, with Gould pointing to the Hynes incident as a prime example.
The controversial call proved costly for the Knights, as Cronulla capitalized on the decision and extended their lead to 16-0.
Johns criticized the Knights' defensive efforts as "unforgivable," particularly in the early stages of the match.
He was seething as the Sharks raced out to a commanding lead, eventually securing a 34-14 victory at home.
Overall, Gould's accusations against Hynes and the contentious obstruction ruling sparked debate and added to the animosity surrounding the match.
The fallout from the incident highlighted the ongoing debate around obstruction penalties in the NRL and raised questions about players potentially exploiting the rules for their benefit.
Johns' frustration with the Knights' defensive lapses further underscored the team's struggles in the match and the need for improvement in future games.