The Bunker

[DiegoNT]

In the past the 'right process' was used to make horrible decisions in the video ref box, .tonight we had the wrong process come up with the right decision..i can live with that.
For people saying the refs shouldn't make a decision before sending it up, .do you remember the ridiculous benefit of the doubt system?
The refs aren't guessing, they are making a decision and it's upto to the video refs to come up with the evidence to overturn them. That's a million times better then the old 'i can't make a decision, let's just give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team'. If every on field refs decision is overturned i don't care as long as the correct calls are made in the end. I'd much rather lose a grand final on a so called 'refs guess' call than lose a grand final on a Benefit of the doubt call.

 

[Last Week]

It doesn't matter if anyone here thinks it went forward or not (I don't), the touch judge made the call of forward. That's it. That's where the play breaks down and why it's no try.

 

[Rabbits20]

Well, no, the rules state that a video referee can make a ruling on any try scoring play. (funny enough, nothing in the guidelines about not ruling on forward passes)

The Bunker weren't asked to rule on a forward pass. They were asked to rule if Parramatta touched the ball. Which they didn't.

The bunker can not rule on a forward pass.

You should know this!!!!!!!!!

On ch 9 after the match Archer also said Gould was correct in that the bunker can't rule on a forward pass.

 

[Last Week]

The bunker can not rule on a forward pass.

You should know this!!!!!!!!!

On ch 9 after the match Archer also said Gould was correct in that the bunker can't rule on a forward pass.

Read it again child, they weren't asked to rule on a forward pass.

 

[Snappy]

Duuurrrrrrr, we know that.

We ain't dumb you goose.

The bunker went with the live touchie call that Feckin missed on field.

They were looking for a Parra touch too which Feckin told them to look at.

I understand what happened.

It's obviously beyond you as usual.

Like I said, leave the discussion to the adults champ.

Once the ref makes the call on field, that's it. The ref looked at the touch judge, and then ruled try. It cant be ruled on. Period.

 

[BuffaloRules]

It doesn't matter if anyone here thinks it went forward or not (I don't), the touch judge made the call of forward. That's it. That's where the play breaks down and why it's no try.

So why were they checking whether Parra touched the ball?

To prove/disprove what?

 

[Card Shark]

Plenty wrong with the way it was handled. Cecchin didn't consult with the touchie until after the referral which was an error in itself. Regardless of what caveats he placed on it going upstairs as a try, it can't come back with a forward pass ruling. If he wanted that outcome it should have gone up with a no try ruling.

Either way, the side on angle shows it come backwards out of Kasiano's hands so the whole point is moot, the try should have been given. Cecchin stuffed up.

I'm a big critic of touchies disallowing wingers tries from 10m passes, as they float forward a mile, physics tells me so (eh wanker, "storm"). However, being tackled, his forward progress was almost stopped.

If the side on view of a touchie in relative slow motion says forward pass, I'm happy with it.

Good explanation by Archer too, despite Gould pretending he works for News Ltd.

 

[Rabbits20]

Beaver, siv and betcats said Greenberg was going to rig the comp now he is CEO so something must be wrong

Well he's had an influence on the judiciary.

 

[Rabbits20]

it was a mile forward

Out of the hands it was backwards meaning it should have been a try.

It floated forward which does not matter.

 

[Rabbits20]

Agree with this...

I don't understand why they are looking at whether Parra touched the ball or not?

Kasiano has either passed it forward or not, whether Parra touched it is irrelevant.

The idiot from the Bunker (Archer?) was still talking about this after the game...

Feckin sees imaginary things. No idea at all.

 

[Snappy]

Tip, your childish name calling makes you look like a child

 

[Last Week]

So why were they checking whether Parra touched the ball?

To prove/disprove what?

To confirm that a Parramatta player touched the ball after the pass had been thrown. Which is completely irrelevant as the direction of travel of the ball doesn't mean it's a forward pass. It's the way it comes out of the passers hands.

All beside the point. Does not matter.

Here's your f**k ups in order;
Touchie called forward based on how the ball floated after it was passed.
Referee didn't consult with touchie before going to the bunker.
Referee and touchie thought that it mattered where the ball floated to determine if it went forward. Thus basing their decision on it being forward or not on whether Parramatta touched it or not.

I don't think it was forward. But the touch judge made a decision and that's where it should have stopped.

 

[Timmah]

Well, no, the rules state that a video referee can make a ruling on any try scoring play. (funny enough, nothing in the guidelines about not ruling on forward passes)

The Bunker weren't asked to rule on a forward pass. They were asked to rule if Parramatta touched the ball. Which they didn't.

:lol:

Archer conceded in his interview that Cecchin erred in the process and that it should not have gone up with a live ruling of try.

Cecchin failed to take the advice of the touch judge BEFORE making that live ruling. That's where the confusion was created - the live ruling was incorrect and got muddled along the way.

 

[BuffaloRules]

To confirm that a Parramatta player touched the ball after the pass had been thrown. Which is completely irrelevant as the direction of travel of the ball doesn't mean it's a forward pass. It's the way it comes out of the passers hands.

All beside the point. Does not matter.

I think this is important though.

They are checking to see if the pass ended up travelling forward as a result of it touching a Parra player...

But then they would be overruling a forward pass decision already made on the field..

Stupid....

 

[Last Week]

:lol:

Archer conceded in his interview that Cecchin erred in the process and that it should not have gone up with a live ruling of try.

Cecchin failed to take the advice of the touch judge BEFORE making that live ruling. That's where the confusion was created - the live ruling was incorrect and got muddled along the way.

You're laughing yet you've agreed with me? Interesting.

 

[Timmah]

it was a mile forward

IMO - backwards out of the hand, floated forward. by current interpretations that's actually not a forward pass. But it's neither here nor there now.

Bottom line for this instance, the process to reach the decision was flawed due to an error from the on-field referee.

It didn't cost anyone the game and the better team won comfortably, but Cecchin should be accountable for failing to follow the proper process.

 

[Rabbits20]

Like I said, leave the discussion to the adults champ.

Once the ref makes the call on field, that's it. The ref looked at the touch judge, and then ruled try. It cant be ruled on. Period.

Like I said, it's beyond you.

This time it wasn't it as the bunker went with the touchies call that Feckin missed as he didn't refer to the touch judge and missed the touchies call.

We know a forward pass can't be ruled on by the bunker.

The bunker went with the touchie.

Archer said Feckin screwed up.

The way you post rudely and carry on is like in the schoolyard. It's obvious you ain't an adult.

 

[Last Week]

I think this is important though.

They are checking to see if the pass ended up travelling forward as a result of it touching a Parra player...

But then they would be overruling a forward pass decision already made on the field..

Stupid....

Again, they were asked to check if a Parramatta player touched it. That's it. Not the trajectory of the ball, not how it came out of the passers hands, just whether or not a Parra player touched the ball.

 

[Timmah]

You're laughing yet you've agreed with me? Interesting.

I'm laughing because you're saying the bunker wasn't asked to rule on a forward pass. By way of Cecchin sending it up as a try, technically they have. That's where the stuff-up is.

Archer said Feckin screwed up.

The way you post rudely and carry on is like in the schoolyard. It's obvious you ain't an adult.

I don't follow, you accuse someone else of posting rudely and carry on like a schoolyard yet you've been labelling people as a goose and continually using a childish insult in place of the name of a referee?

Log off mate.

 

[Rabbits20]

IMO - backwards out of the hand, floated forward. by current interpretations that's actually not a forward pass. But it's neither here nor there now.

Bottom line for this instance, the process to reach the decision was flawed due to an error from the on-field referee.

It didn't cost anyone the game and the better team won comfortably, but Cecchin should be accountable for failing to follow the proper process.

You are right. Out of the hands backwards and floated forward.

Feckin is very ordinary.

Last season when Gray scored from a pass 1 metre backwards he went to the video ref and said no try check on the forward pass. I was lmao:lol::lol::lol::lol: