The Bunker

[El Diablo]

as will Ricky

 

[BM1979]

Best innovation in years

 

[anjado]

The best thing about the bunker is that it is improving the speed of the game. Decisions might be wrong but the thing which was killing Rugby League for the past few seasons was just how slow the video referee process was.

 

[POPEYE]

If you think The Bunker is a great idea the Platinum League will be a revelation

 

[Sharkman]

I do like that you can hear the video refs discuss what they're thinking so you know their justification for it.

Best thing about it. Even if it ends up a dodgy decision/ controversial, we know what the thought process was.

 

[BranVan3000]

Loving it. Most professional thing I've seen from the refs in memory. Hoping we can finally love on from red blaming

 

[Chook Norris]

Loving it as well.

Decisions are a lot faster and explanations are given and clear.

Speed is a wonderful thing and so is transparency. Lack of transparency, consistency and decision-making speed probably composed the top 3 factors why everyone hated the video ref process in previous seasons.

And they've seemed to fix that, so that's really good.

They're bound to screw one up soon though given human error but I hope everyone realises good progress is being made on the game

 

[taipan]

Got my thumbs up,and I'm always on the money.

 

[Raiderdave]

yeah its been very good so far

one decision was wrong last nite though but I'm not sure if it was a bunker call
When Tafua went to get a Walker grubber & the ball was knocked dead by Sam Perritt ..originally they were going to have a drop out but it was changed to a 20m restart

Peritt clearly knocked it out of Georges hands
wrong call
big call at the time too as Manly were building some pressure.

 

[Chook Norris]

NRL Bunker's twitter page explaining each decision:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NRL_Bunker

 

[perverse]

Excellent innovation, it's just strictly superior in every way. Even if they get a few wrong, we'll at least know how they came to the conclusion. Two big thumbs up.

 

[Dogs Of War]

yeah its been very good so far

one decision was wrong last nite though but I'm not sure if it was a bunker call
When Tafua went to get a Walker grubber & the ball was knocked dead by Sam Perritt ..originally they were going to have a drop out but it was changed to a 20m restart

Peritt clearly knocked it out of Georges hands
wrong call
big call at the time too as Manly were building some pressure.

But it's still a knock on cause George didn't have control of the ball so Perrett just forced the situation

 

[ek999]

yeah its been very good so far

one decision was wrong last nite though but I'm not sure if it was a bunker call
When Tafua went to get a Walker grubber & the ball was knocked dead by Sam Perritt ..originally they were going to have a drop out but it was changed to a 20m restart

Peritt clearly knocked it out of Georges hands
wrong call
big call at the time too as Manly were building some pressure.

Taufua knocked the ball forward and then Perrett knocked it dead so it was a Manly knock on and the correct decision was made

 

[Slackboy72]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/4ee473da42891eb5ec76ac3213cbdcc2

I'm sort of with Jennings on this one.
Let me explain why.

1) He comes down short yet his torso doesn't stop moving.
2) He uses the arm not carrying the ball to help push his torso over the line.
3) He doesn't reach out (promote the ball) AFTER the torso stops moving (i.e. momentum has stopped).

Ultimately, double movement calls are interpretation and the issue is with the wording and interpretation of the rule and of when momentum has stopped. I just feel it is massively inconsistent.


Just some background

The relevant rules:

When an attacking player is tackled
within easy reach of the goal line he
should be penalised if he makes a
second movement to place the ball
over, or on, the line for a try.

If a tackled player, because of his momentum slides
along the ground, the tackle is deemed to have been
effected where his slide ends. (See Section 6, 3(c).)


Section 6, 3(c)
Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball
even if the ball has first touched the ground in the
field of play but provided that when the ball
crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or
touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

 

[ek999]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/4ee473da42891eb5ec76ac3213cbdcc2

I'm sort of with Jennings on this one.
Let me explain why.

1) He comes down short yet his torso doesn't stop moving.
2) He uses the arm not carrying the ball to help push his torso over the line.
3) He doesn't reach out (promote the ball) AFTER the torso stops moving (i.e. momentum has stopped).

Ultimately, double movement calls are interpretation and the issue is with the wording and interpretation of the rule and of when momentum has stopped. I just feel it is massively inconsistent.

Point 2 constitutes a double movement. His arm carrying the ball was on the ground when a defender was touching him so he was tackled. He then pushed himself forward with his arm like you said so it wasn't momentum that carried him over the line therefore a double movement

 

[umina panther]

Clear as day. Their was no need for the video ref to even look at it.

 

[_Johnsy]

3) He doesn't reach out (promote the ball)

Yes he does, you can clearly see him raise his arm carrying the ball & promote it over the line.

Correct decision IMO, although it was extremely close. Live I first thought try, TBH it was close enough I wouldn't have too fussed if it was awarded.

 

[Mr Angry]

Double Movement.

Tackled short.

 

[pHyR3]

ball carrying arm hit the ground. tackle completed.

therefore double movement

 

[tomdl]

It was one of the most obvious double movements I have seen in a long time. Can't believe Jennings and other people think otherwise.