Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Frailty]

View attachment 85975

Mute button?

Yep, that’s what I currently use. However, it would be great to have an option where you still get the referee’s mic, field and crowd noise… that was my point.

 

[Maximus]

It was a try. I can see how people thought he lost control, but iro clearly reestablished control before grounding. Regardless the live call way ‘try’ and it was hardly a howler. There are plenty of those to get upset about each week

The ball is on the ground and he clearly hasn't re-established control.

 

[Eion]

The ball is on the ground and he clearly hasn't re-established control.

Even your quotes sauce and 1 frame shot says ‘can go either way’. And as the live call was ‘try’. Then correct call.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

The ball is on the ground and he clearly hasn't re-established control.

I agree it could have been a no try. But is that really what the bunker is there for? To freeze frame these types of decisions?

I do take the point is there is a lot of inconsistency (there is that word again); my concern is less about inconsistency in decisions (as there will always be) but the seeming inconsistency in how some decisions are scrutinised. In some cases they dissect the call from 15 different angles, frame by frame, and then in others they seem to wave it through very quickly.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Let’s keep our mates like Skeepe happy. Take six point off. Happy now?

You’re welcome

 

[kurt faulk]

The ball is on the ground and he clearly hasn't re-established control.

You don't need a freeze frame to see he dropped the ball. I still find it perplexing a ref can watch that video and confirm it as a try.

Almost as bad as the same ref disallowing a try for obstruction then confirming a try later in the game that was text book obstruction.

These refs can't be that bad. You would have to think some of them are gamblers and need the money.

.

 

[Chimp]

I don’t understand why we don’t just have the same person in the bunker for all games, at least that would help with consistency.

In terms of obstruction, whilst ever players know that a black and white interpretation means they’ll get a penalty if a block runner makes contact with them, defenders will ensure contact happens in situations where they don’t think they can get there to make the tackle. We need someone in the bunker who can tell if it’s a genuine obstruction or a defender looking for an easy out. Get the same 1 or 2 people in the bunker, who have the right understanding and have them there every game.

 

[Maximus]

I agree it could have been a no try. But is that really what the bunker is there for? To freeze frame these types of decisions?

I do take the point is there is a lot of inconsistency (there is that word again); my concern is less about inconsistency in decisions (as there will always be) but the seeming inconsistency in how some decisions are scrutinised. In some cases they dissect the call from 15 different angles, frame by frame, and then in others they seem to wave it through very quickly.

The bunker shouldn't have needed a freeze frame to see he dropped it, the freeze frame was just to show how wrong the other guy was when they claimed he regained control.

 

[Maximus]

I don’t understand why we don’t just have the same person in the bunker for all games, at least that would help with consistency.

The same person came up with 2 complete opposite interpretations in the Roosters Panthers game.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Very measured Kenty tonight re bunker. Disappointing, instead left it to the old dribbler to have a whinge.

Don't worry, the morons on 100% Footy took up the cudgels. I saw the start of it last night when they brought up the Manu no try. So they decided to go back to the no try in the Manly-Eels game with Gallen starting on a rant about it and Gould egging him on. Never turned off the TV as fast as I did as I knew they'd carry on with their usual drivel. I'm tired of their manure.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

The same person came up with 2 complete opposite interpretations in the Roosters Panthers game.

This seems a statement that is either silly, shared to support an agenda or a combination of the two. The two incidents were completely different.

 

[mxlegend99]

f**k the bunker off. Go back to the system before it. Ref blows a try. Its a try. If he has doubt, go video referee.

if the opposing team disagrees. Let them challenge it. That system was far better than now. One howler of a try gets awarded by a bloke that went into touch so we bring in this piece of shit system where you cant celebrate a try anymore because in the back of your mind youre waiting for it to be confirmed and once it is the momeng is gone.

We have more bad decisions now than we used to have. Just revert to the previous system. And let captains challenge prevent howlers. If opposing team didnt see it. Tough luck.

 

[Chimp]

The same person came up with 2 complete opposite interpretations in the Roosters Panthers game.

This bit is the important bit;

Get the same 1 or 2 people in the bunker, who have the right understanding and have them there every game

 

[Chimp]

f**k the bunker off. Go back to the system before it. Ref blows a try. Its a try. If he has doubt, go video referee.

if the opposing team disagrees. Let them challenge it. That system was far better than now. One howler of a try gets awarded by a bloke that went into touch so we bring in this piece of shit system where you cant celebrate a try anymore because in the back of your mind youre waiting for it to be confirmed and once it is the momeng is gone.

We have more bad decisions now than we used to have. Just revert to the previous system. And let captains challenge prevent howlers. If opposing team didnt see it. Tough luck.

I almost agree with this. I say have the bunker, but they only get 3 looks at a try, at normal speed, and without super zoom. If they can’t see an obvious error with the refs decision based on those parameters, then the refs decision stands.

Similarly, I hate the whole thing when 2 players go up for a bomb, one comes down with the ball, but they call a knock on because for a millisecond his hand wasn’t on the ball during the challenge…. That’s not a knock on, it’s a fair challenge for the ball - play on…. But I think to at rule could be avoided being an issue if they reverted to my suggestion above on how the bunker should be allowed to view replays.

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

The bunker isn’t perfect but just be thankful it hasn’t yet devolved to the cess pit depths of the union TMO. That fking thing has single handedly done more damage to the code than anything else in history. The problem there is WR was so focused on trying to make the officiating “perfect” they expanded the remit of the TMO to the extent its brought the game to its knees.

And I think that’s the crux of it (for both codes). Trying to make perfect an imperfect game that’s played and officiated by imperfect humans is a pointless exercise. There are going to be mistakes, no matter who’s in the bunker, how its used, or under what parameters.

So the question isn't how do we eliminate mistakes, its what types of mistakes are we prepared to accept?

IMO, the biggest blight on today’s game are players playing for a penalty. Arms flying everywhere, collapsing like they’ve been fking shot. It’s a fking eyesore and it reminds me of soccer the more and more I see it. We're pushing ourselves as NFL without pads but we're in danger of looking more like the MLS. And right now, it stems from the current black and white interpretation… look even vaguely obstructed and you’ll get the penalty (normally…).

Allowing officials to make subjective decisions opens that whole can of worms all over again. I get it. But if an official has the discretion to disregard someone’s fking Oscar performance, then we have a better chance of stopping that bullshit before it gets even more out of hand.

IMO that’s the lesser of two evils, and personally I'd take that tradeoff.

 

[Maximus]

This seems a statement that is either silly, shared to support an agenda or a combination of the two. The two incidents were completely different.

Oh this should be good. Please explain why one was an obstruction and the other wasn't.

 

[Maximus]

This bit is the important bit;

Which ref fits that criteria?

 

[ColdWetPanther]

Oh this should be good. Please explain why one was an obstruction and the other wasn't.

I’ve been hearing all week from the anti-Penrith brigade that Edwards wouldn’t have got there. Not sure they have watched the replay.

Here is where the replay starts:


Ref has a good 5 metres on Edwards; ball is still within the line of the posts.

Here is the point of the collision.



Ref and Edwards in line. About 5 metres in the outside of the posts. Ball is just about to get to Manu who is 12/13 metres out from the line. Note this also shows the obstruction on Luai which no one is taking about, because Luai stays on his feet

I can’t add my last image but what it shows is that Gee (having sauntered across at a jog) is 5 metres away when Manu scores. Could Edwards have got there if JWH wasn’t in an illegal position; maybe. He made up similar ground on the play between the two images I showed earlier and he had a similar length of distance to get to where the try was scored to what Manu had to travel, and Edwards was travelling faster and didn’t have to beat a few players like Manu. Other might argue differently, but surely the benefit of the doubt must go to the defender.

For the Turuva try Martin misses Keary who then turns and chases the play. He is 5 metres away from Turuva when he scores. The player in the inside of Keary (ST, who was run into) couldn’t have impacted the play.

 

[Rod]

Random question from Warriors/Knights. 10 minutes to go and the referee awards a 6 again to the Warriors, who immediately knock on, so the referee reverts to a penalty.

I always thought when the referee calls 6 again, it's too bad if you knock on straight away and there's no union-style 'advantage'?

 

[gerg]

Random question from Warriors/Knights. 10 minutes to go and the referee awards a 6 again to the Warriors, who immediately knock on, so the referee reverts to a penalty.

I always thought when the referee calls 6 again, it's too bad if you knock on straight away and there's no union-style 'advantage'?

I think they changed the interpretation so if you lose possession instead of gaining an advantage on the play you're awarded a penalty. Probably not worded correctly but you get the jist.