The Bunker

[Paullyboy]

If you're talking about the kicking of the ball
I actually think it was legal to do so
I remember seeing Mathew ridge save a try doing it and I don't recall it being a penalty

You've quoted my comment from weeks ago, had absolutely nothing to do with the incident last night.

 

[carcharias]

You've quoted my comment from weeks ago, had absolutely nothing to do with the incident last night.

Ha
Bit dusty today

 

[taipan]

The bunker should have noted Roberts lashing out with his boot.A penalty to the Tits and not a try to the Donkeys.
The kick of the ball from the hands ,should not have been a penalty try,but a scrum feed to the Tits>it was not dangerous.
And the penalty when Oates and the Tit's player contested the ball,and Coates flipped mid air,was a scrum to the Tits.There was zero taking out of Oates in mid air either by tackling or pushing.It was a straight out contest for the ball.
The bunker should IMO have intervened as these were major ref errors.Then the bunker may well be doing its job properly.

 

[El Diablo]

The bunker should have noted Roberts lashing out with his boot.

it would have if it was a Titans player

 

[simmo05]

All the hypocritical qldrs can stop fu#kn whinging immediately, remember the inglis try origin 2012? Co#k heads

 

[El Diablo]

they've got camera angles coming out their arse and they only look at one

 

[Rabbit toes]

they've got camera angles coming out their arse and they only look at one

Terrible decision.
The pressure of getting the call right and quickly so play can continue. They still can't manage it.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

If ref says no try

They look for a way to agree

 

[moffla]

Not here to argue whether it was a try or not, but why the f**k did the bunker not refer to the best possible angle for the Chambers one?

In fact, they showed the best angle immediately after the decision was given!

Baffling

 

[Timmah]

The Bunker doesn't refer to the angles we see on screen. They have 38 angles available to them at most games and would have seen that view. Nine and Fox stopped controlling the angles provided when video referees went away at the end of 2015.

Regardless, no angle changes the fact his hand came away from the ball which constitutes a knock on. He can't then continue to ground it with his forearm. Do that mid field and the opposition have a scrum feed.

 

[big hit!]

I'm as much of a critic of the bunker as the next guy, but to think they didn't check the side line angle because we didn't see at the time is ridiculous. They've got a camera on every f**kin blade of grass out there and would have seen them all.

Chambers planted the ball short of the line and then rolled it up his forearm with forward momentum propelling the ball into goal. Knock on. Chambers himself knew it as soon as the ref sent it to review. Move along.

 

[ek999]

Lol @ anyone who thought that was a fair try. Since when have you been allowed to roll the ball forward with your forearm?

 

[Captain Apollo]

The Bunker doesn't refer to the angles we see on screen. They have 38 angles available to them at most games and would have seen that view. Nine and Fox stopped controlling the angles provided when video referees went away at the end of 2015.

Regardless, no angle changes the fact his hand came away from the ball which constitutes a knock on. He can't then continue to ground it with his forearm. Do that mid field and the opposition have a scrum feed.

The following is from the NRL's website, published today, which spells that out in a lot of detail -

Bunker critics get it wrong

It seems there is still some confusion over how the NRL bunker works. There is a misconception that the bunker is only looking at the images that are broadcast in the telecast. This couldn't be further from the truth.

When the Storm were denied a try to Will Chambers, viewers and commentators were upset when another angle was shown after the decision was made, which made it look like the bunker had missed the camera angle.

This is simply not the case, and most probably a by-product of the old video review system which had been in place since 1999.

The bunker has over 30 screens and they are independent of the broadcasters. The ability to control the footage and be able to use split screen technology was one of the main reasons the bunker was brought in.

Despite commentators insisting in the live coverage on both Channel Nine and Fox League that a side-on angle indicated a fair try, Archer confirmed this was not the case.

"I have had the opportunity to fully review the decision," Archer said on Friday.

"Further review of the live decision of no try by the Bunker confirmed that Chambers' hand had come away from the ball, whilst the ball is on the ground, prior to the ball touching the tryline.

"Split screen technology allowed the review officials to pinpoint the moment the player lost possession. At the same point, the end-on camera showed that the ball was short of the line.

"That is a knock-on, and any subsequent promotion of the ball using the forearm was irrelevant as the knock-on had already occurred."

While you can indeed ground the ball in the in-goal with your arm, you can't roll the ball along the ground to the try-line. On any other part of the field it is a knock-on and that is exactly why it was ruled no-try.

So for the Bunker, they are not looking at whatever footage either Nine or Fox are showing, and we don't see all the screens the video referees are looking at when they cross to it.

 

[Paullyboy]

I don't understand how anyone could have disagreed with the Chambers no-try. It was absolutely clear cut that he didn't score.

 

[Paullyboy]

As for the debate about what footage they are seeing - that's a massive load of shit. You can clearly hear the video ref/bunker person commentating over the images that we are also watching. They check offside before it goes upstairs (and we don't see that, I agree there), but everything else we see matches up perfectly with their running commentary.

 

[Captain Apollo]

As for the debate about what footage they are seeing - that's a massive load of shit. You can clearly hear the video ref/bunker person commentating over the images that we are also watching. They check offside before it goes upstairs (and we don't see that, I agree there), but everything else we see matches up perfectly with their running commentary.

I suggest you go read this then - http://thebunker.nrl.com/

What we are seeing on our TV screens is not everything they are seeing in the bunker.

Edit: I also just noticed, the Bunker even has it's own Twitter feed - https://twitter.com/NRLBunker

 

[Timmah]

As for the debate about what footage they are seeing - that's a massive load of shit. You can clearly hear the video ref/bunker person commentating over the images that we are also watching. They check offside before it goes upstairs (and we don't see that, I agree there), but everything else we see matches up perfectly with their running commentary.

Have you not seen the wealth of screens they have?

The idea isn't that they aren't looking at what we see on broadcast but that by the time we see what they feed to us, they've already taken the opportunity to utilise the best angles.

What's being said is to illustrate that they had already adjudged the angle many people claim made it a try to be not of use to them due to blurring. The two angles shown - top end and side on far touchline, were the two that made the decision.

 

[POPEYE]

I don't understand how anyone could have disagreed with the Chambers no-try. It was absolutely clear cut that he didn't score.

The majority aren't always right are they ol' mate

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Bunker is being used like it should be this year.
Very quick decision making and most of the time the correct decision.

 

[Card Shark]

So far.....do you remember how last year started.