The Bunker

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Johns makes a fair point, if they genuinely have no idea why should they have to make a call? And on the other hand Gould raises a good point, if they're confident enough to make a ruling to send to the bunker, why didn't they just make the call in the first place?

Its about determining who gets benefit of the doubt if the camera angle isnt great; better than the old "i dunno. F*ck it, just give them points".

It also establishes in the audiences mind what the likely outcome will be, making the 50/50 calls far less controversial.

I admit i havent watched as many games as i would have in previous seasons (life and all that bullshit), but im yet to see a genuine case of the Bunker f*cking up. Every whinge i have seen was based pretty heavily on a fan not getting the result they wanted rather than any objective evidence....

 

[Slackboy72]

Nothing wrong with the bunker.
The problem is the people in it who refuse to read the rulebook.

 

[unforgiven]

Johns makes a fair point, if they genuinely have no idea why should they have to make a call? And on the other hand Gould raises a good point, if they're confident enough to make a ruling to send to the bunker, why didn't they just make the call in the first place?

We should just let the ref rule a try or no try. If one side disagree with the decision they challenge the play. Otherwise we continue on. Bunker needs to prove ref was wrong. simple.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

We should just let the ref rule a try or no try. If one side disagree with the decision they challenge the play. Otherwise we continue on. Bunker needs to prove ref was wrong. simple.

Not a bad idea (itd stop people whinging about the ref not sending it up), but theyve spent $2mil on the thing. Bit decedent to leave it unused to appease whinging bogans......

 

[Parra]

Sick of this crap ruining games.

The no-try for Foran is the worst decision so far. Hard to understand why the NRL has to keep coming up with ways to fsck this game up.

 

[user_nat]

I don't understand how this is a bunker related thing. The fact that the video ref is now in a room that has 4 screens at once had no impact on the obstruction ruling.

 

[Parra]

They are their own show-within-a-show. The more influence the wankers in the bunker have, the more important they think they are.

It is unnecessary and is starting to change the way the game has to be played.

We now have poorer decisions being made than when we had 1 ref and 2 touchies.

But idiots need to be coddled, so the game needs the bunker.

 

[Simon]

It was no try. The decoy runner initiated contact. I for one like the new interpretation, it takes all the BS around subjective views on whether or not the defensive player would of got involved. It's simple now, if you're a decoy runner don't initiate contact with a defender.

 

[Snappy]

Dont get decoys running into the defenders. Simple.

 

[Parra]

Bullshit. The defender initiated contact. If not, the bloke without the ball would just sail through the gap. As it stands now, the defender only has to make contact to get the play recalled.

Only if a try is scored. If the play is halted short of the tryline then it is play on. No review.

For idiots, by idiots.

 

[some11]

As it stands now, the defender only has to make contact to get the play recalled.

So.. in other words.. he was.. obstructed.

 

[Simon]

Bullshit. The defender initiated contact. If not, the bloke without the ball would just sail through the gap. As it stands now, the defender only has to make contact to get the play recalled.

Only if a try is scored. If the play is halted short of the tryline then it is play on. No review.

For idiots, by idiots.

The defender was sliding in defence. The onus should always be on the decoy to avoid the defender unless the defender changes direction to defend the decoy.

Anyway we'll agree to disagree, but my take on it is it's great that we've taken the subjective opinion on whether or not a defender would take any part in the play out of the equation. That always caused division in opinions.

I agree though if he got tackled before the line it would of been play on. That should be on the refs to make the right call inline with what the video ref would make.

 

[Mogsheen Jadwat]

Thought it was a tad harsh but parra are a bad side and i revel in their misery so lol @ them.

 

[Parra]

So.. in other words.. he was.. obstructed.

Who? The runner?

No way was that defender in the play from the moment he fell for the dummy. He wasn't sliding, he wasn't obstructed. He was just beaten.

 

[Parra]

Thought it was a tad harsh but parra are a bad side and i revel in their misery so lol @ them.

Now this is at least honest.

 

[umina panther]

Damn bunker rightfully in forcing the rules

 

[some11]

Who? The runner?

No way was that defender in the play from the moment he fell for the dummy. He wasn't sliding, he wasn't obstructed. He was just beaten.

I think the refs define beaten by using Gallen being 15m away throwing his hands in the air after brushing the first decoy when the ball runner is just catching the damn thing.

 

[Charlie124]

f**k Parra, amirite?

 

[Jaegerex]

I think the refs define beaten by using Gallen being 15m away throwing his hands in the air after brushing a defender when the ball runner is just catching the damn thing.

They admitted they got that wrong and that the bunker only checked an obstruction earlier in the play, not Lawrence on Gallen. So even that isn't defined as being beaten.

 

[Parra]

Damn bunker rightfully in forcing the rules

Reinterpretation is not enforcement. It was a shit call.