Fans would like to discuss the part of last night's episode of Married at First Sight that made zero sense.

Let’s be honest – not a lot about Married At First Sight actually makes sense.

For instance, why would anyone genuinely seeking love try a method that has a frankly abysmal success rate? (Erin and Bryce are the only couple who met on the show and are still together).

However, last night fans noticed something that made even less sense than usual on the Channel Nine reality dating show.

As anyone watching knows, Sam Ball and Ines Basic are carrying out a (likely very staged) “affair” – secretly sexting each other while their matched partners Elizabeth and Bronson remain unaware.

During Sunday night’s commitment ceremony, both individuals chose to “stay” in the experiment, publicly to work on their relationships, but privately so they could continue their secret relationship.

Yet as viewers pointed out, this decision really didn’t make a lot of sense.

Because there’s nothing stopping Sam and Ines continuing their relationship outside of the show, in the real world. If that’s what they truly wanted, wouldn’t it have just been easier to choose to leave?

I just had the weirdest thought about Sam and Ines. I know this is crazy:

They could both choose leave and be together.

????????????

Hence why this show is getting a teeny bit too obvious. Shouldn’t be so annoying but it is. #mafs #MAFSAU #MAFSaustralia

— Neety1 (@Neety1) February 17, 2019

There’s no guarantee that their on-screen partners would have also chosen to “leave”, but neither cheater apparently saw the logic in even trying.

So Sam and Ines hatch a clever plan to string their partners along so they can continue their tryst. Someone needs to mention that it is actually possible to do the right thing, choose to leave and then they can do whatever the fk they want together. U know, off screen #MAFS

— Dazwah (@darren_william) February 17, 2019

How is staying the only option for Sam & Ines to hook up? Wouldn’t it be much easier to write leave and do it off camera? Clearly I’m naive and believe there’s no paid ‘actors’ here but seriously, the show should kick them off! #mafs

— Kathryn Feldmaier (@katfeldmaier) February 17, 2019

So, . um, . derr, . this is so contrived.
Best thing for Sam & Ines if they want to hook up is both write “LEAVE” and hook up outside the cameras. But . . .
Just saying ! FFS.#MAFSAustralia #MAFSAU #MAFS

— John Willowhite (@jwilla14) February 17, 2019

Some fans though, thought the reason Sam and Ines decided to stay on the show was obvious: for more fame and attention.

genius, but how would they have a faked relationship in real life, only the experts would know

— Hayley Archer (@HaylesArcher) February 17, 2019

But then how would they get their instagram validation?

— SMQ (@SkyesongTollers) February 17, 2019

but then they wouldn’t get a free trip to the Gold Coast. ????

— aurelovespatches (@omlettLOVESyou) February 17, 2019

I assumed they lived in different cities and preferred the show footing the travel bill.

— Rachael Coyne (@CoyneRachael) February 17, 2019

Others felt it added more weight to the theory that Ines, and/or Sam, are paid actors planted on the show to stir up trouble.

The main “evidence” backing up this rumour so far is that only someone trying to be this horrible, could actually be this horrible.

The more I think about it, the more I’m believing my theory that Ines from #mafs is a paid actor who’s just there to cause drama.. ????

— Courts (@courts_gee) February 17, 2019

They are paid actors. Total plants.

— Apples (@Apples85402623) February 17, 2019

That’s why I think they are actors planted to stir up controversy.

— Rosalie Markovics (@aroseforarose61) February 17, 2019

At least we can all agree that one couple’s decision last night did make a lot of sense – and that was Lauren and Matthew choosing to leave.

What do you think? Is there any way Sam and Ines’ relationship is genuine?

Like to have your opinion heard? Like $100 even more? Take our quick survey now for your chance to win one of three $100 vouchers.