The Bunker

[Cockadoodledoo]

I can't believe the debate this try has caused. It wouldn't rank in the top 20 worst decisions made by the bunker this season and had no bearing on the result. Perhaps it is because coach handshake had a minor whinge about it in the press conference.

 

[forward pass]

Why do so many people say we should get rid of the bunker because of the mistakes it makes? If we didn't have the bunker, we would have a bloke sitting in a box in the grandstand at the game making the exact same decisions. When the video ref was at the ground they use to f**k up just as many times as the bunker does.

 

[Timmah]

Why do so many people say we should get rid of the bunker because of the mistakes it makes? If we didn't have the bunker, we would have a bloke sitting in a box in the grandstand at the game making the exact same decisions. When the video ref was at the ground they use to f**k up just as many times as the bunker does.

THIS

 

[unforgiven]

Certainly. The current laws of the game , Section 6, Law 3 (c) on page 12 of the rule book states -



As to the tackle, I refer you to Section 11, Rule 2 (a) on page 23 which states -




Further, I refer you to Section 11, Law 5 on page 24 which states -


Finally, and most importantly is the notes to the laws on page 24 which relate to double movements. They state -



There are diagrams which go with the notes, but as the source is a PDF file, they won't copy.

Hope that is of some help to you.

I actually agreed with you 100% until I read the 2016 laws and interpretations and under the section on double movement it states:

If the momentum of the player in possession carries him into the opponents in goal area, it will not be a double movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the
arm carrying the ball.

In this case the ball would have finished over the goal line without the second effort to ground the ball so the second effort to ground the ball is allowed.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Why do so many people say we should get rid of the bunker because of the mistakes it makes? If we didn't have the bunker, we would have a bloke sitting in a box in the grandstand at the game making the exact same decisions. When the video ref was at the ground they use to f**k up just as many times as the bunker does.

I think the bunker is great, just maybe the people inside it are a problem, alongside Tony Archer. We could have had the ridiculous situation of the try to Jarrod Wallace ruled no try if we didn't have that overhead view which clearly showed Isaac Liu didn't get a touch on the ball. I think most of the people criticizing the bunker don't have a problem with the technology, just some of the rulings.

 

[Slackboy72]

When you have Luke Patten working for you, in a decision making capability, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Sleep]

Why do so many people say we should get rid of the bunker because of the mistakes it makes? If we didn't have the bunker, we would have a bloke sitting in a box in the grandstand at the game making the exact same decisions. When the video ref was at the ground they use to f**k up just as many times as the bunker does.

If that's the case why did the NRL piss all the money up the wall to bring it in only to further muddy the rules and their awful interpretation of them, on top of taking even longer to f**k it up?

On top of that, there's zero consistency in what the bunker can and can't intervene on as shown tonight.

It's a total cluster.

 

[Timmah]

"On top of taking even longer"

Individual instances might make you feel that way if you focus on them and go red in the face enough, but decision times are actually well down on previous years.

 

[POPEYE]

Why do so many people say we should get rid of the bunker because of the mistakes it makes? If we didn't have the bunker, we would have a bloke sitting in a box in the grandstand at the game making the exact same decisions. When the video ref was at the ground they use to f**k up just as many times as the bunker does.

In that case, take the money wasted on the bunker and give it to Hayne . . . we need him more

 

[Valheru]

Well my "sweeping generalisation" that the bunker has been woefully inconsistent this year was proven right again last night with the Titans try that was looked at for obstruction. I think that should be a try, however, it has been called a no try numerous times this year.

Last night the bunker official said the contact was 'minimal' with the defender. Either you are allowed to stop in the defensive line and make contact or you aren't and they are just guessing now. One gets the feeling that if Maloney just stood still like Jack Bird did against the roosters it would have been a no try.

 

[Captain Apollo]

One gets the feeling that if Maloney just stood still like Jack Bird did against the roosters it would have been a no try.

Small quibble, but it was Wayde Graham in that instance and not Jack Bird iirc.

 

[carcharias]

There is no way Maloney would've got him but if they are going to ref the same every game it's a penalty.

 

[Bronxnation]

I dont know if it has been touched upon but the biggest problem is that the NRL has had no communication with the fans in terms of how the decisions will be made.
for instance one week the obstruction rule is considered black & white. The next it is a grey area where opinion has an effect on the outcome
the NRL needs to just say how the rules will be perceived.
Either have it black and white - which will result in obstructions where the player obstructed would of had no impact
or have it open for interpretation - which will result in different opinions e.i some think he would have made it to help and some believe he wouldnt

 

[Rod]

The idea behind the Bunker is obviously fine. Plenty of monitors, camera angles and sets of eyes. All the problems have come from interpretation and inconsistency. For example, having to follow the referee's original call unless presented totally obvious evidence otherwise.....why? If the Bunker is so great and is going to get most decisions correct because of the technology involved then why bother putting so much sway in the referee's original decision, especially when he has basically no idea on some occasions? Putting so much emphasis on a referee's call effectively minimizes the impact all the technology can provide, essentially working against the very idea of the existence of something like the Bunker.

The other thing is the inconsistency. First half of the season they had a blanket rule that if the ball-carrier caught the ball on the inside shoulder of a decoy runner and then ran around that decoy runner, it was immediately no try for obstruction. Some people didn't like it (personally I thought it was fine) but either way at least it was easy to adjudicate on. But now they've gone back to a grey area. Last night the last Titans try was clearly a no try in the first half of the year, now it's a try? That is where so much of the frustration for fans comes from.

 

[Perth Red]

Our game has always been knee jerk to media influence. The above your mentioning was probably due to all the whinging by the commentators and media about needing to use "common sense". So we go back to interpretation and end up with inconsistency. If the sports own stopped bagging stuff we would quickly focus on the positives on the game, not on the refs decisions.

 

[Bernster]

I swear The Bunker and the N(SW)RL change the rules to suit themselves, certain teams and/or certain players

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I swear The Bunker and the N(SW)RL change the rules to suit themselves, certain teams and/or certain players

Look at the way the Dragons were refereed in 2010 v 2011 and the Rabbitohs in 2014 and subsequent years. It stinks..

 

[Tommy Smith]

Look at the way the Dragons were refereed in 2010 v 2011 and the Rabbitohs in 2014 and subsequent years. It stinks..

Even us.

Now that we suck all of a sudden we're winning our fair share of penalty counts.

Hmmm... it's almost as if the refs know they don't even need to handicap us anymore.

It stinks because their agenda, and how it shifts yearly, is patently obvious.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Even us.

Now that we suck all of a sudden we're winning our fair share of penalty counts.

Hmmm... it's almost as if the refs know they don't even need to handicap us anymore.

It stinks because their agenda, and how it shifts yearly, is patently obvious.

Actually that happened after Rothfield's article, perhaps endorsed by Eddie Hayson.

 

[Danish]

dragged in .

I look forward to your explanation of why the Austin try was not a try.

Whole body ended in the in goal, defenders knocked him further, etc etc etc