Bunker footage

[Timmah]

I don’t think it’s a big balls up, I don’t know. That’s the whole point of the discussion that you appear to have missed.

I think they could do better getting the vision that the refs looking at on the broadcast. I know they are looking at 100 screens and all that but most of the time recently we have been seeing synced screens of touch line and goal line etc and it has been good, in this case we apparently didn’t get to see that best footage and I dont know why. You get to see all the footage that the 3rd umpire sees in cricket in real time.

You literally said it was 100% a knock on and now you don't know?

Make your mind up.

 

[rockcod]

You literally said it was 100% a knock on and now you don't know?

Make your mind up.

I believe it was a knock on yeah, if the ref saw that footage and was ok with it then I get that but disagree. My issue is that we would be in the dark if they make a blunder because we don’t get to see anything that is going on.

 

[unforgiven]

I believe it was a knock on yeah, if the ref saw that footage and was ok with it then I get that but disagree. My issue is that we would be in the dark if they make a blunder because we don’t get to see anything that is going on.

So what do you want to see and how do you see the process working?

 

[Sphagnum]

@2 weeks can you please post a Simpsons gif of exactly how the bunker works for all the cretins here

 

[rockcod]

So what do you want to see and how do you see the process working?

Normally the bunker decision is based on one or 2 camera angles, I would imagine they get through looking through all the views pretty quick on the multiple screens and they narrow it down to a couple of important views that show the incident the best. At this point if it is a close call they will watch in super slow mo, zoom in etc.

I'm not sure if the bunker guys control these functions themselves or if they are doing it with the broadcaster but either way at this point it can't be that hard to broadcast the one or 2 camera angles that the bunker are looking at more closely, the ref talks through the decision while watching the vision so we should be seeing that at the same time. If the bunker has time to select the views, slow them down and all that surely fox or 9 can get them on the screen too?
At least then we can see the main footage that the bunker makes the call on and aren't left wondering what they were looking at to come up with that call be it right or wrong. In a case where the call is not enough evidence like the James Roberts one they could maybe show what they consider is the best view of the incident as they are stating there decision rather than the broadcaster showing it a few minutes later.

Sometimes it appears to work similar to this anyway, it might be pot luck or sometimes the communication breaks down or channel 9 are more concerned with showing some other random shots who knows.

 

[Just Visiting]

Didn't see the game live but the footage on the NRL.com game highlights is clear as day IMO that Roberts knocked it on, the Nrl on Nine Youtube edit appears to use different footage/angle maybe, still looks like certain knock on to me though.

The issue might not be the bunker didn't see the footage, its just its not 110% super certain beyond any doubt enough to overrule an on field call which is its own separate problem.

 

[unforgiven]

Normally the bunker decision is based on one or 2 camera angles, I would imagine they get through looking through all the views pretty quick on the multiple screens and they narrow it down to a couple of important views that show the incident the best. At this point if it is a close call they will watch in super slow mo, zoom in etc.

I'm not sure if the bunker guys control these functions themselves or if they are doing it with the broadcaster but either way at this point it can't be that hard to broadcast the one or 2 camera angles that the bunker are looking at more closely, the ref talks through the decision while watching the vision so we should be seeing that at the same time. If the bunker has time to select the views, slow them down and all that surely fox or 9 can get them on the screen too?
At least then we can see the main footage that the bunker makes the call on and aren't left wondering what they were looking at to come up with that call be it right or wrong. In a case where the call is not enough evidence like the James Roberts one they could maybe show what they consider is the best view of the incident as they are stating there decision rather than the broadcaster showing it a few minutes later.

Sometimes it appears to work similar to this anyway, it might be pot luck or sometimes the communication breaks down or channel 9 are more concerned with showing some other random shots who knows.

The bunker controls their own replays, they don not rely on the broadcasters for anything. When the bunker first started they used to show the split screen, people complained as it made the images too small for them to see, especially on the screens at the ground.

 

[rockcod]

The bunker controls their own replays, they don not rely on the broadcasters for anything. When the bunker first started they used to show the split screen, people complained as it made the images too small for them to see, especially on the screens at the ground.

They have been playing split screen for a few decisions lately, at the start they were split screening with a view of inside of the bunker which is pointless cos you can't see anything. If you went to 4 screens it would be too small probably but 2 seems fine. If the bunker is controlling the replays then the coverage should be piggy backing off that to make the process as transparent as possible.

 

[Captain Apollo]

 

[Nerd]

My biggest problem is not the decisions the bunker makes but how long they take to reach a decision. It makes the game boring for viewers and spectators and gives the players too much of a rest after a try. My suggestion would be to give the bunker 3 only normal speed views from different angles and if they can't make a decision just go with the onfield refs call. KFC still get their advertising space and we just get on with the game.

 

[Frailty]

Reading this thread has made me want to bash my head against the wall. Such a simple concept that certain posters just don't seem to comprehend.

 

[rockcod]

My biggest problem is not the decisions the bunker makes but how long they take to reach a decision. It makes the game boring for viewers and spectators and gives the players too much of a rest after a try. My suggestion would be to give the bunker 3 only normal speed views from different angles and if they can't make a decision just go with the onfield refs call. KFC still get their advertising space and we just get on with the game.

That's part of the inconsistency I don't like, sometimes they carry on like its a murder scene looking at stuff 100 times and other times they have a quick look like no one cares.

 

[avocado]

lol @ the bunker

Panthers just been raped.

 

[Iafeta]

That was an appalling call. Off the back of a dreadful sin binning. Farcical. The Warriors wouldn’t have got close without all the leg ups.

 

[aqua_duck]

That was an appalling call. Off the back of a dreadful sin binning. Farcical. The Warriors wouldn’t have got close without all the leg ups.

One of the worst weekends of refereeing I can remember. In most games 50/50s somewhat even themselves out and really bad decisions are somewhat isolated but tigers, Knights, Panthers and dogs I thought got absolutely raped in their game with continuous bad calls, if you were cynical you'd be thinking the NRL were trying their best to give certain teams a leg up into the 8 to improve ratings

 

[Ballgame59]

if you were cynical you'd be thinking the NRL were trying their best to give certain teams a leg up into the 8 to improve ratings

How likely is this to occur in the NRL? I can definitely be a cynic (and suspicious) of referees and league officials when it comes to increasing ratings/revenue. I mean, it makes sense. They need to make as much money as possible.

 

[aqua_duck]

How likely is this to occur in the NRL? I can definitely be a cynic (and suspicious) of referees and league officials when it comes to increasing ratings/revenue. I mean, it makes sense. They need to make as much money as possible.

Definitely don't want to be a tin foiled hat guy but I've seen that many bad decisions go toward teams like Brisbane and the officials that made those decisions not get reprimanded at all, I mean it's gotten so ridiculous that 'penalty broncos' is actually a very common satirical expression across the Internet. I think at the very least I think refs and officials are afraid to make decisions against certain influential teams out of fear.

 

[Meth]

lol @ the bunker

Panthers just been raped.

meh

I would imagine Norrie/Maxwell and Cassidy might get demoted. Warriors were given a try that wasn't and denied a try that was- so it evens out. Panthers were given impunity for 30 minutes in the second half, so they weren't all that hard done by and managed to win, as they deserved to.

Cassidy was to blame for the second sin binning.

 

[no name]

meh

I would imagine Norrie/Maxwell and Cassidy might get demoted. Warriors were given a try that wasn't and denied a try that was- so it evens out. Panthers were given impunity for 30 minutes in the second half, so they weren't all that hard done by and managed to win, as they deserved to.

Cassidy was to blame for the second sin binning.

Demoted?
They were already on a Warriors game.

 

[Meth]

Demoted?
They were already on a Warriors game.

Dude, you support the Titans. People in glass houses and all that.