The Bunker

[carcharias]

by the letter of the law it isn't a try, but a "double effort" while you are still moving and end up over the line probably isn't a situation that happens very often (and sounds geniused when you hear it without seeing it happen but last night summed it up). The circumstances and common sense need to be taken into account on these rare occasions but that is something i would not trust the spastics in the bunker with or the derps with the whistle we are currently stuck with.

I agree - common sense doesn't even come into it.
It was a try
His arm brushes a few blades of grass while he was still moving
It's not a case of his arm landing to a dead stop on the ground and then he reaches out.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Yeah because that's gonna assist in them in speeding up play...

The game only needs to wait for the decision dopey. Not the full explanation. The captain can worry about that later. The decision is made... Play on.

 

[Danish]

I agree - common sense doesn't even come into it.
It was a try
His arm brushes a few blades of grass while he was still moving
It's not a case of his arm landing to a dead stop on the ground and then he reaches out.

The rule states you are tackled if your ball carrying arm touches the ground. Momentum doesn't come into it.

Once your arm has touched the ground, you cannot promote the ball. You basically cannot move your arms anymore. If you are clutching the ball to your chest, then it has to remain on your chest. Extend it out to score a try and it's a double movement.

That's the law of the game, and that's the way it has always been.

Momentum got him to the ingoal, yes. But momentum did not get the ball to the ground. His second effort did.

 

[carcharias]

Actually the roosters player dragged him into the goal.
So he went with it.
Because he wasn't tackled at that point.

His arm doesn't land on the ground.
It skimmed the top of the grass for 1/10 of a poofteenth as he was getting rolled over.
If that is the rule then they need change the terminology because that was not what the double movement rule was invented for.

 

[Perth Red]

As soon as he stretched his arm out it was no try. I'm amazed commentators and so many fans don't know the rules! Even voss jumped on the bandwagon last night, it was cringing to listen to them bag a correct decision.

 

[Perth Red]

by the letter of the law it isn't a try, but a "double effort" while you are still moving and end up over the line probably isn't a situation that happens very often (and sounds geniused when you hear it without seeing it happen but last night summed it up). The circumstances and common sense need to be taken into account on these rare occasions but that is something i would not trust the spastics in the bunker with or the derps with the whistle we are currently stuck with.

So you want even more interpretation leading to even more inconsistency? It's black and white and those are the best rules and the best way to apply them so you take out how much 'common sense' the adjudicator has got!

 

[carcharias]

As soon as he stretched his arm out it was no try. I'm amazed commentators and so many fans don't know the rules! Even voss jumped on the bandwagon last night, it was cringing to listen to them bag a correct decision.

How is the player with the ball meant to react when he is getting forced over into the goal area by the tackler?
He wasn't bloody held.
The tackle was still going when/if his arm even did glance the grass.
They had to look at it 5 times to see if it did touch.

But that is beside the point
He was still being tackled
If they are going to penalise attacking players they in theory should be penalising defenders for carrying on with the tackle after the arm touched the ground.
Which they won't because it is f**king ridiculous.
Double movement is obvious ...and no way was that an obvious double movement .

They have twisted the bloody rule to a now laughable and pathetic interpretation .

 

[Rhino_NQ]

So you want even more interpretation leading to even more inconsistency? It's black and white and those are the best rules and the best way to apply them so you take out how much 'common sense' the adjudicator has got!

the rest of the post explains why that shouldn't happen, wouldn't leave it up to monkeys responsible for it

 

[Timmah]

So the problem is the rules and interpretations - not the Bunker itself.

 

[yobbo84]

As you can see from Camera 6 on the lower-right hand side, this has been a try for 108 years but due to utter stupidity we're going to say it's no try. Camera 4 also shows that we in the Bunker have no idea. We have a decision and are going to the board.

 

[Pommy]

So you want even more interpretation leading to even more inconsistency? It's black and white and those are the best rules and the best way to apply them so you take out how much 'common sense' the adjudicator has got!

If this is the way you want to see the game officiated then surely every try needs to go to the bunker?

 

[Danish]

So the problem is the rules and interpretations - not the Bunker itself.

The problem is people complain that the bunker or video ref is too inconsistent on the one hand, and then turnaround and say that the rules shouldn't apply in certain situations due to "common sense".

So basically they want everything to be up to interpretation or feel (the phrase "that's just looks like a try" is thrown about a lot) but then jump up and down when what the ref interprets or feels is the correct call doesn't line up with them.

They argue to make the rules grey and then complain when they aren't applied in a consistent black and white fashion. It's this very reason why the obstruction rule is and will forever be a dogs breakfast

 

[Danish]

If this is the way you want to see the game officiated then surely every try needs to go to the bunker?

Of course not. But surely when a decision IS referred, they need to make their decision based on the rules of the game

 

[Pommy]

Of course not. But surely when a decision IS referred, they need to make their decision based on the rules of the game

but by the same token surely the rules should be applied to every try?
For the last 121 years that would have been a try all day long.
Now we're just at the whim of a ref doing his job or not. If you need 17 cameras and 4 minutes in slow motion to make the call how can an onfield decision be equal?

 

[Timmah]

The "common sense" argument is so tired.

People only seem to want common sense when their own team is involved - for the most part.

 

[Pierced Soul]

it's been a try since 1908. until last night....

Danish, in regards with promoting, the rule was changed/re-worded whatever you want to call it several years ago, to say that it wasnt a double movement if momentum carried the player into the ingoal.

the only saving grace about last night's "no try" was it didnt affect the outcome of the game

 

[Danish]

but by the same token surely the rules should be applied to every try?
For the last 121 years that would have been a try all day long.
Now we're just at the whim of a ref doing his job or not. If you need 17 cameras and 4 minutes in slow motion to make the call how can an onfield decision be equal?

You talk like the video ref has never been used to overturn a double movement before.

I agree for the first 90 years of league it would likely have been a try (unless a ref decided to rule on the fly that his arm touched the ground, of course). This is because we didn't have the ability to review things and get them right. Lots of tries were scored for 90 years off dropped balls, offside players, and shepherds/obstructions too.

I guess you want all those to be allowed again too?

We've had video refs for almost 20 years, and they have been picking up minor infringements to deny tries ever since their deployment. In fact people called for video reviews to be introduced BECAUSE refs were missing these minor things and then replays would highlight them and call bloody murder that a wrong decision was made.

It's ridiculous to say that a referee should ignore the rules when reviewing a try, simply because in your opinion the breach was only "minor" or "didn't affect the play". These lead us straight down the path of inconsistent decisions, and inconsistency is the primary complaint that people have about the video review system.

 

[Danish]

it's been a try since 1908. until last night....

Danish, in regards with promoting, the rule was changed/re-worded whatever you want to call it several years ago, to say that it wasnt a double movement if momentum carried the player into the ingoal.

the only saving grace about last night's "no try" was it didnt affect the outcome of the game

Momentum carried him into the in goal. Momentum did not ground the ball. His second effort to twist and reach out over his head to find the ground did that.

The momentum rule has always been in place as well. No change was required

 

[carcharias]

Cmon Danish
You have banged on about the bunker being shit plenty of times
Just go back to the wade Graham's obstruction about 10 days ago.
f**k ..I even heard you crap on about every decision that went against the roosters in person.

This was also shit

 

[Danish]

Cmon Danish
You have banged on about the bunker being shit plenty of times
Just go back to the wade Graham's obstruction about 10 days ago.
f**k ..I even heard you crap on about every decision that went against the roosters in person.

This was also shit

The wade Graham decision was different as it went against how they had been ruling obstruction all year i.e. The ball was caught on the outside shoulder. They instead changed it up to whether or not the contact caused Graham to be "denied a chance", which he was mostly based on the fact he simply stopped playing footy as soon as he contacted the decoy runner.

I complain about bunker decisions when I believ they go against the rules of the game. I never complain about "common sense" or for rules to be ignored.

I don't recall the exact goings on of that sharks game where I sat in front of you at shark park.... But I'm sure we were getting robbed blind