[Resurrected] The Bunker

[mave]

Hold on people. The problem is not the bunker but the rules.

When the ref says 'I have try' then the bunker has to find - beyond any doubt - complete proof otherwise to overturn. The 50-50 call has already been decided.

I agree with Barrett, there should be a third option:

1) Try. 2) No try. 3) No ****ing idea.

The signal could be a shrug of the shoulders and palms up.
The bunker boys can then use the technology to call it as we all see it, rather than to seek incontrovertible proof either way to overturn.

The refs will simply send up every decision as I don't know.

Its time to ditch the technology altogether and get back to basic simple footy.

 

[COMMANDER]

The bunker should not be making offside calls at all, unless the place 100 cameras at 1m intervals along the side of the field.

 

[Nordburg]

The refs will simply send up every decision as I don't know.

Its time to ditch the technology altogether and get back to basic simple footy.

So if the ref sends it up as "I don't know",what decision does the bunker make with the Peachey "try"?

 

[mave]

So if the ref sends it up as "I don't know",what decision does the bunker make with the Peachey "try"?

Who knows ?

Depends on the weather, time of day, *insert any variable*....they are terribly inconsistent.

Which is why I want a simple on field call being the end of it.
Ref goes with their gut feel if they truly don't know and we can all live with the decision.

Dkheads in the bunker look at it 100 times at have proven that they still get it wrong.

 

[brad]

Mark Carrol brought up a good point tday.The ref has to award try or no try after seeing it once in a split second. Meaning he has no idea if it was touched or not. Why cant they say that they dont f.cken know if its try or not and give the bunker full ruling.

It makes it hard when Ray Charles goes up stairs to Stevie wonder.

 

[HoldenV8]

Ever since Super league introduced the video ref in 1997, the question has been asked.....why can't or won't they rule on forward passes?

Well, after last night's farce where Sutton ruled Walker offside I have to ask, if they can't rule on a forward pass from video evidence, how can they rule a player offside?

And I know it gets joked about, but after Peachey's so-called try, along with countless others in the past 20 years.....rugby league definitely needs to have a sniko. Although in saying that, they would still probably get it wrong.

These Sutton brothers have a long historyof stuff ups and suspensions. Howthe the hell they still have a job boggels the mind.get toovey in the bunker next year!.

You could say the same of that other bunker pea brain Luke Patten. He has made more stuff ups and howlers from the bunker than anyone should be allowed to get away with before they get told to hit the lines at Centrelink.

Why dont we just fk the Bunker off altogether and save the $.

Because that would involve Greenturd and the NRL admitting that they got it all wrong. And under that slimey a-hole's watch they haven't admitted to and won't ever admit to doing anything.

When the ref says 'I have try' then the bunker has to find - beyond any doubt - complete proof otherwise to overturn.

Then how do they explain that Walker was given the on-field decision of try and it took less than 3 seconds for the bunker to overturn it? I know they have access to more replays than TV viewers do, but that amount of time is only enough to get a good look at 1 replay and to my knowledge there wasn't a camera located 19 metres out pointed directly across the field. In fact, there was no camera angle that conclusively proved that Dylan was offside, yet it only took 3 seconds to overturn?

Due process was not followed one bit. It was like Sutton had already made up his mind that his brother got it wrong, end of story. Whether he was under instructions to disallow it would be another story.....

 

[Genius]

Now the Cowboys get screwed by the bunker

 

[Bird of Prey]

Ha ha the beat goes on.......

 

[MadMarcus]

It seems the more refs, the more mistakes.

Go back to 1 ref. Let him make decisions.

A single ref won't get it right every week, but the number of wrong decisions will not increase.

 

[HK_Eagle]

For the Peachey alleged try I can accept the bunker's decision, given the on-field ref's decision of try. It just really wasn't conclusive enough to overturn, and as the rules stand and have been interpreted for awhile now, I can live with that bunker decision.

However... what I am highly critical of was the on-field decision of try in the first place. Yes, we can live with on-field split second decisions that may not be right, BUT, how could anybody watch that alleged try live and not intuitively feel there was probably something wrong with it. It just didn't look anything like a legitimate try watching live. The ball has bounced off multiple parts of the body and propelled forward by a player squeezing through a gap with little space. I can only guess that the ref has been psychologically conned by Peachey's claim.

This point gets overlooked a bit in the debate and I believe this is where there is truly something wrong (rather than the bunker's response).

 

[Genius]

Why not legal action. In my business i make a mistake that causes financial loss i get sued. Professional Indemnity. Why dont clubs try it and see how it goes. Screw the nrl if the court made them change it.

 

[Genius]

#suetheNRLBunker on twitter

 

[Shoe1]

Next year when we are finding it hard to crack the defence, simply chest the ball through and score.

 

[voicefromthehill]

No No No, There has to be an investigation. Hmmm we have a Bunker that cost 2 Million Dollars but we are not using the technology.

1. We have GPS on all players giving real time stats to the bench. Forget the 2 legs behind kicker just check the 2 players GPS. Was he in front or not ?


2. GPS could be put in ball. Forget the “Did it go backwards from the hands”. Did the ball travel forward Yes or No ? I realise the ball has momentum but players will soon learn to throw the ball backward .5m


Ok it doesn't solve the “Did it touch the hands” call last night but 75% of contentious calls this weekend solved. No grey just Black & White.


Thanks Bunker

Only issue with GPS tracking is it has a serious margin of error when large structures (e.g. stadiums) are in the vicinity. Satellites bounce off these solid structures to create a margin of error greater than the cm some calls come down to - I like where you are going though

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Ha ha the beat goes on.......

Is that you Cher?

 

[MadMarcus]

Only issue with GPS tracking is it has a serious margin of error when large structures (e.g. stadiums) are in the vicinity. Satellites bounce off these solid structures to create a margin of error greater than the cm some calls come down to - I like where you are going though

Surely their margin of error can't be as big as the bunkers!

 

[mickqld]

Fyck the Bunker off. Fyck the 2 refs off. Go back to in goal touch judges and forget this bullsht scrutiny of every single play trying to make an imperfect game perfect. It's not possible and the sooner that fukstick Greenturd goes and get a footy head in there who knows what this game is all about the better off we'll all be.

 

[mickqld]

What a farce this entire weekend has been. The Bunker has become an enormous joke and this cnt Greenturd better get up and explain his incomptence to all. This cnt needs to resign and now. I wont be watching anymore NRL this year. It's an embarrassing joke of a game.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Is that you Cher?

Cher it is.🙂

(Welcome to the off season)

 

[weev]

The failure of the bunker lies in the fact it's forms over function. It just appears as if it is adding value.

Refs are forced to make a guess and the bunker is forced to back it up. So why even have the bunker? It’s so the NRL can appear to care about accuracy and correct outcomes.

The comp is now a farce. Expect to see more stupid decisions against all teams other than Melbourne.