Let's trial a NRL match WITHOUT the Bunker

[The Who]

In the final round there are two matches which are virtually meaningless: Tits V Wests, and Eels V Newcastle, providing a perfect opportunity to trial a few different rules. The most contentious, by far, is the Bunker.
Introduced to 'stop the 'howlers' it has done the opposite, as seen in every match. The system is far from perfect, made worse by the fact that it can't rule on forward passes -- even the most glaring. It also is very costly and creates stoppages in play and fan engagement.
Sport is never perfect, which is part of its charm, and it is proven every match in RL that technolgy is not the panacea. While it may work in a sport like tennis where it is just ruling on white lines, even in cricket there are grave doubts about the accuracy of DRS and reliance on tele-vision to adjudge a low catch that may or may not have touched a blade of grass.
Let's see if the NRL can do without The Bunker. After all, it has managed to survive every other level of RL.

 

[manlyfan76]

DRS works well and works within its margin of error. So much so that the tech is now being used in the MLB.

 

[TheSoaringEagle2023]

Bring back Billy Harrigan!

 

[MissKate]

It’s not the process that’s the problem it’s the operators. If it’s not their blatant bias or their total lack of feel for the game it’s just their total uselessness

 

[The Who]

It’s not the process that’s the problem it’s the operators. If it’s not their blatant bias or their total lack of feel for the game it’s just their total uselessness

I think there is a problem with a system supposed to identify and correct mistakes which only officiates on certain aspects of the play. Not being technically capable of telling if a pass goes forward is a huge red flag that the system is far from accurate. Not being able to go back more than one play to rule on the legitimacy of a try is another. It makes The Bunker a part-time system, like restricting a policeman from investigating certain crimes.
For me, The Bunker ruins the flow of our sport. It creates dead time and confusion. It takes much of the spontanety and joy from celebrating a 'try' because, like every fan, I've felt deflated so many times when The Bunker 'sees' something no-one else has and makes a contary ruling.
What about the cost of the system? Surely that could be spent on grass roots RL? What about the fact that The Bunker has become the most important person in a RL match -- the only one that can make a binding ruling -- and has become the biggest target to be corrupted?

 

[XV-1]

Can you add a choice of only using the bunker when a try is scored.

The rest of the game can be run by the ref and the 2 touch judges.

 

[Disco]

I fear there is no going back.

Its not working well atm but if we get rid of it what will happen is then the first mistake or try wrongly or rightly given that the bunker would have otherwise caught happens everyone will blow up deluxe.

 

[The Who]

I fear there is no going back.

Its not working well atm but if we get rid of it what will happen is then the first mistake or try wrongly or rightly given that the bunker would have otherwise caught happens everyone will blow up deluxe.

Perhaps, but remember when the NRL introduced two referees? Eventually it was abandoned.

 

[The Who]

Frankly I'm amazed. Forty percent of voters seem to be happy with The Bunker.
I've not met one RL fan in recent years who has not been critical of the system.
Perhaps those pro-Bunker voters are too young to remember the way RL was officiated pre-technology.
I wonder how long it will be before Bunker decisions are made by AI? Then we can replace on-field refs with AI drones flying above the action. And finally, what would be really cool, is if we could replace human players with robots that don't make mistakes and never get injured....

 

[Frogz]

Frankly I'm amazed. Forty percent of voters seem to be happy with The Bunker.
I've not met one RL fan in recent years who has not been critical of the system.
Perhaps those pro-Bunker voters are too young to remember the way RL was officiated pre-technology.
I wonder how long it will be before Bunker decisions are made by AI? Then we can replace on-field refs with AI drones flying above the action. And finally, what would be really cool, is if we could replace human players with robots that don't make mistakes and never get injured....

Ive never met anyone that is happy with Albo, but he still got 34%

 

[cricket008]

In the final round there are two matches which are virtually meaningless: Tits V Wests, and Eels V Newcastle, providing a perfect opportunity to trial a few different rules. The most contentious, by far, is the Bunker.
Introduced to 'stop the 'howlers' it has done the opposite, as seen in every match. The system is far from perfect, made worse by the fact that it can't rule on forward passes -- even the most glaring. It also is very costly and creates stoppages in play and fan engagement.
Sport is never perfect, which is part of its charm, and it is proven every match in RL that technolgy is not the panacea. While it may work in a sport like tennis where it is just ruling on white lines, even in cricket there are grave doubts about the accuracy of DRS and reliance on tele-vision to adjudge a low catch that may or may not have touched a blade of grass.
Let's see if the NRL can do without The Bunker. After all, it has managed to survive every other level of RL.

Totally agree! The Bunker often disrupts the flow of the game more than it helps. It could be fun to see a match without it, especially since rugby league has managed fine without that tech in the past. Maybe it’ll give us some clarity on what really works and keeps the game enjoyable for fans!

 

[sheridanstand78]

The key refereeing decisions are now outsourced to the bunker and the howler decisions continue.

It is farcical that the bunker can rule on knock ons and obstruction and ignore blatant forward passes and offside from attacking kicks.

You can make a cuppa while they adjudicate.

Football has the same issue with the VAR, the fans despise it!!

 

[Scorpio]

Frankly I'm amazed. Forty percent of voters seem to be happy with The Bunker.
I've not met one RL fan in recent years who has not been critical of the system.
Perhaps those pro-Bunker voters are too young to remember the way RL was officiated pre-technology.

My take...

35 years ago was before the video ref, but it was also pre-professionalism in rugby league. Players often worked as cellarmen and garbage truck drivers. Coaches used to threaten to run referees over with a cement truck or hire people in the crowd to abuse the ref when they came off the field, to try and influence future refereeing decisions and benefit their team.

Inevitably as the game became professional (and the ref abuse avenue slowly closed) clubs instead spent lots of time, money and effort to exploit rules for maximum advantage, often to the detriment of the sport itself. See: Block plays, the slowing down of the ruck via wrestling, and so on. Several of these tactics resulted in player injuries too.

You can say that the rules should change where needed, and the referee should enforce these, as well as make sure there are no offsides, knock-ons, unchecked foul play, and so on... but the referee can only check so much at the time... and even if they enforced the rules correctly, they will often be criticised for blowing too many penalties and not letting the game flow!

If such exploits are unchecked or unpoliced (often this can only be done by or with the assistance of a video ref), then people will eventually tire of the end product, then stop watching and attending. And this is before even considering player welfare and commercial pressures, which will always exist for a professional sport.

It is worth pointing out that currently NRL is getting near record attendances every round. Only 6 years ago, before Covid and before massive cost of living increases, this was not the case.

So... I view it as imperfect but necessary, until there is a more appropriate solution.

 

[Cochrane]

Footy fans will find something to whinge about.

I agree, it hurts the flow of the game at times. There also decisions that make you scratch your head.

However I wonder if they were gotten rid of, does the narrative just turn to ref's missing things in general play, tries given where it shows to be obviously lost before grounding.

I don't have the answer, perhaps just have the bunker for tries, cause they get alot more right than they do wrong (the howler). Then the goal can be continue to work on consistency in just that area.