The Bunker

[El Diablo]

it's hard for teams and players to stop doing it too as unless a try is scored the refs let them go

 

[Danish]

it's hard for teams and players to stop doing it too as unless a try is scored the refs let them go

Exactly right.

If they made it a pure refs call decision and said video refs cannot rule on it like forward passes then refs would simply pull them up every time and it would be a lot simpler.

The stupid "let them fall to the ground and commit a voluntary tackle then it's all better" rule is also ridiculous and has to stop. I can't think of any other sport where they allow you to negate one penalty by committing another penalty

 

[Lebbo73]

But that's the point. It's a stupid rule that rewards poor defensive reads.

If you're a defender in a try scoring situation all you have to do to ease the pressure on your side is come up on a decoy runner, stand in his way and let him run into you and they'll give you a penalty.

It probably is a stupid real but I am of the belief that decoy runners are nearly an obstruction by themselves. You shouldn't have to deal with players running sight interference at you while you are defending. The onus is on the decoy runner not to make contact with a defender. It is black and white. At least it clear where everyone stands. There is no grey when making a decision. More rules should be like this.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

It is a waste of time debating the quality of the referees. You have rules sometimes and some never enforced:
Obstructions
Players holding on in the tackle ... While in possession.
Repeat penalty offenses on the line
10m
Forward passes
Offside kickoff/drop out
Playing the ball, with your foot

That's only what I could think off the top of my head in a few seconds. I'm sick of talking about. Yes, the bunker has made decisions quicker, but it hasn't made much difference to the quality. The problem is on the field. There are is more than enough people to make a decision with all the facts, but they simply don't have the guts to make a decision. They have an easy option out and they take it every time.

I thought a player had to be put on report to get a penalty for staying down. That seems to have disappeared. They are hopelessly in consistent. Year to year, round to round, matches in a round and even halves of the same game.

Either the rules are too complicated or there is way too many. Perhaps both...

 

[Parra]

It is a waste of time debating the quality of the referees. You have rules sometimes and some never enforced:
Obstructions
Players holding on in the tackle ... While in possession.
Repeat penalty offenses on the line
10m
Forward passes
Offside kickoff/drop out
Playing the ball, with your foot

That's only what I could think off the top of my head in a few seconds. I'm sick of talking about. Yes, the bunker has made decisions quicker, but it hasn't made much difference to the quality. The problem is on the field. There are is more than enough people to make a decision with all the facts, but they simply don't have the guts to make a decision. They have an easy option out and they take it every time.

I thought a player had to be put on report to get a penalty for staying down. That seems to have disappeared. They are hopelessly in consistent. Year to year, round to round, matches in a round and even halves of the same game.

Either the rules are too complicated or there is way too many. Perhaps both...

Well said

 

[TheVelourFog]

It is a waste of time debating the quality of the referees. You have rules sometimes and some never enforced:
Obstructions
Players holding on in the tackle ... While in possession.
Repeat penalty offenses on the line
10m
Forward passes
Offside kickoff/drop out
Playing the ball, with your foot

That's only what I could think off the top of my head in a few seconds. I'm sick of talking about. Yes, the bunker has made decisions quicker, but it hasn't made much difference to the quality. The problem is on the field. There are is more than enough people to make a decision with all the facts, but they simply don't have the guts to make a decision. They have an easy option out and they take it every time.

I thought a player had to be put on report to get a penalty for staying down. That seems to have disappeared. They are hopelessly in consistent. Year to year, round to round, matches in a round and even halves of the same game.

Either the rules are too complicated or there is way too many. Perhaps both...

it is definitely both. Archaic holdovers and unnecessary complications

why does it matter if you play the ball with your foot or not?

 

[Iafeta]

For James Fisher Harris' second try, the Panthers technically ran behind Josh Mansour before passing. The ref fan bois on here claimed the decision to deny Tuimoala Lolohea a try against the Knights was great because it was now black and white and that would get consistency. I maintain there have been 30 plays this weekend alone where players have ran behind team mates in general play without any penalised so of course to say it's now black and white is complete and utter nonsense. Here the bunker forgot this edict they were following.

Right or wrong to overturn its supposed to allegedly be black and white.

 

[unforgiven]

For James Fisher Harris' second try, the Panthers technically ran behind Joeverh Mansour before passing. The ref fan bois on here claimed the decision to deny Tuimoala Lolohea a try against the Knights was great because it was now black and white and that would get consistency. I maintain there have been 30 plays this weekend alone where players have ran behind team mates in general play without any penalised so of course to say it's now black and white is complete and utter nonsense. Here the bunker forgot this edict they were following.
j
Right or wrong to overturn its supposed to allegedly be black and white.

This is really quite simple. If you run behind a player who is actively trying to impede the defence eg running a decoy, moving forward towards the defensive line or standing in the defensive line. These should be penalised because you have used an offside player to gain an advantage. ddoesn't matter if he initiates contact, a defender should not have to make a decision about which playerto ttacklewhen one has ran behind the other carrying the ball.

Also those saying this interpretation will make the game predictable are wrong. Every team once in scoring positionso run the same decoy plays, what is more predictable than that. Getting rid of these plays will make teams come up with other ways to score.

These plays developed because of the amount of interchanges being too high. These plays were the onlyreal way to beat an unfatigued defence. Now that has been reduced teams should not have to rely on these carbon copy plaY'sto score.

 

[unforgiven]

double post

 

[thorson1987]

 

[unforgiven]

Disagree, we have let a rubbish interpretation of the rules go on for so long that many people believe that is the best way to rule on these situations. Running behind your own player goes against one of the ffundamental parts of the game.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Disagree, we have let a rubbish interpretation of the rules go on for so long that many people believe that is the best way to rule on these situations. Running behind your own player goes against one of the ffundamental parts of the game.

I think you are confused on the difference between 'obstruction' and a 'shepherd'. You don't have to run behind the decoy runner for obstruction to be called, That is simply a decoy runner running into and not through the defensive line. This is what Phillips is referring to, same as what happened when Corey Oates try was disallowed on Friday night. There is no way Reynolds could have made a play and it should have been a try. The shepherd rule has not changed, you run behind the decoy with the ball in hand and the defence is impeded then it should be a penalty, just as also happened later in the same game, which was a good call.

 

[Iafeta]

This is really quite simple. If you run behind a player who is actively trying to impede the defence eg running a decoy, moving forward towards the defensive line or standing in the defensive line. These should be penalised because you have used an offside player to gain an advantage. ddoesn't matter if he initiates contact, a defender should not have to make a decision about which playerto ttacklewhen one has ran behind the other carrying the ball.

Also those saying this interpretation will make the game predictable are wrong. Every team once in scoring positionso run the same decoy plays, what is more predictable than that. Getting rid of these plays will make teams come up with other ways to score.

These plays developed because of the amount of interchanges being too high. These plays were the onlyreal way to beat an unfatigued defence. Now that has been reduced teams should not have to rely on these carbon copy plaY'sto score.

If that is the consistent ruling, no worries. But last night showed how quickly they forget the rules they've put in place, and the mere fact it happens frequently in general play and is never penalised is inconsistent as well. It's either all in, or use common sense.

 

[adamkungl]

Put the bunker in the bin it's broken

 

[Bazal]

Trbojevic try just now was from an almost identical play to the Foran no try. Contact was made by the lead runner, but Trbojevic went into space outside the centre and the decoy made contact with a man back inside who was never going to affect the play. They can't even decide what's black and what's white at the moment...frustrating as a fan.

They made the right call today BTW, it was a try

 

[Clifferd]

The bunker has been used more times in today's Newcastle game than the whole season

 

[BuderusIsaBeast]

For mine the complete lack of consistency is the biggest problem with the Bunker. Todays Knights vs Manly game showed this with the Ross and Lawrence decisions

 

[some11]

Ok so we've just seen a head clash and Napa put on report with the quote "It has been reviewed".

If they reviewed it, they would know Napa never should have been penalised or put on report.

 

[The Verdict]

What a farce! Up there with the worst decisions I've seen in my life.

 

[roboshark]

Get rid of archer would be a good start