The Bunker

[Sean7]

Yeah it's good that there's now a way for refs to be overruled when there's a major f**k up but it's opening a massive can of worms ... Foran and Arthur said in their after match interview that it might have been a fair call but there have been plenty of times calls have gone against them and the bunker didn't come to save them ... so what do you say to that.

This is the problem. The decision was correct. The problem is, they have plenty of chances to overturn decisions at scrums and they decide not to.

There was even a game last year or the year before with Parramatta again where the video ref had already overturned a decision at a scrum in favour of the opposition and then later in the same game, they had the chance to overturn a decision in Parra's favour and the ref said to the Parra players that he's made his decision and he's not going to change it (Yes, this sentence is too long). So is this an 'if I feel like it' rule? There seems to be too many of these rules. I'm sure it hasn't only happened to Parramatta. I'm just using it as an example.

The bunker needs to stay out of general play and I don't see why overturning at a scrum is any different to overturning at any other time, apart from the fact that they have time to look at it. Again, do it on every call or not at all.

 

[Leber]

Is this noticed by Oz fans?

I feel it needed to happen to Storm, Broncos or even the Roosters for it to become a big enough issue for the NRL to say, opps we stuffed that up.

Or, pun intended, do I just have a bunker mentality as a Warriors fan.

Admitted that the call was wrong. Should have been a sin bin.

http://www.warriors.kiwi/news/2016/04/04/referees_boss_admits.html

 

[Matua]

Admitted that the call was wrong. Should have been a sin bin.

http://www.warriors.kiwi/news/2016/04/04/referees_boss_admits.html

 

[The Engineers Room]

This is the problem. The decision was correct.

But did the Parramatta player actually knock on? I don't think so. So how can they change it if there was no knock on at all.

Same game. Why did the first Panthers try not get called back for double movement? His arm hits the ground short then he extends it to put the ball down.

 

[big hit!]

The bunker needs to stay out of general play and I don't see why overturning at a scrum is any different to overturning at any other time, apart from the fact that they have time to look at it. Again, do it on every call or not at all.

video ref should only adjudicate on groundings.

it is so inconsistent for them to get involved in all aspects of the try scoring play. what about every other play where tries aren't scored? don't these phases set up eventual scoring plays?

 

[betcats]

But did the Parramatta player actually knock on? I don't think so. So how can they change it if there was no knock on at all.

Same game. Why did the first Panthers try not get called back for double movement? His arm hits the ground short then he extends it to put the ball down.

The Parra player clearly knocked it on.

Cartwright didn't fall short of the line he fell over it he didn't advance once he hit the ground he just fell on his side back, he was well within his rights to put the ball down as he wasn't held up by the defence.

 

[thorson1987]

But did the Parramatta player actually knock on? I don't think so. So how can they change it if there was no knock on at all.

yes he did.

Same game. Why did the first Panthers try not get called back for double movement? His arm hits the ground short then he extends it to put the ball down.

Because it wasn't a double movement. If his arm has hit the ground before the line but momentum has carried him over he has every right to ground the ball.

 

[TheGoldenPoint]

But did the Parramatta player actually knock on? I don't think so. So how can they change it if there was no knock on at all.

Same game. Why did the first Panthers try not get called back for double movement? His arm hits the ground short then he extends it to put the ball down.

I saw a knock-on. I think the Bunker got the call right, but it was surprising to see it overturned at the last second. Interested to see how consistent this stays for the rest of the season.

 

[Rodent]

Ref rules try, overturned by bunker bahahahaha

 

[Johnnie Red]

The NRL spends 2m on the Bunker and couldn't get the frame that showed the ball being grounded. All they needed was a Foxtel subscription.

 

[Twatface Magee]

Ref rules try, overturned by bunker bahahahaha

That frame still shows seperation IMO.

 

[POPEYE]

Maybe one day we'll return to 'the arm carrying the ball making contact with the ground', that way how long the grass is won't f**king matter

 

[nrlnrl]

video ref should only adjudicate on groundings.

it is so inconsistent for them to get involved in all aspects of the try scoring play. what about every other play where tries aren't scored? don't these phases set up eventual scoring plays?

Yep, it's like the 3rd umpire occasionally checking for a no-ball. Imagine all the no-balls that are missed or incorrectly called? They only check for them after an initial,call of out. Some of the deliveries that are checked are embarrassin. I've seen them when the foot is half a metre behind the line.

 

[no name]

Ref rules try, overturned by bunker bahahahaha

I didn't think they had enough to overturn it.

I don't 'think' it was a try, but I couldn't definitively say it wasn't.

 

[POPEYE]

I didn't think it was a try because the rules allow it not to be one. As I said previously if common sense were to prevail and a player's own arm was the only thing between the ball and the ground and as such can't be amputated then tries should be allowed . . . whether or not this particulate try attempt involved a convoluted knock-on is another thing

 

[ed-grimley]

I saw a knock-on. I think the Bunker got the call right, but it was surprising to see it overturned at the last second. Interested to see how consistent this stays for the rest of the season.

The word 'referee' and the word 'consistent' should never appear in the same sentence.

 

[no name]

I didn't think it was a try because the rules allow it not to be one. As I said previously if common sense were to prevail and a player's own arm was the only thing between the ball and the ground and as such can't be amputated then tries should be allowed . . . whether or not this particulate try attempt involved a convoluted knock-on is another thing

Yeah I remember when it was just the arm carrying the ball that needed to be grounded.

You see run away tries all the time that only the arm touches, not the ball.

 

[Frailty]

Yeah I remember when it was just the arm carrying the ball that needed to be grounded.

You see run away tries all the time that only the arm touches, not the ball.

Nope. Ball as always needed to be grounded. However, a player is tackled when the arm carrying the ball touches the ground.

 

[Iafeta]

Archer said last week that the Bunker can get involved on goal line drop out plays when the play is dead and time is off. Yesterday Kara got out of the in goal and a full play later the Bunker intervened. The play was not dead. When they showed the replay, Kara had made it into the field of play, so it was also the wrong call. Wonder what the Minister for Justification will come up with this week to defend that horror show abomination.

 

[pHyR3]

Archer said last week that the Bunker can get involved on goal line drop out plays when the play is dead and time is off. Yesterday Kara got out of the in goal and a full play later the Bunker intervened. The play was not dead. When they showed the replay, Kara had made it into the field of play, so it was also the wrong call. Wonder what the Minister for Justification will come up with this week to defend that horror show abomination.

actually no, the rule states if the ball hits the line its a goal line drop out and thats exactly what happened

another good call from the bunker. the commentators dont know what theyre on about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n7pPFeY5cA