The Bunker: what a joke

[Rafferty]

I can't believe the ref & touchies all missed Kikau's knock on in the lead up to one of Penrith's tries when everyone at the game, watching from home, & the commentators all saw it.

Of course, the bunker couldn't review & rule on it (despite several replays clearly showing it) because a tackle was made after it & before the try was scored.

Ridiculous.

Exactly, why have a bunker that looks for all the obscure BS but can’t call back such a howler, how embarrassing, the bunker, if we must have such an abomination on our game, must surely be used for the bleeding obvious. The Rorters scored last week as well after knocking on in the play ball, it’s a bad look for the game.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Just how stupid is this?? Its a serious eff up by the NRL. The independent doctor should be at the ground to assess players in person, not from some bunker in Sydney where they aren't even in contact with the players.

The medical advice is that the doctor in the bunker can assess what happened much better than a doctor at the ground because they get all the camera angles. Which makes sense. This was publicised a few weeks ago. (I'm not suggesting there aren't big problems with the bunker, just referring to that topic of whether doctors at the ground would be better). There are doctors at the ground to assess players who go off for an HIA.

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

So, are you happy that they have to ignore obvious errors leading up to the "try"?

Technology has proven that you can't get everything right because ultimately a decision still relies on a human. We were sold a pup that the Bunker would improve refereeing standards. What it has done is confirm having one ref and a couple of sideline sidekicks will make some mistakes, but it is the best solution because that's the vagaries of sport. The NRL should save their millions and revert to how we controlled each match prior to technology. The ref makes a decision and, rightly or wrongly, it should be final.

I am not happy that they ignore them but the bunker is inconsistent and is missing things as it is... so if they are missing things just leave it to the ref to miss things.

 

[jbb/james]

The medical advice is that the doctor in the bunker can assess what happened much better than a doctor at the ground because they get all the camera angles. Which makes sense. This was publicised a few weeks ago. (I'm not suggesting there aren't big problems with the bunker, just referring to that topic of whether doctors at the ground would be better). There are doctors at the ground to assess players who go off for an HIA.

i know your just adding the NRL info, but if player welfare is a concern id imagine down the track more camera angles would do **** in court if players took the game on over duty of care

its kinda of up there with its the least we could do

 

[47MVEagle]

Exactly, why have a bunker that looks for all the obscure BS but can’t call back such a howler, how embarrassing, the bunker, if we must have such an abomination on our game, must surely be used for the bleeding obvious. The Rorters scored last week as well after knocking on in the play ball, it’s a bad look for the game.

And yet they were able to go back what - 3 or 4 minutes after play? - to pick up Olakau'atu's "high shot" on Tolman 2 weeks ago & bring it to the ref's attention.

 

[eagle66]

Yes, I may be crazy, BUT.....
The bunker should only review tries and be allowed to tell the ref in real time of any foul play, knock ons, forward passes each just like a linesman.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

i know your just adding the NRL info, but if player welfare is a concern id imagine down the track more camera angles would do **** in court if players took the game on over duty of care

its kinda of up there with its the least we could do

Not sure what you are getting at? And I'd be astounded if current player contracts did not include very specific waivers around the issue of head injuries.
I was only mentioning that the idea of better protection by having doctors at each ground was already considered and debunked, I think it was by Dr Nathan Gibbs who said the doctor in the bunker can make a much better assessment of when someone should go for an HIA.

 

[Fibro Eagle]

Not sure what you are getting at? And I'd be astounded if current player contracts did not include very specific waivers around the issue of head injuries.
I was only mentioning that the idea of better protection by having doctors at each ground was already considered and debunked, I think it was by Dr Nathan Gibbs who said the doctor in the bunker can make a much better assessment of when someone should go for an HIA.

I’m not 100% sure but when they did have a doctor at the ground they use the video to check head knocks anyway The NRL way of thinking is that if a doctor is checking video at the game he may as well check video in the comfort of an office somewhere else

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I’m not 100% sure but when they did have a doctor at the ground they use the video to check head knocks anyway The NRL way of thinking is that if a doctor is checking video at the game he may as well check video in the comfort of an office somewhere else

The bunker has far more camera angles than an independent doctor at the ground could see.
I could be wrong but I thought the clubs still have their own doctors at the ground, and they assess players who are sent for an HIA to see if they can go back on?
The independent doctor is to make sure anyone that needs an HIA gets to have that assessment.

 

[Fibro Eagle]

The bunker has far more camera angles than an independent doctor at the ground could see.
I could be wrong but I thought the clubs still have their own doctors at the ground, and they assess players who are sent for an HIA to see if they can go back on?
The independent doctor is to make sure anyone that needs an HIA gets to have that assessment.

Yes it would be the club’s responsibility to have there own doctor at the ground no doubt

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Far too many mistakes. Can rule on this and rewind the clock but not on that. It’s none sense and the rules around that need to be changed now. Limit the bunker to grounding of the ball and that’s it. Later introduce the chip in the ball to assist with forward pass rulings.

 

[jbb/james]

Not sure what you are getting at? And I'd be astounded if current player contracts did not include very specific waivers around the issue of head injuries.
I was only mentioning that the idea of better protection by having doctors at each ground was already considered and debunked, I think it was by Dr Nathan Gibbs who said the doctor in the bunker can make a much better assessment of when someone should go for an HIA.

While i have no idea and im sure we can both agree with that, the contract wouldnt exclude an employers duty of care. This year we have seen some bad ones go through to the keeper and some soft ones taken off.

When talking concussion and ive had a few , the doctor learns far more from talking and examining you than getting photos of point of contact. All people are different as well and how does a camera angle take into consideration that a player may have has 6 previous concussions are are a bigger risk

i just think its a gamble the NRl are taking by using this method. Having lots of camera angles doesnt ensure you have the right one, we see that every week with the bunker, and id be very surprised if that actually fulfilled a duty of care and just defending such a class action would ruin the game id suspect

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Are you talking more about the actual assessment of the player? I think that is done by the club doctor (pretty sure its a doctor) at the ground once they are sent for an HIA.
The independent doctor is to see if something has happened to a player that the trainers have missed but that requires an HIA. A doctor watching the game live wouldn't be able to spot many of those. True some have been ordered off for a mandatory HIA while protesting that they only had a bleeding nose or a sore shoulder.

 

[jbb/james]

Are you talking more about the actual assessment of the player? I think that is done by the club doctor (pretty sure its a doctor) at the ground once they are sent for an HIA.
The independent doctor is to see if something has happened to a player that the trainers have missed but that requires an HIA. A doctor watching the game live wouldn't be able to spot many of those. True some have been ordered off for a mandatory HIA while protesting that they only had a bleeding nose or a sore shoulder.

In part yes, but i was under the impression the NRL introduced independence based on a lack of trust by the clubs to do the right thing.

My thought was the independent doctor wasnt a spotter but a professional that determines a players condition to get a consistency and standard they can hang there hat on for player welfare.

I get they all do the same test . If we are just looking for head knocks on TV , why do they even need a doctor, just someone with sharp eyes who hates footy

 

[The Who]

Far too many mistakes. Can rule on this and rewind the clock but not on that. It’s none sense and the rules around that need to be changed now. Limit the bunker to grounding of the ball and that’s it. Later introduce the chip in the ball to assist with forward pass rulings.

If all the Bunker did was rule on grounding don't you think that this would be a gross waste of money? I actually don't like them ruling on grounding because they slow it down so much it distorts 'reality'. I was always happy with the refs and linesman making a ruling on what they saw. If it looked like a try to the naked eye in real time then it's a try.
I'm over the Bunker taking tries off teams because of "obstructions". You can see true obstructions and refs would rightly rule on them. These days defenders are taking dives to gain a reprieve from the gormless Bunker.
This all leads to my contention for the past decade that the Bunker has harmed and hindered RL more than it has improved the sport. Let's get back to the ref and linespeople being the sole judges, just like it is in every match of RL ... except First Grade.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Bunker is so inconsistent. Gave a penalty try last night that was plenty of doubt.

Last week gave Tigers a penalty and not a penalty try when just on halftime a mid-air contest for the ball above the try line ended with Dragons' Lomax trying to tackle the Tigers player, who bounced the ball for a 'no try'. If not for Lomax he scores the try. Instead Tigers got a penalty. How does he not score a try if not for Lomax?

See it at 30 secs in this video:

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

In part yes, but i was under the impression the NRL introduced independence based on a lack of trust by the clubs to do the right thing.

My thought was the independent doctor wasnt a spotter but a professional that determines a players condition to get a consistency and standard they can hang there hat on for player welfare.

I get they all do the same test . If we are just looking for head knocks on TV , why do they even need a doctor, just someone with sharp eyes who hates footy

I didn't think it was to second guess a doctors HIA that finds a player is fit to return to the field.
It is to try to catch those ones where the trainer maybe doesn't even notice a player is dazed, or else the trainer gives the rudimentary on-field check and gives the thumbs up but the doc suspects a proper assessment is needed because the player continues to stagger about the field. Could be wrong.

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

With the Bunker seemingly hell bent on affecting every Facit of the game other than forward passes (which in general is pretty black and white and they probably could ) is it time the NRL looked at investing in AI where the algorithm makes a decision regardless of circumstances? And more importantly regardless of the player involved.

The way the bunker seems to come in sometimes and not at others leads to the cheating feeling fans are feeling.

I know its probably a way off but perhaps its time the 300k they pay the referees each is partly diverted into a future proof system where either computer says yes or no. No grey areas? At least it would be a fair system even if it was flawed.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

With the Bunker seemingly hell bent on affecting every Facit of the game other than forward passes (which in general is pretty black and white and they probably could ) is it time the NRL looked at investing in AI where the algorithm makes a decision regardless of circumstances? And more importantly regardless of the player involved.

The way the bunker seems to come in sometimes and not at others leads to the cheating feeling fans are feeling.

I know its probably a way off but perhaps its time the 300k they pay the referees each is partly diverted into a future proof system where either computer says yes or no. No grey areas? At least it would be a fair system even if it was flawed.

Robot referees. That could be the go.

Just don’t let any programming technicians hailing from Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney’s eastern suburbs/inner south/Parramatta or Penrith districts near them.

 

[davohan123]