The Bunker

[Timmah]

Footy, hey?

 

[Dogs Of War]

So what about all the times over the weekend in broken field play when players jinked in and across the line, running behind players? It's obstruction if you are obstructed. It's really simple. No player was impeded so the play had no impact on the fact the Knights defence sucked. Most kicks now must be ruled obstruction. Guys are going downtown and I doubt very much that there aren't at least 5 a game where technically he receives the ball inside of the downtown player.

I think it's ok as is. Yes it happens in general play at times, but if you are performing a play that is likely to score points, then make sure you have your ducks lined up. What it will do is ensure that teams don't get in the habit of designing plays like this in the first place, or change there line so they don't get a so called advantage.

 

[Burwood]

Meh. It happened to Newcastle a few rounds ago and I've seen them disallowed in other games as well. As long as it is the ruling for the entire season I don't care.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Second pathetic call to go against the Warriors today. Called for obstruction, Johnson received the ball half a metre inside Mannering's shoulder, 10 metres from the defensive line. Mannering never engaged in the line, he stopped pretty much dead in his run. It went upstairs as a try, and was overturned. No common sense from these mongs. Round 1 Tedesco scores off a 42 metre knock on from Mitchell Moses which is ruled knock back.

Agree 100%.

It was a try, clear as day.

All this talk of black and white interpretation is bullshit because as you say, ball carriers run behind their teammates many times during a game without being penalised.

The scary thing, once again, is that like the Mitchell Aubusson decision it wasn't even close. Both were quite obviously tries and yet neither were given.

How these mugs keep their jobs I'll never know.

 

[--Storm--]

It's f**king shit, waste of money and no better then last year, only bonus is they have a cool name for it.

 

[souths_pride]

I think the biggest thing that we need to look at with the bunker is speeding decisions up. While the bunker seemed to speed things along at the start of the season, decisions have gradually relapsed into take excessive amounts of time. I'd like to see a 60 second limit imposed for the bunker to make a decision and if a decision can't be reached by then, it stays with refs call. I think speeding the game up and creating an entertaining spectacle is far more important than reaching the 'correct' decision. I think that we need to accept that some decisions are 50-50 and on occasion they may go against your team.

 

[Bretto]

I think the biggest thing that we need to look at with the bunker is speeding decisions up. While the bunker seemed to speed things along at the start of the season, decisions have gradually relapsed into take excessive amounts of time. I'd like to see a 60 second limit imposed for the bunker to make a decision and if a decision can't be reached by then, it stays with refs call. I think speeding the game up and creating an entertaining spectacle is far more important than reaching the 'correct' decision. I think that we need to accept that some decisions are 50-50 and on occasion they may go against your team.

The problem is always going to be the operator. How many times have we seen the footage up on the screen, frozen at a specific point, waiting for the numptee behind the controls to figure out where the "play" button is? Add to that, that the decisions are still being made by humans, there's always going to be errors.

 

[beave]

If you are talking about the replay footage on ch9 when they go to the bunker, then you have to remember, this is not what the bunker is viewing. There seemed to be some confusion with this in the broncs cows game.

 

[souths_pride]

The problem is always going to be the operator. How many times have we seen the footage up on the screen, frozen at a specific point, waiting for the numptee behind the controls to figure out where the "play" button is? Add to that, that the decisions are still being made by humans, there's always going to be errors.

Fair point, especially about human error. That is part of the reason why I'd like to see a 60 second limit introduce - if we can't get a decision after 2-3 minutes of viewing the footage, then we are never going to arrive at anything conclusively.

 

[Bretto]

If you are talking about the replay footage on ch9 when they go to the bunker, then you have to remember, this is not what the bunker is viewing. There seemed to be some confusion with this in the broncs cows game.

Since Foxtel have been playing all the games this year, I haven't bothered to watch any Channel 9 coverage.

 

[beave]

Fair enough.

 

[Iafeta]

Meh. It happened to Newcastle a few rounds ago and I've seen them disallowed in other games as well. As long as it is the ruling for the entire season I don't care.

I've seen them disallowed in other games too, but nothing like that. Mannering and Johnson pass each other 10 metres from the defensive line, Mannering jogs at a canter, stops 7 metres short of the line. SEVEN! Who is obstructed? I get it if its closer, perhaps the defensive line holds up, perhaps one bloke takes a look for a mini second and loses his momentum in coming across the line. I'd be a massive advocate for that. But NONE of this happens in this play. Every single player identifies Mannering is not involved in the play. The only other thing Mannering can do to ensure everyone is aware, and he probably had time and space to do it, is to drop down to the ground, grab a poster and some crayons from one of the kids in the stand, and draw a poster reading "I'm not involved in the play". Literally, it was that bad.

And it won't be the ruling for the entire year. The NRL never runs like that. They change the interpretation fortnightly.

If we are going to run this ruling, why on earth do players who crab across field, often cutting in behind others to get back to the middle of the field NEVER get penalised? That is far more of an obstruction as pretty much everytime (except when they swerve to not run into their own player) they jink in behind to buy an extra second. I maintain that should be penalised everytime, but it never is. Thats a textbook obstruction. Motu Tony frankly made a half decent career out of it.

Anyone who's played the game knows that is play on. The use of ex-players as video refs was supposed to be so common sense could be employed as they have a feel for the game. There was none of that on Monday. It was appalling at best.

 

[Iafeta]

Agree 100%.

It was a try, clear as day.

All this talk of black and white interpretation is bullshit because as you say, ball carriers run behind their teammates many times during a game without being penalised.

The scary thing, once again, is that like the Mitchell Aubusson decision it wasn't even close. Both were quite obviously tries and yet neither were given.

How these mugs keep their jobs I'll never know.

That too was a rubbish decision. That was a try every day of the week. It was clear as water. Yet I believe Archer will yet again trot out a video tube on the NRL site claiming his video refs got it right.

 

[thorson1987]

Since Foxtel have been playing all the games this year, I haven't bothered to watch any Channel 9 coverage.

Foxtel take 9's feed.

So you see the exact same thing on both Fox and 9, just different channel graphics and no ads on Fox.

 

[Timmah]

Foxtel take 9's feed.

So you see the exact same thing on both Fox and 9, just different channel graphics and no ads on Fox.

Not even that - same channel graphics (for now), only differences are the ads on fox and different commentators

 

[thorson1987]

Not even that - same channel graphics (for now), only differences are the ads on fox and different commentators

By channel graphics i meant the logos in the top right hand corner.

 

[Maximus]

All this talk of black and white interpretation is bullshit because as you say, ball carriers run behind their teammates many times during a game without being penalised.

So? It wouldn't be the only rule that is different in different parts of the field. You can't strip the ball with 2 or more in the tackle anywhere on the field except for in a try scoring situation. You can't be offside in your own in goal. You can fight to move further forward in the middle of the field, but if you do it on the try line that is a double movement.

Running behind a stationary teammate is fine. Running behind a teammate who is running a line is not, no matter where he stops. It happens all over the field. We have seen players penalised for it this year in other parts of the field, and we see players stop and surrender in the tackle all the time.

 

[Iafeta]

LOL - we see this penalised all the time. Suuuuuure we do. At least 10 times a weekend you will see blokes cut back to get back to the middle of the field, and jink behind 1-2 players before trying to accelerate through the middle. Never penalised. Not once. Mannering was not running a line. Running a line to me is running towards the defensive line. Mannering is jogging at barely quarter clip and going nowhere near the defensive line. Next thing they will blow a penalty when 40 metres across field some bloke is two metres off side from a kick, and gently meanders forward, because he's downtown.

 

[Maximus]

LOL - we see this penalised all the time. Suuuuuure we do. At least 10 times a weekend you will see blokes cut back to get back to the middle of the field, and jink behind 1-2 players before trying to accelerate through the middle.

And what are the other players doing? Standing still?

It's pretty simple to understand why standing still is seen as ok. They aren't in a position to receive the ball. A player running a line is.

Mannering was not running a line. Running a line to me is running towards the defensive line. Mannering is jogging at barely quarter clip and going nowhere near the defensive line.

Which way do you think he was running? He was running at the defensive line. The fact he stopped is irrelevant. How close can the player get to the defensive line before it stops being ok? 3 metres? 5 metres?

What about speed? Should we put a km/h figure on it, and only those running faster than the speed can be penalised?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think that's where the call was wrong tbh. Mannering wasn't "running a line". Mannering wasn't a "decoy". These are concepts taken from set plays, this happened in broken play off the back of a hit-up and an offload. At best Mannering was just sort of trying to get out of the way.

The bunker applied a concept from one situation to the wrong situation. I can only guess they just watched the last 2 seconds of the replay and totally forgot the context. It was a shocking mistake but for the sake of the NRL this season I really hope it was just that- a mistake. Otherwise it's going to be a shambles.