Roosters coach Trent Robinson says he agrees with the assessment that Hugo Savala infringed by double moving, but he is frustrated his side is not awarded a penalty for high contact. Robinson’s comments focus on the officiating outcome rather than disputing the double-movement call itself.
Across the reports, Robinson’s position is consistent: he accepts Savala’s action meets the threshold for a penalty offense, yet argues the match officials should also have acted on an incident involving high contact. The outlets present his reaction as an expression of disappointment that the high-contact aspect did not result in a penalty. The shared framing indicates his frustration is tied to what he views as a missed opportunity to receive a penalty, despite conceding the double movement.
All three articles attribute the same viewpoint to Robinson and describe the same two elements of the incident: double movement by Savala and Robinson’s claim regarding the unpenalised high contact.
