My point was that you explained why the poll and system were shit but didn't actually take any of the responses to task by providing examples in a handful of answers. not pissy, just confused as to why you'd take the chance to tear the results down without showing which one/s might be flawed. You've now done so in your reply - that's all I was asking about.
Time is the answer.
Apart from the questions that are basically popularity contests that can be boiled down to that guy from my team (which personally I couldn't care less about either way), I could go through basically all of the results and show why the answers were ill thought out, just outright stupid, or the demographics that were polled effected the result in such a way that it shouldn't be considered legitimate, however I simply don't have the time to do something like that at the moment, so it's better to attack the whole system of how the answers were postulated and show why it's garbage instead.
Disagree - I think there's a fair debate to be had on what the extent and limitations of the Bunker are. I would agree that the blanket statement of "use the Bunker less" that 62% of people have voted for is unhelpful as rugby league, its rules and officiating are a far more complex beast.
In fact, the blanket yes/no kind of questions probably aren't helpful, so in that sense I think the questioning the poll methodology rather than the responses provided is probably a fair thing to do.
You've actually hit on a good point about the technology not being the problem but the fact its operated by humans following a guide, and as such will always be prone to error or (to use a softer term) discretion from the officials operating it.
I certainly agree we can't wind back to the pre-video referee days and to suggest to do so is simplistic thinking that helps nobody - but I can certainly see arguments for restricting what the Bunker can rule on, which would hopefully give the public a clearer picture.
At the end of the day though, sports fans have been complaining about match officials one way or another since time immemorial so I doubt we'll see any change in that area any time soon (although News Corpse not whipping up a frenzy would help).
Oh don't get me wrong it's definitely a fair debate, however the people that are steering the debate are the wrong people to be doing it... When e.g. Wayne Bennett, Craig Bellamy, Phil Gould, even your Buzz Rothfield's, etc, etc, suggest that the VR (I hate calling it the Bunker it's so corny and gimmicky) shouldn't be able to adjudicate on whether or not a e.g. pass was forward they aren't doing that cause of any real reason that they think that the bunker shouldn't be able to adjudicate on it, they are doing it cause they see that the bunker not being able to pull up a forward pass is an advantage to their teams that out weighs the disadvantages.
My opinion on the subject would be that the bunker should be able to adjudicate on anything that the technology allows them to do without severely impacting the game or the flow of the game, i.e. if the technology exists so that the VR can instantly adjudicate on a e.g. forward pass then they should be able to do that (which btw it does but it's not used in the NRL), however if that technology doesn't exist and/or the play has moved on since the mistake has been identified then it should be ignored and play should continue.
I personally don't care how a team is pulled up for breaking the rules, as long as they are pulled up and it doesn't fundamentally change the flow of the game, but that is just my opinion.
