General The Bunker

Bunker rating 1=Failure 10=Success

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10


Results are only viewable after voting.
I took from Tony Archer 'its only a penalty try if the player has control of the ball' to mean......a player will have to be holding the ball when illegally interfered with.....that scenario ......only allows for dirty tackles that cause the playerto drop a ball.

As I said, they are creating problems for themselves. I reckon bin it. Only used when Captains disagree with a decision, each team has one review per half. Refs are paid to make decisions, they have two on field, make a decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smc and Sup42

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
As I said, they are creating problems for themselves. I reckon bin it. Only used when Captains disagree with a decision, each team has one review per half. Refs are paid to make decisions, they have two on field, make a decision.
Captains call, been in favour of it for a long time now.

Also get rid of the try no try rubbish. If the ref has no idea, then let him admit it so there is no bullshit. With the bunker there is no reason not to go back to benefit of the doubt.
 
Round 1 and 2 there was no issues but I knew this Bunker would eventually start getting controversial and sure enough only 5 rounds in and it's getting hammered already. How many times have they cost us tries already?

3 dipshits surrounded by 100 screens that still can't get it right.

In my mind Hoffman was impeded by Guerra it's clear as day, that is a penalty try no matter which angle and no matter how many times you view it. Hoffman had that ball easily and Guerra had no chance so he collared Hoff, disgraceful and I'm still filthy about it! Should have been a penalty try and Guerra binned the dirty bastard.

Where's the common sense now days? There's nothing wrong with bringing back a 5 minute sin bin for these scenarios. In today's day and age being one man down is crucial. Josh Jackson got binned the other night for being offside and preventing a try and was rightfully binned for it but 10 minutes is ridiculous.. 5 minutes is punishable enough when it comes to such incidents, especially in tight games it could prove a massive advantage.
 
Round 1 and 2 there was no issues but I knew this Bunker would eventually start getting controversial and sure enough only 5 rounds in and it's getting hammered already. How many times have they cost us tries already?

3 dipshits surrounded by 100 screens that still can't get it right.

In my mind Hoffman was impeded by Guerra it's clear as day, that is a penalty try no matter which angle and no matter how many times you view it. Hoffman had that ball easily and Guerra had no chance so he collared Hoff, disgraceful and I'm still filthy about it! Should have been a penalty try and Guerra binned the dirty bastard.

Where's the common sense now days? There's nothing wrong with bringing back a 5 minute sin bin for these scenarios. In today's day and age being one man down is crucial. Josh Jackson got binned the other night for being offside and preventing a try and was rightfully binned for it but 10 minutes is ridiculous.. 5 minutes is punishable enough when it comes to such incidents, especially in tight games it could prove a massive advantage.

You could argue hat a 5 minute bin will encourage fouling. If an individual infringes and get put in the bin for 10 the team should be at a disadvantage. That is why it is called a team game. The individual is responsible to the team.

Nothing is ever mentioned about how the team infringed against is disadvantaged by the offending. Because of that flawed rationale of not affecting the game they are disadvantaging the side offended against. Nuts.
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
if we only look at the decision of the no try to hoffman, they (the bunker) said that they couldn't rule a penalty try because of the bounce of the ball. Only when he was impeded the ball had yet to bounce so in reality at the time of the foul there was a serious attempt to stop what everyone thought would be a try by hoffman.

then the inconsistency, the week before there was the run around disallowed try where they called an obstruction, only there was no one to obstruct. So in this case there was no attempt to disadvantage the opposition, but it was ruled as a no try.

The first decision seems to be a we dont want to influence the outcome of the game so lets make an interpretation that means we can say its not our fault.
The second decision seems to be a complete reversal of this - we must play to the letter of the law, therefore no interpretation will be allowed.

And there in lies the problem. Inconsistency in the reffing is not limited to on field refs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACT Warrior
"Worst thing the NRL has introduced"- Fans want bunker gone.

upload_2016-4-8_5-53-20.jpeg

It started so well.

view.php

The bunker was every NRL fan's saviour, bound to get every single decision correct.

Then we hit round three...

The only thing more shocking than some of the bunker's decisions has been the speed with which the public has turned against it.

The Roosters were dudded. Matt Gillett was robbed a try. Johnathan Thurston was confused. Paul Green thinks it's rubbish. Forward passes are now being ruled upon. Inconsistency is rife.

That sentiment continued during Thursday night footabll at Suncorp Stadium, as Jack Reed was ruled to have knocked on in the process of scoring a try.

It wasn't the only contentious decision that had fans riled up, and the overwhelming feeling is that NRL fans want the bunker gone.

https://www.sportingnews.com/league...rl-has-introduced---fans-want-bunker-gone-nrl
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
The Bunker started off well enough the first round but I always felt it was too early for it to be hailed a success. It was always a case of waiting a few more rounds before a few tough decisions came up.

At the moment instead of multiple guys making inconsistent decisions we have one. We even have a former player (Luke Patten) as one of the officials operating the Bunker which is one of the things guys have being asking for the last few years.

The main thing is the obstruction rule. The coaches are so dependent on block plays that they get upset when their plays don't come off, the refs want something black and white, the players try and play up to it by running into players when they don't go through etc.

As I work in technology I'm quite interested in the technology and concept behind the Bunker.

It was also brought up on NRL 360 with an offside ruling a few weeks back on why don't they have the technology or do something for off sides?
 

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
The Bunker started off well enough the first round but I always felt it was too early for it to be hailed a success. It was always a case of waiting a few more rounds before a few tough decisions came up.

At the moment instead of multiple guys making inconsistent decisions we have one. We even have a former player (Luke Patten) as one of the officials operating the Bunker which is one of the things guys have being asking for the last few years.

The main thing is the obstruction rule. The coaches are so dependent on block plays that they get upset when their plays don't come off, the refs want something black and white, the players try and play up to it by running into players when they don't go through etc.

As I work in technology I'm quite interested in the technology and concept behind the Bunker.

It was also brought up on NRL 360 with an offside ruling a few weeks back on why don't they have the technology or do something for off sides?
the technology is there. its been chosen not to be used.

What shits me is the inconsistency. the point of the bunker wasnt to have a perfect machine but a machine that is consistent. By machine i mean a fast and quick deliberation by the same people week in and week out, with a higher than 90 (?) percent success rate of getting it right. All this high tech they talk about is really just a direct feed from the people filming the game and the ability to rewind and ff in slow mo. They havent actually added anything new in the way of technology at all. This was all available before albeit at a slower rate as they had to ask for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

bruce

Contributor
What I don't like is the situation where a player cops a high tackle which the ref either misses or thinks is ok. So the player goes down writhing. It gives the bunker time to get involved and bingo a penalty almost every time.
 
I reckon they need to have fixed cameras across the field that we don't see on the telly. One at half way, one 25 mts out from each try line and one on each try line. That way they can get a better view of the action for forward passes, obstruction etc...

If they are relying on the TV footage it's always going to be inconstant...


And they would be much better by relaxing the try scoring criteria. Making absolutely sure that it's a try is a waste of time. Benefit of the doubt should always go to the attacking player when scoring a try, as reward for getting into a try scoring situation.

The only way a try should be over turned is if there's clear evidence that it's not a try. If the player claims a try, and there's no clear evidence against his claim, then it's a try. If there's any doubt at all, either way, then it's a try.

I mean who gives a fuck, it's the same rules for both teams. But this is much easier for the video refs to justify.

And it's a better game to watch as it's quicker, and there'd be more attacking raids ending up being points scored.

That's my Twenty Cents anyways.
 
I reckon they need to have fixed cameras across the field that we don't see on the telly. One at half way, one 25 mts out from each try line and one on each try line. That way they can get a better view of the action for forward passes, obstruction etc...
Stick to the weather reports Jonno thats what they have onfield officials for. :D
 
Stick to the weather reports Jonno thats what they have onfield officials for. :D
Jokes about the forecast for a cool 19 degrees at 7.30pm tonight aside, it looks like the on field refs are pretty keen to refer to the bunker as much as possible.

I think it's something to do with the bottle pelting incident. They want to be seen as acting on the instructions of the Bunker so that they don't incur the full wrath of the stadium as they leave. So the bunker is aptly named IMO.

But maybe the on field refs could wear safety helmets, just to be extra safe...
 
Jokes about the forecast for a cool 19 degrees at 7.30pm tonight aside, it looks like the on field refs are pretty keen to refer to the bunker as much as possible.

I think it's something to do with the bottle pelting incident. They want to be seen as acting on the instructions of the Bunker so that they don't incur the full wrath of the stadium as they leave. So the bunker is aptly named IMO.

But maybe the on field refs could wear safety helmets, just to be extra safe...
I think it is to get more revenue from KFC
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jonno
Hard to explain why the Bunker decisions has been as shit as they have, most fans have enough of a grasp of the rules to get it right, officially trained NRL employees don't. Honestly only leaves two explanations, incompetence or they are crooked.
As an aside, ever tried taken a bucket off KFC into a stadium.
 

bruce

Contributor
There was a clanger in the Chiefs / Blues game last night. I think the only person who though it was a try was the TMO. What that shows is the bunker has been an expensive waste of money, they should go back to the previous shambles.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
LordGnome_old
Replies
13
Views
954
Jesbass_old
Replies
3
Views
751
Iafeta_old
Replies
13
Views
1K
playdaball_old