HaroldBishop
Megalodon
That gives me more confidence it's the right way to go...nah, cant get behind that
id flick the challenge, but the bunker should be able to intervene when the ref makes a shocker
That gives me more confidence it's the right way to go...nah, cant get behind that
id flick the challenge, but the bunker should be able to intervene when the ref makes a shocker
I’d be happy with that.nah, cant get behind that
id flick the challenge, but the bunker should be able to intervene when the ref makes a shocker
Probably even worse given some of the bunker blunders.I’d be happy with that.
But then again based on the bunkers past performances that might be just as big an issue
That's the most infuriating thing.Probably even worse given some of the bunker blunders.
At least the ref is trying to make a live call with imperfect info - bunker makes far more screw ups than it has any right to
Yep keep them well out of it thanks. They'll start looking at more and more things and just slow the game down.I’d be happy with that.
But then again based on the bunkers past performances that might be just as big an issue
Its faster in the way off less stoppage, more momentum. Not stopping every few plays for a kick to touch. Thats what im talking about. Play makers have the ball in hand a lot more than they did in the wrestle era, this is fact. A 13 with ball playing skills is becoming increasingly valuable.I agree with what you are saying here. Half that outgrew the position and moved to 13 could have been a difference-maker.
The notation that the game is actually "faster" has been well and truly debunked though. It was just a con-job by the NRL.
There was a massive peak for "ball in play" time during the first 6-10 weeks after Covid, which created the perception of more footy being played and therefore we must be doing stuff faster- but it came back down by the end of the year. Each year we get these same peaks of ball in play at the back end of each year and during the finals, when the refs put their whistles away, which again creates the same perception. You get more "football being played" because there are less stoppages. For every 6-again you get 20-30 seconds of game time instead of a stoppage - or more if the attacking team could have taken the 2.
Mapped across the eras you referred to, the game is not faster in any measurable way. It some ways it is measurably slower. E.g. Scrums take 3x as long these days as they did in the 90's and early 2000's, and the average play the ball speed for the last 3 seasons has been slightly slower than it was in 2018.
yeh mad, and when the ref penalises a play the ball when it was a knock on every ****er and their dog would be blowing upYep keep them well out of it thanks. They'll start looking at more and more things and just slow the game down.
Tries only.
Yep, people will whinge and that's fine but it's by far the lesser of two evils.yeh mad, and when the ref penalises a play the ball when it was a knock on every ****er and their dog would be blowing up
cant remove the bunkers involvement
this is why i am glad you are a knob and not an nrl officialYep, people will whinge and that's fine but it's by far the lesser of two evils.
We need less bunker involvement, not more.
this is why i am glad you are a knob and not an nrl official
People whinge with the bunker and they’ll whinge without it.
“intervene when the ref makes a shocker”nah, cant get behind that
id flick the challenge, but the bunker should be able to intervene when the ref makes a shocker
There are not less total stoppages. There are less stoppages with the clock running.Its faster in the way off less stoppage, more momentum. Not stopping every few plays for a kick to touch.
Not true at all. Combining 1, 6, 7 and 9 they are not getting significantly more touches than they were before the rule changes. One more minute of game time and 8 more ptb's doesn't change much.Play makers have the ball in hand a lot more than they did in the wrestle era, this is fact.
Depends on how you want to play I guess. I love a ball-playing lock, but not everyone plays that way, and there is nothing to show that locks are doing any more passing than before.A 13 with ball playing skills is becoming increasingly valuable.
Other times bunker is involved isPersonally outside of scoring tries I would not have the bunker involved at all. People are human, make a call, accept it and quickly move on. I would also limit the amount of questioning a team does. It should literally be make the call, accept it and continue playing, with no further stopages.
Foul play is fair enough. But it should be blatant foul play only.Other times bunker is involved is
Foul play that was missed or that the ref wants more feedback on
Dead in goal scenarios
Challenges
I get that not everyone likes the challenges but the other two are pretty minimal time impact.
Have I missed any?
Personally it's very much bunker mistakes which I have a greater issue with, but I guess the less it is used the less chance for mistakes... not sure restricting them to try situations only is ideal though.
Pausing the game even just for a moment to put a player on report for foul play identified by the bunker but then not awarding a penalty or any other benefit seems like a waste of time. Bunker should just be able to note things for MRC unless they deem it bad enough to penalise or bin retrospectively. They could keep using the bunker here without all the stoppages.
I think I'd like the challenge more if we got a couple more right. I don't mind that much strategically using it for a breather even, or gambling it because winning would be a huge momentum swing but we've had some shockers.
In saying that it is very easy to be critical of the call from the couch after the replays vs what the player actually sees live and has shouted at them by teammates who want to believe it was a strip.
At the moment I could take or leave the challenge... I think I'd prefer not to have it but I'm not that fussed by it. Maybe after another season or two NRL should look crunch how many calls players are getting corrected, how many challenges are being used likely just to get a breather and make a call on if the benefit of more correct outcomes is worth it or not in their eyes.
80 minutes of football is good in principle but makes managing length of game tricky from a broadcast perspective which is extremely relevant from a $ perspective.I’m a fan of if the balls out of play then stop the clock, into touch, drop outs, try’s scored etc etc.
Also my pet hate is penalties for crusher tackles, always comes down to a 50/50 calls and players staying down.
I can’t recall any serious intentional ones for a long time.
Foul play is fair enough. But it should be blatant foul play only.
I reckon this one was originally for TV/fans, but it's now used as a differentiator for whether or not the bunker can intervene - so we are stuck with it.Pausing the game even just for a moment to put a player on report for foul play identified by the bunker but then not awarding a penalty or any other benefit seems like a waste of time. Bunker should just be able to note things for MRC unless they deem it bad enough to penalise or bin retrospectively. They could keep using the bunker here without all the stoppages.