The Bunker

[Rabbits20]

Saw it on the news tonight & in slow motion, his hands MAY have left the ball.

Therefore go with the on field decision - what was that?

Onfield decision was try.

I watched the footage the NRL put out and imo he loses the ball in mid air but his fingers get a hold of the ball again and therefore it should've been a try.

NRL are saying bunker got it right. They are just hopeless.

 

[Jerkwad2000]

Onfield decision was try.

I watched the footage the NRL put out and imo he loses the ball in mid air but his fingers get a hold of the ball again and therefore it should've been a try.

NRL are saying bunker got it right. They are just hopeless.

well no. The rule is quite clear. If you lose control of the ball you have to regather and gain control of the ball again before grounding. Meaning if he lost the ball the decision was 100% correct. Getting fingers back on the ball is not regaining control, and it's been ruled that way all season. Therefore the Bunker got it right, and it's the commentators that are hopeless. Especially seeing as they only actually looked at the replays from 1 angle, not the multiple angles that the Bunker looked at.

 

[bileduct]

I agree that the commentary team just adds confusion and that half of them don't understand the rules.

It would be funny if Tony Archer came out and gave a weekly press conference outlining all the mistakes made by various commentary idiots. Maybe having some scrutiny of their calling of the game might shut them up.

 

[Lambretta]

Unless we're playing NFL now, you can't have guys running in front of the bloke with the ball stopping defenders from getting to him. So yeah, I thought it was the correct decision.

On first look I thought the bunker had got it wrong, but listening to Mark Gasnier and watching the footage again the decision was correct.

Ennis passed the ball and then sped up and leaned his shoulder into the defender
For it to be a try he would have needed to slow down after passing so as not to impede the defender coming across.

Gasnier stated that they used to practice that sort of blocking in training and that Ennis would have known exactly what he was doing and it was a no try. Bwaith agweed with him

 

[Lambretta]

well no. The rule is quite clear. If you lose control of the ball you have to regather and gain control of the ball again before grounding. Meaning if he lost the ball the decision was 100% correct. Getting fingers back on the ball is not regaining control, and it's been ruled that way all season. Therefore the Bunker got it right, and it's the commentators that are hopeless. Especially seeing as they only actually looked at the replays from 1 angle, not the multiple angles that the Bunker looked at.

^^^ correct

Personally I would have awarded the try without the video and in real time that's been a try forever.
However there was a millimetre of separation for one hundredth of a second before the hands become in contact with the ball and use downward force to ground it

Had he gotten both hands to the ball instead of just one it would have been a try

 

[carcharias]

Dropped ball
People are blind

 

[PARRA_FAN]

I do believe he had lost control on the way of grounding it but I was still shocked at the decision. Based on the fact that in other incidents, where even if it looks like he lost it but needs to be 100% or enough evidence to over turn the referees on field decision. Hence why people are confused about the decision. Id be happy if they continue with over turning decisions with some doubt instead of saying they need to be 100% clear to over turn it.

 

[Rabbits20]

well no. The rule is quite clear. If you lose control of the ball you have to regather and gain control of the ball again before grounding. Meaning if he lost the ball the decision was 100% correct. Getting fingers back on the ball is not regaining control, and it's been ruled that way all season. Therefore the Bunker got it right, and it's the commentators that are hopeless. Especially seeing as they only actually looked at the replays from 1 angle, not the multiple angles that the Bunker looked at.

I disagree.

I've seen a lot worse than that given.

I stand by my view it was a try and I'd say that for any team.

 

[carcharias]

He clearly loses control of the ball in the process of trying to put it down.

What the f**k are people looking at?

 

[Timmah]

I was at the game Sharks v knights i was sitting in the Monty Porter stand how did the Bunker rule Holmes try as a double movement in real time he got to the line with momentum...Another crappy bunker decusion

The rule is you can't promote the ball after the ball carrying arm hits the ground in a tackle. Momentum might have carried him toward the line but he still reached out. I think it was the right call.

They are there to commentate, they shouldn't be giving their opinions on referee decisions. The problem with league isn't refs calls, it's commentators who reckon they're above the refs and go against their calls causing controversy. Fans and the media jump on the bandwagon and all hell breaks loose. Ashley Klein even talked us through it saying the player lost possession of the ball and failed to regain it before grounding, and you've got the commentators blowing up because they reckon his fingers never left the ball. There's also a side on angle which shows the ref was correct and the commentators refused to comment on it. It's amateurish.

Couldn't agree more. Their opinion is no more or less valid than yours or mine - but they have the power to shape public opinion. Rubbish like Belcher's almost parochial "THAT'S RIDICULOUS" on the Ennis obstruction are just painful.

Especially when these commentators should KNOW that they aren't privy to all the angles the Bunker is.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I agree that the commentary team just adds confusion and that half of them don't understand the rules.

It would be funny if Tony Archer came out and gave a weekly press conference outlining all the mistakes made by various commentary idiots. Maybe having some scrutiny of their calling of the game might shut them up.

Totally agree. They get so many rules wrong, it is embarrassing.

 

[bileduct]

A lot of the real inconsistency with the video ref started when they put ex-players in the box.

Why ex-player commentators would know any better is mind boggling.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I do believe he had lost control on the way of grounding it but I was still shocked at the decision. Based on the fact that in other incidents, where even if it looks like he lost it but needs to be 100% or enough evidence to over turn the referees on field decision.

Well this didn't happen last week with Daniel Topou's no try. Ashley Klein ruled try, so the bunker needed proof it was no try to overturn, however Gerard Sutton changed that rule for this one off occasion when ruling it 'no try' saying that there was 'insufficient evidence' the ball was grounded.

To compound this 'one off' changing of the rule, Tony Archer (who happens to be Gerard Sutton's best mate, helps explain why the failed referee got this gig) agreed with the no try ruling saying that Topou did not apply 'enough' downward pressure. I am not sure if he got out a manometer to measure this but it was just another way of justifying the unjustifiable. There is no such criteria for the 'amount' of downward pressure required in the rule book because there is no means of measuring. There is either downward pressure or there isn't.

 

[Card Shark]

If he said "not enough downward pressure", he is contradicting himself & it should've been a try, I agree.

Despite what he thinks anyway, it should've been a try.

Geez I wish they'd look at decisions in normal speed more often.

 

[carcharias]

He loses the ball
Do that in the middle of the feild and it's knock on
He never actually regains control
Different to downward pressure .

 

[Droog]

I get the rule but I think there would have been less uproar if Burgess scores there. Even though his hand seperates from the ball, his fingers retouch the ball before it touches the ground.

Just my opinion

 

[Perth Red]

the rule is clear, its a no try, its not even debateable!

Seems to be an in office comp on Fox between Alexander and Gasnier over who can criticise the refs decsions the most during coverage.

Either that or they have both been to the Gus Gould school of RL commentary.

 

[txta2]

I thought it was a try, bit of a boggle but still put pressure on it. Again much worse have been awarded

 

[Perth Red]

Then you don't know the rule change that happened. If you lose control you have to gain full control back not just get your fingers back on it. It's pretty black and white.

 

[zmt]

Move the bunker to perth so pr has someone to support