The Bunker - How Do We Fix It?

[Sir Chadley]

What are your views on the Bunker?

I think most of us are of the opinion that it is not working but is that just because of those in charge or is it the technology?

Should it stay for season 2017?

If it does stay, what needs to be fixed?

 

[HaroldBishop]

I know it won't happen but I would like to get rid of it altogether and have an in-goal touchie at each end. Yes, there will be some incorrect calls but they're getting plenty wrong now anyway.

The bunker is also the reason the game is so slow and it drives me insane. Players stay down when hit across the chops. If there's a dodgy knock-on call one team will take their time to pack the scrum so the bunker gets a chance to review it. Looking at tries frame by frame, going back to look at something that happened 50 metres up the park.

I know people like CHOGM will disagree, and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But for mine they are turning a simple game into something it isn't meant to be. Get rid of the bunker and get the game back to a flowing game.

The game is in a terrible state atm as far as I'm concerned and the bunker has a fair bit to do with it.

 

[dylan the villian]

**** off the freeze frame. re-play it in normal speed.

also, make it a bunker as it was supposed to be where they cant see the game, no on field interference.

 

[Sharkyle]

Those in charge for sure.

On Saturday night those crappy calls could have been avoided if someone who knew the ****ing rules was making the decisions

Consistency is the other main issue, what is a try this week isn't a try next week. Clear example was the double movement, he may have went over the line with momentum but he didn't, he promoted the ball after the ball carrying arm touched the ground with a player on him, that constitutes a double movement. That's been the case pretty much all season except the last couple of weeks.

 

[CHOGM]

Have a best of 3 independent decisions in the bunker. Like boxing. Because that's not a corrupt sport:dougy:

 

[gando2230]

Should be used only for grounding of the ball for a try or obstruction.

Not for high or professional fouls knock ons offside.
If the 2 refs or touch judges miss it play on.
And charge the players after the game.

 

[djhabib]

Get new people in the video ref box. Same idiots making the same calls. If you were involved with a club you can't be a video ref in that's club games so Mr patten no dragons or dogs games.

Eliminate the try or no try call. Just ask for specific things to be looked at.

Go off how it looks in normal speed more. Slowing down anything makes it look worse.

 

[Vichyssoise]

Limit the bunker's involvement to in-goal situations: Try or no-try.

Use the hockey system : Have the refs make the call and if the captain of the team on the receiving end of a 'supposed' bad decision is unhappy, let him ask the question (e.g. "Sir, I think our defender was obstructed. Can they check for it?" or "Please ask them to review the grounding. Our winger never dropped the ball."). The bunker can answer only to that question. No looking at anything else.
Each team's captain gets two 'referrals' at the start of the game. If he gets denied, he loses a referral. If not, he gets to keep it.
Sure, it won't be perfect, but at least it'll (hopefully) take the whinge out of the game and put the onus on the referees and the captains to make a decision. No more post-match criticism. You're not happy? Next time ask the right question.

And change the guys inside the box and give them clear guidelines. The interpretation (if any) is the same in round 1 as it is in round 26.
Ideally, the same bunker ref should make the call on all games to ensure maximum consistency.

 

[puma1355]

get rid of it.

 

[Tatus]

Only have them for calling tries, that's it. Limit their time viewing it to 30 seconds or a minute and if it's not clear by then go with the on field refs call.

 

[slide rule]

Limit the bunker's involvement to in-goal situations: Try or no-try.

Use the hockey system : Have the refs make the call and if the captain of the team on the receiving end of a 'supposed' bad decision is unhappy, let him ask the question (e.g. "Sir, I think our defender was obstructed. Can they check for it?" or "Please ask them to review the grounding. Our winger never dropped the ball."). The bunker can answer only to that question. No looking at anything else.
Each team's captain gets two 'referrals' at the start of the game. If he gets denied, he loses a referral. If not, he gets to keep it.
Sure, it won't be perfect, but at least it'll (hopefully) take the whinge out of the game and put the onus on the referees and the captains to make a decision. No more post-match criticism. You're not happy? Next time ask the right question.

And change the guys inside the box and give them clear guidelines. The interpretation (if any) is the same in round 1 as it is in round 26.
Ideally, the same bunker ref should make the call on all games to ensure maximum consistency.

You can ask the right question and get the wrong answer. Then you're ****ed because you used up your referral(s).

Also the refs will still just be guessing if they can't see properly, in the same way that they are now when referring it with a try/no try.

 

[Vichyssoise]

I get what you're saying slide rule, but for a hundred plus years, the refs have made decisions on the field (i.e. try/no try). With or without a bunker/video referral system, they need still need to make those decisions. I, for one, don't want to see the 'benefit of the doubt' system rear its ugly head again.
As for the referral system used in hockey (Yes, I know the money involved in the game and the media exposure can't be compared), while there might howlers, I've never read about any controversy.

Problem is we're all bound to make mistakes, the best way to deal with it is to accept it. The onfield refs have a thankless job to do. Some do it better than others.
The blokes in the bunker need a good kick up the arse.

Honestly, I'd love to see the whole video thing discarded, but with the technology at our disposal and the media pundits' inability to think instead of complain vehemently for anything and everything, I don't see how it's possible.

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

Only allow grounding, touchline, deadball line, try line.

Obstruction, ref calls it on the field, sometimes it will be wrong, sometimes not, but its not like we always agree with the bunkers obstruction calls anyway.

Get rid of 'refs call'. The reason the ref is going to the bunker is because they dont know, but they are still influencing the outcome by giving a call. So many times its been 'insufficient evidence' to overrule, but we know that if the call was the other way it would be the same call.

 

[Mr Ryan]

I like to see the Bunker only used for try scoring situations - grounding the ball or to see if a foot has touched the sideline.

Obstructions only to be called the on-field officials. If you need to look at 20 times to decide - then id rather they let it go.

I don't know if I agree with putting time limits on decisions. We all want quick decisions - and that's fine for the clear cut ones - but there's always gonna be the odd one that needs multiple looks before they can be sure.

 

[Born&bred]

Definitely get rid of the on-field ref having to call Try or No Try

 

[slide rule]

I like to see the Bunker only used for try scoring situations - grounding the ball or to see if a foot has touched the sideline.

Obstructions only to be called the on-field officials. If you need to look at 20 times to decide - then id rather they let it go.

I don't know if I agree with putting time limits on decisions. We all want quick decisions - and that's fine for the clear cut ones - but there's always gonna be the odd one that needs multiple looks before they can be sure.

Agree with all this. I think. Not sure about obstruction calls.

Also, if you put a time limit on decisions it will put pressure on the bunker. People make stupid decisions when they are under pressure. No need to put additional pressure on them.

 

[slide rule]

It makes no sense when they come in and make non-try scoring calls about knock ons. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

You can't have a system like that. It has the appearance of being rigged and biased even if it's not.

 

[evertonshark]

Thing is too i have zero faith in the nrl to actually improve the whole thing. They'll make changes as always but those changes will just end up making it worse. I reckon a drunk brad fittler would do a better job than the imbeciles doing it now.

 

[Proud Shark]

Definitely get rid of the on-field ref having to call Try or No Try

What do you do instead though? If you dont do it and the bunker cant determine if its a try or not (say the view is obstructed), what happens then?

IMO the on field decision hasnt changed anything, its just "refs call" that occurs before the review rather than after it.

 

[Born&bred]

What do you do instead though? If you dont do it and the bunker cant determine if its a try or not (say the view is obstructed), what happens then?

IMO the on field decision hasnt changed anything, its just "refs call" that occurs before the review rather than after it.

If the bunker can't make a call then it Ref's call...