Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Vee]

10th minute, mulitalo bumps feldt before the ball arrives.

Penalty.

I'm beers deep but checked the slomo, you can take it as read.

 

[Vee]

25th minute, goliechewski escorted out.

Penalty.

This is not a drunken cowboys fan, well, it is, but I'm a ref and rl fan first and foremost.

 

[Vee]

And Cronulla go the length and score...

 

[Miller was a legend]

Have another beer. That’s what really matters

 

[Diesel]

It’s a conflict of interest when a captains call goes up and one of the refs colleagues makes a decision which usually backs the on field ref. On Thursday night the video ref was the on field ref at Shark Park while the on field ref at the Thurs game was in the bunker this arvo. They’ve got nothing to gain but subconsciously the decision usually goes goes in the onfield refs favour

 

[mave]

It’s a conflict of interest when a captains call goes up and one of the refs colleagues makes a decision which usually backs the on field ref. On Thursday night the video ref was the on field ref at Shark Park while the on field ref at the Thurs game was in the bunker this arvo. They’ve got nothing to gain but subconsciously the decision usually goes goes in the onfield refs favour

Of course if there is any uncertainty, the on field refs call should always be the default position of the bunker.

 

[Penrith fan]

it needs to be an absolutely obvious call if not they will stick with the refs decision on the field.

 

[Canard]

Have another beer. That’s what really matters

42 points to 6.

"We wuz robbed!"

 

[Penrith fan]

The hatred towards the bunker is overwhelming.

 

[Captain Apollo]

It’s a conflict of interest when a captains call goes up and one of the refs colleagues makes a decision which usually backs the on field ref. On Thursday night the video ref was the on field ref at Shark Park while the on field ref at the Thurs game was in the bunker this arvo. They’ve got nothing to gain but subconsciously the decision usually goes goes in the onfield refs favour

Let's have former players do it again, that's worked well in the past without any controversies

 

[Penrith fan]

let's go back to playing the referees decision on the field, it is more accurate than the guy in the bunker running film backwards and forwards a million times.

 

[Valheru]

The delusions of a Roosters fan.

Everything I said is fact, which one was wrong?

Did Collins get hit high or not resulting in the offender getting charged? Did the roosters get a penalty for that incident?

Did the knights kick the ball away on the drop out? Was keary told with 10 seconds left to use a spare?

Did gagai take a quick tap and then lose the ball? Did the ref then call the play back?

Are you denying those things happened?

 

[Valheru]

Yes it seems Melbourne were the team that got the short end of the refereeing stick.

Easts need to pull their head in.

No it doesn't

Teddy was punished on field per precedence.

And lol at knock ons. The ref missed them. Totally different to the bunker no knowing the rules.

 

[Penrith fan]

No it doesn't

Teddy was punished on field per precedence.

And lol at knock ons. The ref missed them. Totally different to the bunker no knowing the rules.

Graeme Annesley reckons Easts were the ones who should pull their heads in.

Robbo put on a show for the ages over nothing.

Knock ons can be picked up by the bunker.

All of Easts tries were dodgy.

 

[Valheru]

Graeme Annesley reckons Easts were the ones who should pull their heads in.

Robbo put on a show for the ages over nothing.

Knock ons can be picked up by the bunker.

All of Easts tries were dodgy.

Only if they are challenged, you might recall storm wasted theirs in the first minute.

Annersley's defence of pointing out two knock ons in general play is laughable. The bunker is a shambles , it's ok to admit it.

 

[Penrith fan]

I just did admit it if you read my posts, I said go back to the referee's decision on field because it is more accurate.

But Geez, Easts tries were just as debatable as what the Mexicans were.

 

[roboshark]

What about the flop on Clark Griswold in Canberra Brisbane game. Nothing. Flabbergasted

 

[Valheru]

I just did admit it if you read my posts, I said go back to the referee's decision on field because it is more accurate.

But Geez, Easts tries were just as debatable as what the Mexicans were.

No they weren't.

Only one try was debatable in the entire match. Actually it wasn't debatable, it was given incorrectly.

 

[Penrith fan]

No they weren't.

Only one try was debatable in the entire match. Actually it wasn't debatable, it was given incorrectly.

You need to read Graeme Annesley's report.

All of East's tries were dodgy.

 

[Chimp]

I keep saying it, the bunker should be limited to 2 or 3 replays, in normal speed, with no super zoom - if there’s no obvious error, refs decision stands.
The game isn’t playing in slow motion or super zoom, so shouldn’t be reffed that way either. I always use the example of 2 players jumping for a bomb and contesting the ball - who cares if it brushed 1 persons finger before the other player touched it - just let them compete for the ball, unless there’s an obvious knock on from one to the other, whoever comes down with the ball wins that battle - play on.