The Bunker

[Timmah]

Maybe the bunker needs to quote the rule so these dopey commentators can read it and understand the decision. What is frustrating is the constant check this detail on some, and just the put down on others. The bunker gets blamed because they haven't gone right back despite being told to only check the grounding... We probably need to limit what can be checked further or check the entire last play. From the play the ball.

Yeah because that's gonna assist in them in speeding up play...

 

[Tryhard]

Another Day another F..ing joke of a Bunker Decision!
The fluke was it didn't matter tonight, but it is only a matter of time (& more likely than not it will not be a one off)1

 

[user_nat]

The ball carrying arm hits the ground with players on him.. He then spins over and scores. You can't do that.

 

[roostersrule2]

It wasn't a try.

But the tears are glorious.

 

[innsaneink]

The ball carrying arm hits the ground with players on him.. He then spins over and scores. You can't do that.

I dont think it was a 2nd effort, thought it was momentum and OK...he never stopped moving

 

[alexwilliams_66692007]

I'm more annoyed by the amount of time each decision is taking..

 

[Eion]

They denied one on Val last week very similar.

 

[Timmah]

Holmes got denied a similar one last Sunday and the decision was correct by the current rules/interpretations.

It's stupid and the rules have been tinkered too far but the Bunker is just policing what is there.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

The ball carrying arm hits the ground with players on him.. He then spins over and scores. You can't do that.

I thought the Roosters defender held up the Broncos player over the line, even if his the arm did hit the ground before, then he grounds it. So if that's not allowed under the rules, fair enough.

 

[Apey]

Who else is thoroughly enjoying Timmah being back on LU?

 

[Timmah]

When was I ever gone?

 

[Frederick]

Who else is thoroughly enjoying Timmah being back on LU?

 

[axl rose]

Who else is thoroughly enjoying Timmah being back on LU?

 

[Pommy]

I don't think there was any second effort by the player it was momentum that carried him all the way through, although I am aware his arm did touch the ground.
The problem I have is not every try is being looked at in slow motion and these stupid little things may technically be correct but it's just pot luck if they are being looked at or not.
If this is the level of detail they are going in to then they need to start looking at every try.
The super league manage it so much better overall than this current farce in my opinion.

 

[Danish]

You don't think him reaching out extending his arm over his head to touch the ball to the ground was a second effort?

 

[mxlegend99]

It was the right call. He pushes with his legs after his arm touches the ground and then he reaches out to ground it as he is being held up over the line. That's not all momentum and is an additional effort to ground the ball after being grounded short of the line.

The worse decision was the Broncos try where Cordner was obstructed and they decided that it was only a minimal obstruction and awarded the try anyway. That rule and the interpretation of it seems to change every game.

 

[Card Shark]

They denied one on Val last week very similar.

The big difference was Holmes' body did not finish in the in-goal, he had to reach to get the ball there.

The Broncos player got to the ingoal in 1 motion although he was fighting to get there, as 1 would. He ends up with his body in the in-goal & therefore is entitled to put the ball down, surely!

The dumb video refs are looking too hard to follow the rules - like Barba & Burgess tries last week, should've been given as they've been tries for 100 years of rugby league!

 

[Tommy Smith]

It was the right call. He pushes with his legs after his arm touches the ground and then he reaches out to ground it as he is being held up over the line. That's not all momentum and is an additional effort to ground the ball after being grounded short of the line.

The worse decision was the Broncos try where Cordner was obstructed and they decided that it was only a minimal obstruction and awarded the try anyway. That rule and the interpretation of it seems to change every game.

Its interpretation changes not just every game, but during games.

It was a shocking call as Cordner was clearly obstructed and could have come over in cover to hold Opacic up.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

by the letter of the law it isn't a try, but a "double effort" while you are still moving and end up over the line probably isn't a situation that happens very often (and sounds geniused when you hear it without seeing it happen but last night summed it up). The circumstances and common sense need to be taken into account on these rare occasions but that is something i would not trust the spastics in the bunker with or the derps with the whistle we are currently stuck with.

 

[Ring Gids]

Its interpretation changes not just every game, but during games.

It was a shocking call as Cordner was clearly obstructed and could have come over in cover to hold Opacic up.

I'm happy with the call on the Cordner obstruction purely on the basis of the lack of effort he made to stop the tru in the end. Just lazy. Of course, I dont think there's anything in the rules about laziness, otherwise Tony Williams would penalized more the Ryles.