The Bunker

[oldmancraigy]

Pretty hard to say it did or didn't at 6-0. Complexity of the game changes at 6-6. It's not as simple as score minus possible score equals still a win, therefore didn't decide game.

I fail to understand why Cecchin or any ref has to say anything when it goes upstairs, unless there's the probability the Bunker aren't going to get a good look (ie a big pileup with bodies obstructing view). Send it upstairs and let them rule on it. I can't see why some guy needs an opinion in real time when we're saying the technology is there and it's king, so we're using it.

It was 8-0.

If the Dogs score of a blatantly forward pass THEN one could argue the refs influenced the game. But I basically agrer with leaving it ALL up to bunker. Also cannot see any issue with them ruling a pass forward - but it was painful checking every pass way back when they used to do that...

Parra dominated and deserved 20-0, doggirs snuck a consolation at the death.

Thought the refereeing was fantastic. Big boys went at it and the Dogs missed a few of their class players who were out.

 

[Bazal]

It was a blatantly forward pass. The error was that muppet Checcin not consulting the touchy. The correct process would have been to ask the touchy, he says forward, then either call it forward or send it up as no try if he thought there was a touch.

The Bunker have made the right call, there was no touch so the ball was obviously forward. The f**k up was the ref sending it up as a try

 

[Twatface Magee]

We know who called what - the process is the problem.

The whole issue doesn't even arise if the referee doesn't have to make an onfield call. They need to get rid of that element of the process.

 

[ram raid]

Just send let ref call a 'possible try' and let the bunker take over everything.

 

[DiegoNT]

The whole issue doesn't even arise if the referee doesn't have to make an onfield call. They need to get rid of that element of the process.

And replace it with?
The reason the refs make the on field call is for the situations where a video ref cannot make a call, if the video ref can't find sufficient evidence to overrule the refs call, then the original decision stands. It was set up because in the past if the video ref couldn't make a decision they just awarded a try to the attacking team (benefit of the doubt).
Yes the ref stuffed up in this occasion, and we have had a number of times the video ref has overruled the on field call (in some situations the on field call was bizzarely wrong) but at the end of the day the right calls are being made at the end of the process, which goes away completely if we go back to the 'let's just give it to the attacking team' process we had in the past

 

[Snappy]

That's what I call Cecchin.

I can't stand him. Imo he is the worst ref.

All Snappy does is give me shit all the time when I post on the main forum. So he can cop it back. Anything I say Snappy pulls up. I rarely pull up things he says as I try to respect him.

Snappy should try to respect me too. Funny thing is I reckon we both could agree on this one. But he says leave it to the adults to start the argument:roll::roll:


If you're telling me to log off then so should snappy.

By the way, I agree with what you're saying Timmah.

I said that too and snappy said leave it to the adults.

So I then gave him his own medicine back.

I know you see where I'm coming from.

Nice meltdown.

5.5/10

 

[ram raid]

And replace it with?
The reason the refs make the on field call is for the situations where a video ref cannot make a call, if the video ref can't find sufficient evidence to overrule the refs call, then the original decision stands. It was set up because in the past if the video ref couldn't make a decision they just awarded a try to the attacking team (benefit of the doubt).
Yes the ref stuffed up in this occasion, and we have had a number of times the video ref has overruled the on field call (in some situations the on field call was bizzarely wrong) but at the end of the day the right calls are being made at the end of the process, which goes away completely if we go back to the 'let's just give it to the attacking team' process we had in the past

We should go back to the benefit of the doubt thing but it should go to the defending team. If a try is so hard to prove it's probably not worth points anyway.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I cant believe the level of hyperventilation going on over this...

There was a mall technical error that was caught before it could have any effect on the game. The correct decision was made and made quickly, yet people are now demanding we change the process.

This on-field decision that the video-ref has to disprove beyond reasonable doubt to over turn i infinitely better than the old BOTD to the attacking team.

Im all for improving the game as a product and a spectacle, but you cant just say "X is bad and needs to change". Come up with and advocate a better alternative or accept the status quo as the best of a bad lot...

 

[unforgiven]

The current system of the ref making a call and sending it to tge bunker is much better than tge rubbish benefit of the doubt decisions.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

I have always liked using the term: "dumb as a bag of hammers" but after reading this thread that is all going to change.

From today onwards it will be "dumb as a bag of 20 rabbits"

 

[Chook Norris]

The current system of the ref making a call and sending it to tge bunker is much better than tge rubbish benefit of the doubt decisions.

Have to agree with this. Also agree with the comment about quit whining about the process unless you have something that is clearly better. What we have now is fine IMO. Yet to see a better solution

 

[Card Shark]

Yeh, there is no perfect solution.

If it was changed, there'd ne something else to complain about.

As long as they get most calls right, that's all that matters.

 

[Twatface Magee]

We should go back to the benefit of the doubt thing but it should go to the defending team. If a try is so hard to prove it's probably not worth points anyway.

This.
Saves having a random guess that could favour either team and potentially decide the outcome of the game.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

This.
Saves having a random guess that could favour either team and potentially decide the outcome of the game.

Why do you assume it would be a random guess??

We trust the refs capacity to make decision all through the rest of the game. Why does this suddenly become no more than 50/50??

The Video Ref is reviewing this play specifically because it is one of the most important moments in the game (points on the board). It doesnt mean the ref is just having a punt...

 

[DiegoNT]

If benefit of the doubt swings to the defending team, then we'll have a situation where a ref is 99% sure a try was scored but wants to be sure, the scoring team are sure they've scored, defending team are sure they've conceded a try, the video ref are instructed because they can't get a view on the ball so it'll have to be a benefit of the doubt no try.

 

[ram raid]

Why do you assume it would be a random guess??

We trust the refs capacity to make decision all through the rest of the game.

Since when? Refs f**k up at least once a minute. But we don't fuss because it has no great bearing on the game. When it's the difference between a try and no try, it becomes important.

 

[Twatface Magee]

Why do you assume it would be a random guess??

We trust the refs capacity to make decision all through the rest of the game. Why does this suddenly become no more than 50/50??

The Video Ref is reviewing this play specifically because it is one of the most important moments in the game (points on the board). It doesnt mean the ref is just having a punt...

Because a lot of the time something is obstructing their view of what happened and that's why they send it to the Bunker.

 

[ram raid]

If benefit of the doubt swings to the defending team, then we'll have a situation where a ref is 99% sure a try was scored but wants to be sure, the scoring team are sure they've scored, defending team are sure they've conceded a try, the video ref are instructed because they can't get a view on the ball so it'll have to be a benefit of the doubt no try.

If the bunker can't get an angle of the ball being grounded on one of their 9000 cameras, isn't that doubt enough?

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

For me, the Jeremy Smith no-try in todays Knights-Raiders game was a moment that embodied the purpose of the ref making a call before sending it upstair...

(For context, im a knight fan. So this is the antithesis of bias).

Had the ref sent this upstairs without an onfield decision, it could have gone either way (the decision was so line-ball,in the old days it would either have been BOTD or REFS CALL; that classic "f*cked if i know"). The the entire game would have been overshadowed by 1 single non-decision and everyone would have gone home feeling cheated.

Instead the ref called "No Try" and, before we had seen a single replay, the entire crowd/audience was on the same page; it will be No Try unless the replay shows BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that this call was wrong. So when the pictures came out blurry, the collective sentiment Newcastle and Canberra fans alike was "eh, fair enough".

Whether or not the process is more accurate or not (we know for damn sure it is no less), this move to a primary on-field decision has fundamentally changed the way we view the Video Refs calls and it has massively reduced the VR controversies.

(I mean, it took 3 rounds a single issue to attach public outrage and that want even to do with the accuracy of the decision. Only confusion around the process)

 

[unforgiven]

What I would love for us to have is a challenge system, but limited to the same situations we currently use the bunker. So when a try is scored the ref makes his decision. If a team disagree with the decision then they challenge the decision. This will now never happen with the amount of money the game spent on the bunker system.