Take the emotion away from the bunker

[Fire]

Been thinking about this for a while, and the whole Slater incident has made me think about it even more.

When the bunker is asked to judge on a try, I believe it's possible the decision could be influenced by the current score/time left in the game. The blokes in the bunker are only human and I believe a potential match winning try adds extra pressure (particularly if it's a finals game) and could play a part. As such, as a minimum, I think the blokes in the bunker should not be allowed to know the current score, or time remaining in the game. That way, they are simply judging on what they see, without any emotion or consideration for the ramifications.

As a potential build on this, you could take it a step further, I'm sure there would be technology out there that would enable the footage to be anonymised - essentially black out the colours/faces so that they don't even know which team/players are involved. This could then also be used for incidents of foul play - the match review committee is part of the bunker and review the incidents immediately after the game, they don't see the score, the result or the players involved and simply see the incident (anonymised) and make a decision on whether a charge should be made purely on the incident, again without any knowledge of the ramifications. That way, emotive stuff like the Slater situation is completely removed from the situation.

Removes any potential questions a out integrity.

The first part about bunker not knowing score is an easy fix. Second part is more difficult, but in this day an age, I'm sure it can be done from a technology perspective.

Thoughts?

Didn't they get the bunker idea from the NHL, and doesn't the NHL do it this way?

Anyways, good idea.

The NRL should do it, which means they won't

 

[GreenMachine121]

First the they need to get rid of the ref saying “ I have a try / no try “ some tries are awarded on this basis alone , if the video can’t be conclusive that the ball is grounded then its a scrum with attacking team getting the ball
Second the obstruction rule needs to changed , too many time players run into decoys because they know they got caught out , likewise the imbeciles that run decoys and stand in the line , if they go through with out contacting a defender it shouldn’t matter where the ball was caught in relation to that player
Thirdly the defense being able to strip the ball over the line should be changed back to what it was . A penalty

 

[ReddFelon]

First the they need to get rid of the ref saying “ I have a try / no try “ some tries are awarded on this basis alone , if the video can’t be conclusive that the ball is grounded then its a scrum with attacking team getting the ball
Second the obstruction rule needs to changed , too many time players run into decoys because they know they got caught out , likewise the imbeciles that run decoys and stand in the line , if they go through with out contacting a defender it shouldn’t matter where the ball was caught in relation to that player
Thirdly the defense being able to strip the ball over the line should be changed back to what it was . A penalty

Agree with second and third points. The strip the ball being a penalty everywhere else on field and completely legal in the in-goal is geniused. In the exact same way that tackling in the air is legal if you're a defender and illegal if you're on offense.

 

[unforgiven]

First the they need to get rid of the ref saying “ I have a try / no try “ some tries are awarded on this basis alone , if the video can’t be conclusive that the ball is grounded then its a scrum with attacking team getting the ball
Second the obstruction rule needs to changed , too many time players run into decoys because they know they got caught out , likewise the imbeciles that run decoys and stand in the line , if they go through with out contacting a defender it shouldn’t matter where the ball was caught in relation to that player
Thirdly the defense being able to strip the ball over the line should be changed back to what it was . A penalty

No to everything you say.

 

[TheVelourFog]

Letting the refs make a call before sending it to the bunker is EXACTLY what you whingers want.....the ref making a decision. If we got rid of the bunker guess what...those calls would just stand and everyone would complain about the ones they got wrong.

 

[TheVelourFog]

I agree about getting rid of ex-players from refereeing though. You dont need to have played to be able to apply the rules.

 

[siv]

Most of us arm chair fritics are are actually better qualified than the video referees on how to eatch tv for video rulings

I prefer for a return of the ingoal touch judges - eg droped balls - held ups etc will be fine - let the game flow

Only use the bunker for line decisions eg did his foot go out or was the ball grounded before dead in goal

Air attack mess that is not a clean try should be a scrum to the dending team. Video referee adds little value in blurry slow motion replays

Obstruction rulling works under video referee and I am happy to keep penalising blockers

 

[Someguy]

Letting the refs make a call before sending it to the bunker is EXACTLY what you whingers want.....the ref making a decision. If we got rid of the bunker guess what...those calls would just stand and everyone would complain about the ones they got wrong.

Sadly yes the whinging made the bunker more broken.

My opinion none of the try/no try from on field it simply does not work so he thinks it’s no try because of One reason does he then have to include ifs and buts to cover other questionable aspects of the try or does every questionable aspect have to be overturned with conclusive evidence?

The old benefit of the doubt was also a joke, can’t see it so must be a try.

How about look at all available evidence and give the most likely logical outcome with no bias of overturning an on field decision or having to give Benefit to attacker.

 

[AJB1102]

Want less emotion? Put Neil Henry in the bunker.

 

[TheVelourFog]

Sadly yes the whinging made the bunker more broken.

My opinion none of the try/no try from on field it simply does not work so he thinks it’s no try because of One reason does he then have to include ifs and buts to cover other questionable aspects of the try or does every questionable aspect have to be overturned with conclusive evidence?

The old benefit of the doubt was also a joke, can’t see it so must be a try.

How about look at all available evidence and give the most likely logical outcome with no bias of overturning an on field decision or having to give Benefit to attacker.

So the ref doesn't know, it goes to the bunker....What happens when they can't figure it out conclusively? Benefit of the doubt? Nope, whinged about that. Refs call? See original whinge....

They can't win

 

[theo]

Let the fans decide with a show of hands or nowadays I believe there are mobile phones people can SMS their decision.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

There's some merit in this post, certainly I can advocate for the people in the Bunker not knowing the score or the match situation.

But I don't believe emotion or anything else has been the major contributor to some of the completely f**king brain dead decisions made this year, and the inconsistency.

 

[thorson1987]

They all have phones and stuff.. almost impossible to stop them knowing stuff

I'm going to say it is highly probable that they are not allowed to have their phones in the bunker.

 

[Just Visiting]

Definitely agree with getting rid of the try/no-try call from the ref or at least the way it is used now. If it was only used when the video ref had no real idea then instead of returning a refs call it defaulted to what was sent up as, that is on thing. I actually don't recall bitching about the refs call option.

Currently we have the situation where a ref can have literally no idea but has to have a guess, then the video ref has to have compelling evidence to over turn it. Ref shouldn't make a call if they don't know, Video ref should judge what they see, it its 50/50 or can't say its no try as the default position.

 

[unforgiven]

Definitely agree with getting rid of the try/no-try call from the ref or at least the way it is used now. If it was only used when the video ref had no real idea then instead of returning a refs call it defaulted to what was sent up as, that is on thing. I actually don't recall bitching about the refs call option.

Currently we have the situation where a ref can have literally no idea but has to have a guess, then the video ref has to have compelling evidence to over turn it. Ref shouldn't make a call if they don't know, Video ref should judge what they see, it its 50/50 or can't say its no try as the default position.

How did we survive for 90 years with the Refs just guessing if a try was scored?
It is not about the Ref guessing, it is about them getting themselves into a position to make a ruling if it is a try or not, we should have the onfield refs making as many calls as possible.

 

[thorson1987]

How did we survive for 90 years with the Refs just guessing if a try was scored?
It is not about the Ref guessing, it is about them getting themselves into a position to make a ruling if it is a try or not, we should have the onfield refs making as many calls as possible.

This.

How do people not know that was the original reasoning behind getting the refs to make a call. The thought was if they get themselves into better positions to make a call less would be sent up.

 

[unforgiven]

This.

How do people not know that was the original reasoning behind getting the refs to make a call. The thought was if they get themselves into better positions to make a call less would be sent up.

Yep, for a long time the refs were not getting themselves to where they needed to be to make a call one way or the other.

I'm sick of people saying they are guessing. They are not guessing, they are using the information available to them to make a decision. The Bunker is there to ensure that decision was correct, not make it for them. That is why I would prefer a captains challenge system to be used.

 

[BranVan3000]

Get rid of bunker
Introduce SMS polling to rule on every try and penalty

 

[Chimp]

Yep, for a long time the refs were not getting themselves to where they needed to be to make a call one way or the other.

I'm sick of people saying they are guessing. They are not guessing, they are using the information available to them to make a decision. The Bunker is there to ensure that decision was correct, not make it for them. That is why I would prefer a captains challenge system to be used.

Agreed. The people who say 'stop the refs guessing' will be the first to complain when a decision goes to the bunker and there's no decent footage (ball potemtially held up usually), so then the bunker would have to guess instead - so you've got a man in a studio with limited camera angles guessing instead of a bloke who should be no more than a couple of meters away who would have had a natural feel for the outcome anyway.
Or the bunker has to go with an arbitrary 'benefit of doubt' type decision either for or against the attacking team.
The current system is the best option in terms of sending them up with the refs gut feel - though I'd also support the captain's challenge, with bunker again only over turning if there is clear evidence to over rule the ref - if not, refs decision stands.

 

[gitano]

Just stopped by on this thread. Firstly lol@souffs. For mine the Penalty Broncos thing ain't broken