bunker

[roosterproud]

My biggest problem with the bunker is , why does the ref have to send up a decion to the bunker. If the ref doesnt see, lets say a grounding of the ball during scoring a try. Why does he have to call it a try or no try. Why not ive got no freekin idea. But instead he has to call it something and then they hane to prove or disprove the refs on field call.
get that out of the game.
Why does the bunker go back so far when the ref says to check the grounding.
And just on Greame Annersley, i rate him as one of the best. He and McCallum were the only guys who got it right on the field consistently.
Keep the bunker but use it only when the has no idea or as a captains challenge

[Chook]

The bunker does not make decisions, a person does and persons' make mistakes. It will never be perfect so it's pointless having that expectation.

Chook.

[Johnny Brass]

My biggest problem with the bunker is , why does the ref have to send up a decion to the bunker. If the ref doesnt see, lets say a grounding of the ball during scoring a try. Why does he have to call it a try or no try. Why not ive got no freekin idea. But instead he has to call it something and then they hane to prove or disprove the refs on field call.
get that out of the game.
Why does the bunker go back so far when the ref says to check the grounding.
And just on Greame Annersley, i rate him as one of the best. He and McCallum were the only guys who got it right on the field consistently.
Keep the bunker but use it only when the has no idea or as a captains challenge

This is my biggest bugbear with the bunker too , if the ref sends it up just let them decide instead of going on a prove or disprove the refs guess.
I think it's been pretty good and they get most decisions right.
One of ikavalus tries last week was in by a stud being in the air , good luck trying to rule on that at normal speed with the human eye.

[The Brain]

We can all see the bunkers errors...why can't they? Take the betting out of the game...so that means piss off the bunker

[Nicola Tesla]

My biggest problem with the bunker is , why does the ref have to send up a decion to the bunker. If the ref doesnt see, lets say a grounding of the ball during scoring a try. Why does he have to call it a try or no try. Why not ive got no freekin idea. But instead he has to call it something and then they hane to prove or disprove the refs on field call.
get that out of the game.
Why does the bunker go back so far when the ref says to check the grounding.
And just on Greame Annersley, i rate him as one of the best. He and McCallum were the only guys who got it right on the field consistently.
Keep the bunker but use it only when the has no idea or as a captains challenge

So true... they are guessing and as such can influence the game or be perceived to be showing bias depending on how they rule if they don't have a clue!! And this is what fans hate! Forcing the refs to amke a call when they don't have a clue puts too much pressure on them.

Most the time a try is scored which needs reviewing is because it was a low percentage play or poorly executed play which allows doubt.

Usually off bombs/kicks/block plays or trying to get the ball down in traffic. These are all low percentage plays that don't deserve a try if it's not clear, so why don't they just go upstairs with "NO IDEA" and if the bunker can't decide within a minute or so, Benefit of the Doubt must go to the defense!!!!!

The rules are the problem as much as the officiating.

There is the other issue Brain states, that we can all clearly see the decision should go one way, but they get it wrong!!!

The original idea of the bunker was to have 2 or 3 officials review it to take pressure off the one. One person may see something completely differently to the other.

Commentators who make comments about getting rid of the bunker are not as invested in a team as us types are, they don't care if the decision is right or wrong ....we do!!!!

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Andrew Johns makes a good point when he says "the game isn't played in slow motion".

Some parts of the game don't need endless microscopic interrogations to make a decision.

[Johnny Tobin]

Should only be invoked by a captain's challenge. Give them two per half and they lose one if it fails.

[The Skeez]

Are the refs making the same amount of mistakes as they did before the video ref was introduced? Probably

Play on

[ism22]

Its not an easy gig.
If I was the NRL I wouldnt have Anesley saying they got it wrong. The media & fans micro analyse the game finding every mistake which is not normal. There is mistakes big deal, we all make mistakes. Thousands of decisions are being made at a split second by the refs & they get at least 97% of them right.

I respect that they get most of the decisions 'right'. However:
1. He's wrong to say all these decisions woulda been wrong without the bunker and to claim this as 'success'. The bulk of routine 'right' decisions involve the ref saying 'I think it's a try' or 'I don't think it's a try' with the Bunker then having insufficient evidence to overturn the on-field decision (within the scope of what the ref has asked them to check). This achieves nothing. The ref might as well just say 'I think [blah]' with no bunker intervention.
2. For a Bunker decision to be wrong, it has to be one that the head of refs has taken enough interest in to make a public statement (uncommon and a bit odd because they tend to cherry-pick which ones they talk about). Thus, percentages are skewed by cherry-picking.
3.The stat excludes cases where the Bunker either randomly intervened or chose not to randomly intervene when they coulda/shoulda. Further, it doesn't look at the context of the decision (did it change the result of the game or eeerm... could they have been a little braver and said 'yes/no' rather than 'not enough evidence' given the context/flow/importance?)

IMO the Bunker largely does nothing other than:
1. Confirm decisions that shoulda been made re-time anyway (the bulk).
2. Say 'not enough evidence to overturn the on-field decision' (when there actually is).
3. Occasionally get caught out when the boss of the refs takes enough interest to investigate one of their calls.

[Mad_Rabid_Rooster]

It is a concern that so many mistakes or bad calls are still being made on a regular basis despite the technology that is available. I didn't realise that the bunker does not have all the footage and possible angles available (from Nine, FOX etc). All of it should be available if the Bunker stays.

(The previous post was only two weeks ago; all good!)

[Kingbilly]

One of the biggest problems was shown up with Frizel's try on Thur. The bunker correctly ruled a try. He forced the ball with his forearm and did not knock on. Yet there are articles in the media the next day whinging and complaining about the decision. The media and the commentators are just as erratic and in error as the bunker itself or more so