The bunker has "discretionary powers".

[globaleagle]

Well...this is good to know...

Nine rugby league reporter Michael Chammas said he'd spoken about the incident [obstruction rule] with NRL head of football Graham Annesley, who pointed out that the bunker had "discretionary powers".

It makes sense because...everybody....

"consistency is over-rated!"

Gallen's demand to NRL amid obstruction 'farce'

'These blokes are full-time athletes'

wwos.nine.com.au

.......................................
That remark triggered Gallen's demand.

"Discretion will change from week to week, discretion will change from bunker official to bunker official," Gallen said.

 

[The Indian]

Indeed. They have discretion now OK, but we all know one week down the track they'll say the rule is black and white and the outside shoulder is sacrosanct and use it as a crutch to explain away the other side of the same argument.

I have some sympathy for them as which ever way you go on the obstruction argument people will blow up and want it the other way. Gould is a master at that.

Discretion is discretionary and hence variable from person to person, Black and White is definitive and clear cut but often makes no sense to the actuality and complexity of the situation.

Its just choose your poison.

 

[The Who]

So, we have all this high-cost technology and the decision is still up to some bloke having a guess?
Wow. I'd hate to see a computer with discretionary powers. Auto-correct is already frustrating enough!

 

[Eagle 1]

Think it's getting to the point now, where the bunker will rule a try if the obstruction is only minimal contact. Only trouble with this rule, it's one mans or in this case 3 or 4 in the bunker opinions. Not such a good idea, hope the bunker boys got police protection when they finish their last game.

 

[pt73]

So, we have all this high-cost technology and the decision is still up to some bloke having a guess?
Wow. I'd hate to see a computer with discretionary powers. Auto-correct is already frustrating enough!

Maybe they should look at Artificial Intelligence because there's no other intelligence there.

 

[bob dylan]

The bunker has been the biggest blight on the games since they allowed Souffs back in.

 

[Dan]

The problem is they don't seem to be able to make rules that are just straight forward and consistent. They start bringing in stuff like intent, whether it was defender to attacker, amount of contact. All those things just make it harder.

Anyway theres no real benefit in it for them to make it consistent and clear so why change it

 

[XV-1]

The bunker is the least of our problems.

Ever notice how Penrith and Storm never bitcch about the bunker.

 

[Brookie Bob]

The problem is they don't seem to be able to make rules that are just straight forward and consistent. They start bringing in stuff like intent, whether it was defender to attacker, amount of contact. All those things just make it harder.

Anyway theres no real benefit in it for them to make it consistent and clear so why change it

There's enough problems trying to gauge 'intent' in a court of law over weeks or months without trying to do it on the spot in a game of football.

We know it's subjective, and what looks like intent to some may not to others. Errors will happen. But you're right Dan, the more straightforward and consistent the rules are, the less bitching and moaning about the decision afterwards.

Subjectivity leads to this mess of 'discretionary powers' both on-field and off-field. The VAR in the Premier League was brought in to make that game less subjective, and lessen the need for 'discretionary decisions'. Yes - there have been teething problems - but they are decreasing. Discretionary decisions will always lead to someone saying, 'it's simply not fair', and they have a point.

I'm open to whatever increases the objectivity of the decisions being made on-field and off-field (bunker). Technology is not the problem, just get better technology that works and gives better decisions. And make it quicker to get to the decision....!

 

[Brookie Bob]

MICHAEL HAGAN: Coaches have a point about bunker interference - it can make your blood boil

It’s impossible to know the pressure an NRL coach is under unless you’ve been in that pressure-cooker environment.

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Referees should have no discretion at all. The rules are the rules. Its up to the NRL to changer the rules and not the referees exercising an unfettered discretion. Its Rugby League not rocket science.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

MICHAEL HAGAN: Coaches have a point about bunker interference - it can make your blood boil

It’s impossible to know the pressure an NRL coach is under unless you’ve been in that pressure-cooker environment.

www.theroar.com.au

Lost me when I saw Michael Hagan listed as "Expert".

 

[vidmar]

Whenever I see another blow up about the "bunker" I'm reminded of this comforting media release from the NRL (Check the date....)

NRL Bunker launched

The NRL launched the NRL Bunker on Tuesday, the most state-of-the-art video referral technology in Australian sport.

www.nrl.com

 

[Brookie Bob]

Whenever I see another blow up about the "bunker" I'm reminded of this comforting media release from the NRL (Check the date....)

NRL Bunker launched

The NRL launched the NRL Bunker on Tuesday, the most state-of-the-art video referral technology in Australian sport.

www.nrl.com

That one lost me when I saw the name Todd Greenburg

 

[StuBoot]

There's enough problems trying to gauge 'intent' in a court of law over weeks or months without trying to do it on the spot in a game of football.

We know it's subjective, and what looks like intent to some may not to others. Errors will happen. But you're right Dan, the more straightforward and consistent the rules are, the less bitching and moaning about the decision afterwards.

Subjectivity leads to this mess of 'discretionary powers' both on-field and off-field. The VAR in the Premier League was brought in to make that game less subjective, and lessen the need for 'discretionary decisions'. Yes - there have been teething problems - but they are decreasing. Discretionary decisions will always lead to someone saying, 'it's simply not fair', and they have a point.

I'm open to whatever increases the objectivity of the decisions being made on-field and off-field (bunker). Technology is not the problem, just get better technology that works and gives better decisions. And make it quicker to get to the decision....!

Yep.
The stripping rule is one that they look for intent, how the hell would they know if the tackler was trying to strip the ball just by the position of his hand?

Look at our failed captains challenge the other night where Harper was ruled to have lost it in the tackle, the bunker looked at it and ruled Momirovski didn’t use a “stripping motion” but it could be argued that he slapped at the ball with an open hand, did he mean to or was he just trying to make the tackle?
Maybe, maybe not, Harper obviously thought so but the bunker ruled “loose carry”.

The players are outsmarting the officials so they need to bring in black and white rules whether we like it or not.

As much as we don’t like it they brought in a black and white rule where the defender hedges his bets when trying to make the tackle and/or block the offload. It’s probably 50/50 but we’re used to it and the players know.