The Bunker

[BM1979]

He was a Steeler first. Dodgy merkins.

He looks like a Queenslander TBH

 

[Packy]

Ffs if he doesn't catch it everyone would be lol@trex for a token derp drop ball which he does every game. Because he catches it, it's now a cunning deliberate ploy to gain an advantage by throwing the ball over defenders heads.

This.

The merkin isn't smart enough to run straight most weeks so he certainly didn't plan this evil tactic.

 

[carcharias]

t-rex's was a try
I only heard it on the radio and from the way they carried on you'd think he threw it 4 metres forward on purpose.
Then I saw the footage this morning and it was nothing.

Fullbacks juggle balls that go further forward and regain it before it hits the ground and nobody says a word.

It was arsey
and a fluke
but not deliberate.

 

[RufusRex]

accidental offside is still offside ... similar logic needs to be used.

T-Rex accidentally propelled the ball over the head of the dragons defence and gained an advantage from doing so. From that point of view it should be no try. It has nothing to do with intent, rather, did the player get an unfair advantage from the contact.

 

[carcharias]

Blokes propel balls forward attempting to catch bombs and regain them to score all the time.
Everyone cheers

If it was Milford that did it , it wouldn't even been questioned
T-Rex does it and he's an accidental cheat.

 

[McNulty]

accidental offside is still offside ... similar logic needs to be used.

T-Rex accidentally propelled the ball over the head of the dragons defence and gained an advantage from doing so. From that point of view it should be no try. It has nothing to do with intent, rather, did the player get an unfair advantage from the contact.

So you're saying that according to the rules the correct call was made.

 

[carcharias]

Well tony archer reckons it was a try
http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/bu...t/news-story/ddc27d07275fc556b2e65bf52d4d470f

 

[ek999]

accidental offside is still offside ... similar logic needs to be used.

T-Rex accidentally propelled the ball over the head of the dragons defence and gained an advantage from doing so. From that point of view it should be no try. It has nothing to do with intent, rather, did the player get an unfair advantage from the contact.

Well no actually the rule speaks of intent and not of advantage. So effectively you have proved yourself wrong in the one post

People can argue that the rule is stupid if they want to but under the rules it was the correct call

 

[mxlegend99]

The problem with the rules is you can't know a players intent. How can anyone know for sure he didn't do it intentionally? Or that he did do it? The only person who knows is T-Rex.

This has set precedent for players to get away with it by shaping to pass and flicking the ball over the opponents head. You cant prove it was intentional so it should be play on as it was here.

 

[typicalfan]

Talk of precedent is rubbish. Precedent was set when the rule was made and has been enforced in the rare instances where it happens.

If you think it is so easy to conceal intent then teams would do it all the time. Teams that know that they are the rules.

 

[Game_Breaker]

The problem with the rules is you can't know a players intent. How can anyone know for sure he didn't do it intentionally? Or that he did do it? The only person who knows is T-Rex.

This has set precedent for players to get away with it by shaping to pass and flicking the ball over the opponents head. You cant prove it was intentional so it should be play on as it was here.

We judge intent all the time
Did a player play at the ball?
Was the high tackle reckless?
Professional fouls are judged on intent

All of a sudden we lose this ability? You have to have your head in the sand if you can't see his intent was simply to offload, and the ball accidentally ricocheted of his arm caused by the Dragons defense putting him off balance in their attempted tackle

 

[carcharias]

Geeze benji swallowed up the dummy

 

[mxlegend99]

We judge intent all the time
Did a player play at the ball?
Was the high tackle reckless?
Professional fouls are judged on intent

All of a sudden we lose this ability? You have to have your head in the sand if you can't see his intent was simply to offload, and the ball accidentally ricocheted of his arm caused by the Dragons defense putting him off balance in their attempted tackle

Playing at the ball is ruled as intentional based on pretty much ANY reaction of the player to move a hand or foot as it flies at them or a player attempting to make a tackle. Intent is almost irrelevant here as these are all judged off the outcome and generally assume intent if the player is moving whatsoever.

High tackles are judged on the severity of the tackle.they can't know a players intent unless he announces it first.. ie. Travis Burns on Martin Kennedy a few years back.

Professional fouls are often ignored but are also far easier to determine. Players giving away a penalty accidentally or not to stop an almost certain try are supposed to be binned. It is geberally assumed (rightfully so here) that each of them are intentional.

None of these are remotely similar to knowing whether a player has intentionally gained an advantage by passing to himself. in each of those situations it is also assumed that a professional foul or playing at the ball is intentional based on nothing but the result of what happened. Apply the same criteria here and it's intentional. Intent in those situations is almost always based on the result or if you gained an advantage.

 

[Game_Breaker]

You're still neglecting one factor, the tackle of the dragons player caused the ball to ricochet off William's left arm.

If Tony Williams intended for that to happen at that exact moment then he is a genius

I honestly don't believe you when you say you can't tell what his intent was. I give you a bit more credit than that

 

[Game_Breaker]

Also, your claim that rulings of playing at the football is based on outcome and not intent is rubbish. Referees have to make a judgement call on whether or not a defender intended to play at the ball all the time

If a player grubbers through the defensive line and the ball hits a defenders leg before it goes out, the ref has to decide if the defender intended to make a play at the ball. Saying intent is irrelevant here is incorrect, intent determines the ruling.

Let's stop playing dumb, and pretend we didn't know what tony williams intention was.

 

[McNulty]

Playing at the ball is ruled as intentional based on pretty much ANY reaction of the player to move a hand or foot as it flies at them or a player attempting to make a tackle. Intent is almost irrelevant here as these are all judged off the outcome and generally assume intent if the player is moving whatsoever.

High tackles are judged on the severity of the tackle.they can't know a players intent unless he announces it first.. ie. Travis Burns on Martin Kennedy a few years back.

Professional fouls are often ignored but are also far easier to determine. Players giving away a penalty accidentally or not to stop an almost certain try are supposed to be binned. It is generally assumed (rightfully so here) that each of them are intentional.

None of these are remotely similar to knowing whether a player has intentionally gained an advantage by passing to himself. in each of those situations it is also assumed that a professional foul or playing at the ball is intentional based on nothing but the result of what happened. Apply the same criteria here and it's intentional. Intent in those situations is almost always based on the result or if you gained an advantage.

I'm convinced now. It is all about intent. I get it.

Let's apply this intent to another incident this week....

Valentine Holmes took an intercept and whilst he does so he blatantly and deliberately knocks the ball forward to take the speed off the ball and regathers, runs the length of the field and scores.

You see this ploy ALL the time. I've seen Curtis Rona do it 3/4 times along with many other players.

That is a deliberate knock on to gain an advantage, passing to themselves.

:sarcasm: :crazy: :roll:

 

[mxlegend99]

Yep juggling an intercept flying at pace (it's not a knock on if you gain control of it before it touches an opponent or the ground) is the same thing as tossing a ball you already had control of over an opponents head and regaining control of it in one clean motion. Tony Williams had control of the ball and had both hands on it as he passed it over an opponents head.

Intercepts are juggled all the time because they were thrown to reach a target further away and getting a hand to them and gaining control is very difficult. Theres no advantage gained by a player fumbling to catch an intercept over taking it cleanly... the fumble means he has to take a moment longer before he can hit full flight. A player doing that intentionally would be making his job a lot harder and more than likely offering up a fresh set to the opposition.

Im not saying he did it intentionally or that it was accidental. But I am saying that being allowed a try means any player can shape for a pass and pop the ball upwards over an opponents head and based on that try you have to award it. That's exactly what he did and apparently if it looks like you are throwing a pass it makes it accidental and all you need is to re-gain control. This is easy to replicate... and if it's a try here it should always be a try.

 

[carcharias]

Tony Williams had control of the ball and had both hands on it as he passed it over an opponents head.

hahaha
no he didn't

He just lost control of it trying to pass and regained it before it hit the ground or anyone else.

If he been tackled after he regained it nobody would have blinked.

 

[leaguegod692]

3. Morris stays down when the Dragons had a 20m restart.
Bunker over rules the on field Ref and gives the dogs a penalty.
I thought you could only over rule of it was an reportable offense. Thought they were cracking down on milking.

that wasn't a bunker call, the touchie never moved from the try line and he was clearly the one to tell the ref to blow the correct penalty

 

[leaguegod692]

re the trex situation, i can see why patten is easy to bag being a former dogs player but i don't think he did anything wrong, once it got to the bunker, i think he had to give it


but the on field refs should have just pulled it up right away, given how ridiculous it looked, it would have never been questioned and we would have barely seen any replays to care, game would have gone on without an cloud of controversy

but they send up to the box and a guy who has to go as per the rules and as stupid as it may seem, it was always gonna be given from that point