The Bunker

[Sean7]

Just thought I’d add a few things. I haven’t read every comment, so apologies if it’s been said before.

On the referee having to send it up as try or no try. I think this has to stay. The referee is giving his decision based on what he has seen. This is what referees were doing for years before we had video ref. I don’t understand the argument saying that if they didn’t see it, they shouldn’t make a decision. Before the video ref they were doing this all the time. They are making a decision based on the on-field evidence, of which there may be very little, but this is the same for any on-field decision that a referee has to make. If they send the decision up and there is no way to tell, then you resort to the on-field decision, just like before the video ref.

On the Bulldogs forward pass try. I keep hearing the media saying that the bunker can’t rule on a forward pass. That is correct, but the bunker did not rule on the forward pass. They ruled on whether or not the ball was touched. The ref sent it up as a try because he thought the ball was touched and that is what made it go forward. The bunker found it was not touched, so the ball travelled forward without being touched. So the decision was overturned based on the fact that the ball wasn’t touched, so it went forward from the Bulldogs player. I think this is a very grey area and it’s good that it happened this early in the season.

I think the only problem here was that it was sent up as a try. He thought it was a try so he sent it up that way, but what he didn’t think about was that it was on a forward pass. So he should have sent it up as a no try as it’s easier to overturn, BUT he did think it was a try because the ball was touched, so he sent it up as a try. He obviously thought the ball went forward, otherwise he wouldn’t have sent it up, but he wasn’t asking them to rule on a forward pass, he was asking them to rule on whether the Eels players touched it.

Correct result in the end and I’m not even sure the ref is to blame for the confusion. Should he have sent it up as a no try even though he thought it was a try? It’s an odd one and more a technicality than the fault of the ref. I'm not even sure the process was wrong.

Congratulations if you can decipher the above ramblings.

 

[Glen]

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)

The onfield ref making a preliminary decision while sending it upstairs was a brilliant addition by Daniel Anderson's team. Refs can still make the wrong decision but human error does not make it a bad process

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I think the only problem here was that it was sent up as a try. He thought it was a try so he sent it up that way, but what he didn?t think about was that it was on a forward pass. So he should have sent it up as a no try as it?s easier to overturn, BUT he did think it was a try because the ball was touched, so he sent it up as a try. He obviously thought the ball went forward, otherwise he wouldn?t have sent it up, but he wasn?t asking them to rule on a forward pass, he was asking them to rule on whether the Eels players touched it.

Correct result in the end and I?m not even sure the ref is to blame for the confusion. Should he have sent it up as a no try even though he thought it was a try? It?s an odd one and more a technicality than the fault of the ref. I'm not even sure the process was wrong.
.

Its not even that the ref needed to send it up as a no try, people are just upset that he didnt explicitly say during the referral that "the ball has travelled towards the Parra tryline. I think it was touched in the air by the Parra player, if you can how that it was not, then call a forward pass".

Maybe people are complaining because they couldnt follow and their brain got an ouchy...
:roll:

 

[betcats]

The ref f**ked up on that dogs pass. Why did he refer as a try if the touchy said forward pass? He is supposed to check with the touchy before he refers it. On field they definitely f**ked up, the bunker just had to work with what they were given though not much they could do.

 

[unforgiven]

The ref f**ked up on that dogs pass. Why did he refer as a try if the touchy said forward pass? He is supposed to check with the touchy before he refers it. On field they definitely f**ked up, the bunker just had to work with what they were given though not much they could do.

Maybe he knew that the touchie called it forward but believed that it travelled forward because he believed the ball was touched. The ref has the right to overrule a touchies call if he sees it differently.

 

[betcats]

Maybe he knew that the touchie called it forward but believed that it travelled forward because he believed the ball was touched. The ref has the right to overrule a touchies call if he sees it differently.

Yeah but the actual ref and the refs boss both said the ref didn't hear the touchies call. So he thought the pass was legit but sent it to check for a touch but if there wasn't a touch the video can't overturn the try decision because that would be ruling the pass forward which the vid ref is not allowed to do. It's pretty clear they made a mistake, we got the right decision of course but they almost got into a situation where the bunker had to give it a try. The only thing that stopped the bunker from having to call it a try was when after it already been sent up the ref said "the touchie called it forward but I didnt hear it" to the video ref.

 

[El Diablo]

but if there wasn't a touch the video can't overturn the try decision because that would be ruling the pass forward

in this case they could rule it a knock on by the Dogs seeing it hit the ground

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Yeah but the actual ref and the refs boss both said the ref didn't hear the touchies call. So he thought the pass was legit but sent it to check for a touch but if there wasn't a touch the video can't overturn the try decision because that would be ruling the pass forward which the vid ref is not allowed to do. It's pretty clear they made a mistake, we got the right decision of course but they almost got into a situation where the bunker had to give it a try. The only thing that stopped the bunker from having to call it a try was when after it already been sent up the ref said "the touchie called it forward but I didnt hear it" to the video ref.

No, the Video Ref cannot make a call on what direction the ball travelled.

BUT, if the ref confirmed that it did, but wasnt sure who it was sent it that way, then the VR can make a call on whether the ball was touched or not...

 

[betcats]

No, the Video Ref cannot make a call on what direction the ball travelled.

BUT, if the ref confirmed that it did, but wasnt sure who it was sent it that way, then the VR can make a call on whether the ball was touched or not...

That is not the call that was made, It was explained by the ref on the field and archer after the game they went with the touch judges call of forward which was not heard by the ref. You can't send it up as a try and say to the video ref "if it was touched it is a try if it wasn't touched it is a forward pass so no try" they have a clear process that says the ref makes a call and sends it up and the bunker confirms or overturns the decision based off the evidence.

Think of it like this, the only rules infringement in the play was the forward pass. Kasiano passes it and the try scorer catches it and puts it down cleanly, no knock on or any other infringement or foul play. The ref sent it up as try so at this point the bunker must have a reason according to the rules to over turn the decision on field and the only thing that prevented that play from being a try was the forward pass which the bunker cannot rule on. After it been looked at the ref came up with forward pass call from the touchie and the ruled no try and went with touchies cal but if u are going with the touchies call it should not of been referred at all it was just eels ball.


I'm not bagging them for this because in the end common sense prevailed and they owned up to the stuff between the ref and the touchie and it is a confusing set of rules I can see how an error was made in the heat of the moment.

 

[--Storm--]

Bunkers been shocking this weekend.

 

[DiegoNT]

So we all still loving the bunker?

 

[Edwahu]

Still beats the old system. At least its quicker.

 

[Twatface Magee]

So we all still loving the bunker?

I just don't like the process.
If the touchie saw the ball on the line award the try, there's no need to go to the bunker.

Likewise if they have a genuine reason to go to the Bunker - i.e neither the referee or the touch judge knows if it's a try or not then don't force them to make an on field call. For the sake of consistency just go with benefit of the doubt.

 

[Pete Cash]

It looks like arse at the ground but it still is the better system

 

[cleary89]

yeh heaps better.

 

[billypilgrimnz]

I just don't like the process.
If the touchie saw the ball on the line award the try, there's no need to go to the bunker.

Likewise if they have a genuine reason to go to the Bunker - i.e neither the referee or the touch judge knows if it's a try or not then don't force them to make an on field call. For the sake of consistency just go with benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of the Doubt sucked and will always suck and should never, ever come back.

 

[Snappy]

I just don't like the process.
If the touchie saw the ball on the line award the try, there's no need to go to the bunker.

Likewise if they have a genuine reason to go to the Bunker - i.e neither the referee or the touch judge knows if it's a try or not then don't force them to make an on field call. For the sake of consistency just go with benefit of the doubt.

agree with everything here. Good post.

 

[unforgiven]

Really, the system should be ref makes the call, if a team disagrees they challenge the call. Should only be allowed for try scoring situations. Done and dusted

 

[cleary89]

when does a player agree with anything that goes against them? lol

 

[DiegoNT]

The bunkers faster, that's a great thing, but the bunker was meant to make decisions easier and the process clearer for everyone. The problems that affected the old video ref system, human error and personal interpretation still comes into effect. We are still having just as many 'controversial' decisions.
As for the process, well nobody has come up with a better system yet. Try/no try is a million times better then benifit of the doubt. There's been a lot of talk about olives match winner. No matter what system we used the try would still be controversial.
If we went with the old benifit doubt system, it would of been a try.
If we went with a send it up with no call, when the video refs couldn't find sufficient footage then it would of been a refs call- a try
If we just took touchie word for it and given it a try without review then there would of been a massive outcry that the touchie made such a vital and hard decision without using the technology available. We would be replaying that putdown all week and criticizing the touchie because none of us saw the ball put down.
If we had a benifit of the doubt to the defending team and a no try giving on a technicality then there would be massive uproar as an official claimed he saw the ball put down.
All systems have drawbacks.