The Rumours Thread

[BLM01]

The problem with the bunker is that decisions need to be made relatively quickly to keep the game flowing. The furore happens post-game with the benefit of no time limit on reviews and commentary from a multitude of so-called experts.

I disagree. It should be quick. The bunker are the ones that look and look and look at microscopic ways in slow motion to basically not award things or overrule especially on captains challenges.
There is no need, one look at a certain angle then maybe other angles once make a quick decision on what you see, stop manufacturing ways anticipating they know what players are thinking or doing.
Slow mo should only when looking to see if ball touches ground.
Quick decision we move on
Since 1908 people have whinged decisions have been wrong in with hindsight after games it is just now people or cameras will come up with ways to prove it with time.
Its never been perfection, never will be

 

[since77]

The problem with the bunker is that decisions need to be made relatively quickly to keep the game flowing. The furore happens post-game with the benefit of no time limit on reviews and commentary from a multitude of so-called experts.

But ------->>> 1. they rarely make decisions quickly. How many times have you seen the Bunker look at something 10 times or more when its obvious on 1st or 2nd look what the correct decision is?
2. When they do make decisions quickly they often miss something obvious - eg. obstruction try Manly scored against us a month or so ago that was obvious on first look and NRL admitted was wrong in the review.
3. There are uncountable examples where the Bunker gets it blatantly wrong and both commentators and fans are blowing up about it in real time. If we can see it why can't they? Going back to point 2, in that particular example even the Manly players knew it wasn't a try before it got reviewed! You can't blame lack of time for the Bunker's terrible success rate. They're just clueless idiots.

 

[Dragons4me]

But ------->>> 1. they rarely make decisions quickly. How many times have you seen the Bunker look at something 10 times or more when its obvious on 1st or 2nd look what the correct decision is?
2. When they do make decisions quickly they often miss something obvious - eg. obstruction try Manly scored against us a month or so ago that was obvious on first look and NRL admitted was wrong in the review.
3. There are uncountable examples where the Bunker gets it blatantly wrong and both commentators and fans are blowing up about it in real time. If we can see it why can't they? Going back to point 2, in that particular example even the Manly players knew it wasn't a try before it got reviewed! You can't blame lack of time for the Bunker's terrible success rate. They're just clueless idiots.

I'm not defending the bunker. Just offering another point of view. There's always been contentious decisions that get argued about, with or without the bunker. I wonder if adding an experienced ex player to the bunker may help in decisions, or scrap it altogether. I never have confidence we'll win a bunker decision. Never.

 

[TheRev]

My view on the bunker is:

"If it looks like a try.. award it a try"

It should be 1000% obvious that it wasnt scored before its taken away... if there is any grey area.. award the try.. thats what we are here to see... thats what makes our game special.

A good try might have 10, 20 or 30 skillful moments that went into crafting that moment.. but then they go looking for some grey in any one of those moments.. any reason to take it away.... f*** that.

The ones that stand out are contested bombs.. of course the ball is going to touch or even bobble between the 2 catchers, does it really matter? Who came down with it? And the other is debating the put down, whether there is a millimetre of air between the hand and ball.. who cares.... if it looked like a try at normal speed.. award a try.

 

[redandwhite4evr]

Yes I can be an arm chair recruiter ( like the rest of us lol).

That acknowledged I have seen players going around I thought were great buys long before the storm recruitment.

Two examples; Remis Smith and Nick Meaney. I noticed both because they had high end speed.

I saw Remis Smith outpace Dufty at Kogarah some years back ( down west grandstand touchline scoring in south west corner). Duff had a dive at Remis and only got an ineffective ankle tap on him. I never forgot that and Remis had a quiet year thereafter. I thought Dragons should get that guy he is what we need. Out of favour at dogs in 2nd grade and snapped up by Storm.

Nick Meaney has always had high end speed and yes can kick goals. I think out of favour at Dogs then in 2022 bought by Storm. Thereafter 28 trys and 203 goals later.

BTW I posted we should by another Dogs out of favour high end speedster in Jake Averillo. Wayne Bennent like Bellamy recruits fast backs. We won 2010 with a backline of high end speedsters except Nighty and Hornby. Still Nighty acceptable.

anyway, time to get some shut eye.

Astute observation rsaint- although I think Bennett also acknowledged the evolution of the modern game into a hybrid AFL/NFL context by recruiting a very tall but not overly quick Jack Bostock for the Dolphins. If Saab could defend, he would probably be the perfect 2024 winger.

 

[sammymills]

My view on the bunker is:

"If it looks like a try.. award it a try"

It should be 1000% obvious that it wasnt scored before its taken away... if there is any grey area.. award the try.. thats what we are here to see... thats what makes our game special.

A good try might have 10, 20 or 30 skillful moments that went into crafting that moment.. but then they go looking for some grey in any one of those moments.. any reason to take it away.... f*** that.

The ones that stand out are contested bombs.. of course the ball is going to touch or even bobble between the 2 catchers, does it really matter? Who came down with it? And the other is debating the put down, whether there is a millimetre of air between the hand and ball.. who cares.... if it looked like a try at normal speed.. award a try.

My Gripe with the bunker and put downs is they make moral judgements they have no business making. For example a player puts the ball down and they say something like, there wasnt really downward pressure. WHo cares? it should be black and white, if there is ground, ball, and a finger/hand on the ball its a try. The same should go with the defending team grounding the ball. I remember a try getting awarded a few years against us that dufty grounded and they made the judgement that he didnt have downward pressure on it. At what force of KN do they deem it to be downward pressure?

 

[since77]

My view on the bunker is:

"If it looks like a try.. award it a try"

It should be 1000% obvious that it wasnt scored before its taken away... if there is any grey area.. award the try.. thats what we are here to see... thats what makes our game special.

A good try might have 10, 20 or 30 skillful moments that went into crafting that moment.. but then they go looking for some grey in any one of those moments.. any reason to take it away.... f*** that.

The ones that stand out are contested bombs.. of course the ball is going to touch or even bobble between the 2 catchers, does it really matter? Who came down with it? And the other is debating the put down, whether there is a millimetre of air between the hand and ball.. who cares.... if it looked like a try at normal speed.. award a try.

I think this is actually quite a fair way to do it. Used to be called benefit of the doubt. All replays at real time speed.

Or alternatively give the teams 1 captains challenge per game to challenge a try decision.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Bunker should not make any calls at all unless it is blatantly obvious. They should simply be used as a tool for the ref to review the decision and make the call. The bunker provides the angles required by the ref and he makes the call. Pretty simple. Make it 1 person responsible for officiating a game not multiple people.

 

[BLM01]

My Gripe with the bunker and put downs is they make moral judgements they have no business making. For example a player puts the ball down and they say something like, there wasnt really downward pressure. WHo cares? it should be black and white, if there is ground, ball, and a finger/hand on the ball its a try. The same should go with the defending team grounding the ball. I remember a try getting awarded a few years against us that dufty grounded and they made the judgement that he didnt have downward pressure on it. At what force of KN do they deem it to be downward pressure?

Disagree to a point
You got to have a reasonable amount of finger /hand snd downward force to say try
Scraping the bal across it with fingers etc is not downward pressure nor is losing it on the way down and saying you regripped when it hits the ground and it bounces back up

 

[FlickFlano]

So how do you make it easier, the ball has to be forced with the palm of your hand and not the fingers?

Also, on the losing the ball on the way down before touching it again - was the ball actually promoted towards the opponents dead ball line? A dropped ball is not a knock on unless it moves forward - so many of these separation/regrip ones dont actually have a knock on. The rule is pretty specific - when an attacking player fails to ground the ball correctly, play continues unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. a knock-on or the ball goes dead.

 

[Sir Donald Reacharound]

My view on the bunker is:

"If it looks like a try.. award it a try"

It should be 1000% obvious that it wasnt scored before its taken away... if there is any grey area.. award the try.. thats what we are here to see... thats what makes our game special.

A good try might have 10, 20 or 30 skillful moments that went into crafting that moment.. but then they go looking for some grey in any one of those moments.. any reason to take it away.... f*** that.

The ones that stand out are contested bombs.. of course the ball is going to touch or even bobble between the 2 catchers, does it really matter? Who came down with it? And the other is debating the put down, whether there is a millimetre of air between the hand and ball.. who cares.... if it looked like a try at normal speed.. award a try.

I haven't been granted thumbs, so I will reply to say I couldn't agree more with this. Perhaps we can save the frame by frame analysis for the 2+ captains challenge per match.

At the very least, remove the need to have the try confirmed when a ref awards the try. If the ref calls no try but refers to the bunker, let them toggle the video 30 times, much like I used to do with the VHS when I encountered a saucy moment in my Friday night rental.

 

[blacksafake]

I think this is actually quite a fair way to do it. Used to be called benefit of the doubt. All replays at real time speed.

Or alternatively give the teams 1 captains challenge per game to challenge a try decision.

Can’t see the challenge working because you’re challenging the bunkers decision & he/she ain’t going to change their minds.

 

[denis preston]

How is this topic a rumour? I think any discussion on refs decisions & rules should go to the swamp because it won’t change and it’s boring, just my opinion.

 

[since77]

How is this topic a rumour? I think any discussion on refs decisions & rules should go to the swamp because it won’t change and it’s boring, just my opinion.

Fans just passing time discussing footy waiting for an actual rumour to arrive....seems pretty harmless to me. You can always just scroll past if it bores you. Cheer up.

 

[Dragon David]

How is this topic a rumour? I think any discussion on refs decisions & rules should go to the swamp because it won’t change and it’s boring, just my opinion.

Without going back over the pages of this Thread, how did this actually start? Anyway, there is a Thread somewhere in this Forum on Officials if someone can look it up and if in future there is a gripe about the bunker or ref then post it in that Thread please. I'm talking to myself here!

 

[Dragon David]

Without going back over the pages of this Thread, how did this actually start? Anyway, there is a Thread somewhere in this Forum on Officials if someone can look it up and if in future there is a gripe about the bunker or ref then post it in that Thread please. I'm talking to myself here!

Hi All

I've posted the Thread on Refereeing as below!

Cheers DD

 

[Captain Apollo]

I'm not defending the bunker. Just offering another point of view. There's always been contentious decisions that get argued about, with or without the bunker. I wonder if adding an experienced ex player to the bunker may help in decisions, or scrap it altogether. I never have confidence we'll win a bunker decision. Never.

For the bunker they used to have an ex-player with the appointed video referee. A lot of the worst decisions were made due to influence from the ex-player, which is why they scrapped that system a few years back and returned to a current referee only as the video referee in the bunker.

 

[True_Believer]

I remember a try that Matt Rogers scored for Cronulla against us one year. Well, he didn't score. He dived and dropped it well above putting it down. This was obviously before the bunker but it was so blatantly obvious that it was a no try. At the time I wished we had a better way to review the tries. Be careful what you wish for.