The Bunker

[ek999]

f**k you are dumb.

http://www.nrl.com/thompson-faces-one-match-ban/tabid/10874/newsid/95876/default.aspx

Correct me if I'm wrong but a Grade 1 careless high tackle is the lowest charge for a high tackle. If that is the case you could argue that it comes down to personal opinion if it was a reportable offence or not. I haven't seen the tackle so I'm not going to say if they f**ked up or not but the way you are acting it is as if he knocked Austins head off

 

[Sleep]

Didn't watch the game but had the radio on while I was driving and the guys on Triple M said that the bunker has been told to dial it back on giving refs the heads up in an effort to stop rewarding guys for staying down/diving.

They're only supposed to intervene if it's a reportable offense.

 

[bileduct]

I haven't seen the tackle

Maybe you should watch it then.

 

[betcats]

:lol: that is some nice straw clutching Bileduct.

 

[skeepe]

I think the bigger travesty is Klein. How did he not see it? I mean seriously, it was out in the open, in full view of where he was standing. If a referee isn't watching the tackle at that point, what the f**k is he doing?

 

[bileduct]

:lol: that is some nice straw clutching Bileduct.

In what sense? This thread is about the bunker and the decisions made by it.

You're the dope telling us the bunker got it right.

 

[betcats]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a Grade 1 careless high tackle is the lowest charge for a high tackle. If that is the case you could argue that it comes down to personal opinion if it was a reportable offence or not. I haven't seen the tackle so I'm not going to say if they f**ked up or not but the way you are acting it is as if he knocked Austins head off

No one even knew he had been hit high until he got up with a bloody nose and the replay was looked at. By the rules it wasn't reportable imo, just a lazy high shot that should of been penalised during live play by the ref.

 

[bileduct]

No one even knew he had been hit high until he got up with a bloody nose and the replay was looked at. By the rules it wasn't reportable imo, just a lazy high shot that should of been penalised during live play by the ref.

Wait, so the on field ref got it wrong, the video ref got it right, and the match review committee got it wrong.

 

[nick87]

He said he didn't see it live therefore didn't blow a penalty straight away(obviously should of been) and on review the bunker decided it wasn't reportable. Simple. Im happy with the call if they keep it going it will remove a lot of diving(not implying Austin dived) which is what we all want.

Yeah im fine with it in general, and i like that this is how they are going to try and curb diving. But i dont know how that isnt a reportable offence. The moment it was was replayed everyone could see that was going to attract a charge... they got the process right but that's reportable every day of the week.

That said i have 2 counter points:
1. I dont for one second believe the penalty would have changed anything. We showed no signs of being able to score points, so assuming we take the penalty and convert it into points is outrageous. Evidence suggests even if they blow the penalty, we'd have done nothing with that possession

2. I dont actually mind if they err on the side of not reporting. I think with the free interchange etc, that we're currently over reporting. I'd rather under report and have the MRC pick up the errors than over report and give teams leg ups in game they shouldnt have

 

[ek999]

Maybe you should watch it then.

I think I can tell a lot about it without even seeing it just by the charge and who was involved. It was probably a tired forward getting beaten by a smaller, faster half so he stuck an arm out in a lazy effort to stop him. That arm hit him across the face. If it is a half trying to beat a defender he probably ducked down a bit so he got hit higher than he would otherwise have been. The arm was stuck out loosely with the hand open and he wasn't swinging it through. All in all a lazy effort that should have been a penalty

How did I do?

 

[hrundi99]

2. I dont actually mind if they err on the side of not reporting. I think with the free interchange etc, that we're currently over reporting. I'd rather under report and have the MRC pick up the errors than over report and give teams leg ups in game they shouldnt have

So you're saying that because the Raiders were playing crap they didn't deserve a penalty?

Thompson getting done by the MRC doesn't help the team at all.

 

[betcats]

I think I can tell a lot about it without even seeing it just by the charge and who was involved. It was probably a tired forward getting beaten by a smaller, faster half so he stuck an arm out in a lazy effort to stop him. That arm hit him across the face. If it is a half trying to beat a defender he probably ducked down a bit so he got hit higher than he would otherwise have been. The arm was stuck out loosely with the hand open and he wasn't swinging it through. All in all a lazy effort that should have been a penalty

How did I do?

Nailed it.

 

[betcats]

Wait, so the on field ref got it wrong, the video ref got it right, and the match review committee got it wrong.

I've laid out my thoughts on It 3 times already. I cant say it any simpler for you.

 

[18to87]

I think I can tell a lot about it without even seeing it just by the charge and who was involved. It was probably a tired forward getting beaten by a smaller, faster half so he stuck an arm out in a lazy effort to stop him. That arm hit him across the face. If it is a half trying to beat a defender he probably ducked down a bit so he got hit higher than he would otherwise have been. The arm was stuck out loosely with the hand open and he wasn't swinging it through. All in all a lazy effort that should have been a penalty

How did I do?

Left out that Austin had lowered his centre of gravity to beat a tackle by Packer before Thompson came across with the arm. Deserves the week off unfortunately.

 

[bileduct]

Yeah im fine with it in general, and i like that this is how they are going to try and curb diving. But i dont know how that isnt a reportable offence. The moment it was was replayed everyone could see that was going to attract a charge... they got the process right but that's reportable every day of the week.

Diving is now probably the biggest issue in the game. It's way worse than it ever has been in soccer because it's now so routine.

But how did we get here? Concern about concussions and other head injuries during a global wave of athlete welfare hysteria. Are we now throwing all of that out the window, or is this a quiet admission from the NRL that they'd cracked down waaaaaay too far on high contact and other dangerous play like so called "crusher" tackles (of which I don't recall seeing a legitimate one for years even though players are still penalised for them every week.)

It still amounts to a seemingly sudden (and unannounced) rule change. The NRL are again reacting to criticism on the fly without thinking it through, and in the very first game they f**k up yet again with the video ref and MRC disagreeing on what is a reportable offence.

This is just a comedy routine at this point.

1. I dont for one second believe the penalty would have changed anything. We showed no signs of being able to score points, so assuming we take the penalty and convert it into points is outrageous. Evidence suggests even if they blow the penalty, we'd have done nothing with that possession

I'm not sure why you're even bringing this up. Can't the shortcomings of the bunker be pointed out without having to fend off suggestions that it could have clearly reversed the result of the match? You only need to look at possession and the stupid errors to see why the Raiders lost.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Left out that Austin had lowered his centre of gravity to beat a tackle by Packer before Thompson came across with the arm. Deserves the week off unfortunately.

I don?t recall the tackle that well so I?m happy to be corrected but I do remember the commentators going on about how Austin wasn?t dropping in the tackle at all. All of them thought it was completely reportable and that the bunker messed up.

TBH if they?re going to be consistent about this then I?m ok with it because it should help reduce the diving. But I bet my bottom dollar they won?t be.

 

[Pete Cash]

I think its probably a textbook reportable tackle imo. Yeah it was only lazy but it was obvious he was going to be charged with it. He certainly didnt miss. Did anyone seriously think Thompson wouldnt be charged for it ?

Edit

And yeah austin should have been blood binned which makes me wonder how dark was it out there

 

[bileduct]

I think its probably a textbook reportable tackle imo. Yeah it was only lazy but it was obvious he was going to be charged with it. He certainly didnt miss. Did anyone seriously think Thompson wouldnt be charged for it ?

Edit

And yeah austin should have been blood binned which makes me wonder how dark was it out there

They said during the commentary that the broadcast footage made it look brighter than it actually was, and it was still pretty dark. That's why I can understand the on field officials missing it.

 

[Pete Cash]

If it was genuinely dark i think it would be ok based on the circumstances for the bunker to step in more. I hate seeing players run around with blood pissing out their face. The blood bin exists for a reason. Austin played on with a aerious amount of blood on him too.

 

[bileduct]

If it was genuinely dark i think it would be ok based on the circumstances for the bunker to step in more. I hate seeing players run around with blood pissing out their face. The blood bin exists for a reason. Austin played on with a aerious amount of blood on him too.

Maybe it was a case of the officials realising they f**ked up and not penalising Canberra for it.