Why didn't The Bunker intervene?

[The Who]

In that last play by the Tits, most of the Easts defenders were way offside. They never got on side, and just scrambled back and illegally forced Herbert to throw that dumb pass.
Now, why didn't The Bunker get involved like it does at other random times? This time it meant the difference in an important finals match. The Bunker should have awarded a penalty to the Tits in front, or even a penalty try because the Easts defenders were guilty of a professional foul.
I think we know the reason; Easts are a protected species.
So, why didn't the Tits opt for a Captain's Challenge? It was so obvious the defenders were never on side.
It's just frustrating. If we have to have the bloody Bunker then you'd think a match-defining play would come under scrutiny, wouldn't you?

 

[StuBoot]

Big Tino burnt their. challenge.

But yes, it’s a pet hate of mine, deliberate offside to prevent a try deserves harsher punishment.

They look at things in the nth degree for things that are in the run of play or accidents but anyone that knows the game would bet that at least one defender “may” be offside so worth a look..

 

[Dion Johnson]

Verrills was lucky to stay on the field IMO, no bunker intervention there also.

 

[40 years an eagle]

Verrills was lucky to stay on the field IMO, no bunker intervention there also.

The MRC SHOULD charge him...but I doubt they will. It should be 1 week out.

 

[The better Robbo]

In that last play by the Tits, most of the Easts defenders were way offside. They never got on side, and just scrambled back and illegally forced Herbert to throw that dumb pass.
Now, why didn't The Bunker get involved like it does at other random times? This time it meant the difference in an important finals match. The Bunker should have awarded a penalty to the Tits in front, or even a penalty try because the Easts defenders were guilty of a professional foul.
I think we know the reason; Easts are a protected species.
So, why didn't the Tits opt for a Captain's Challenge? It was so obvious the defenders were never on side.
It's just frustrating. If we have to have the bloody Bunker then you'd think a match-defining play would come under scrutiny, wouldn't you?

I am pretty sure I've heard the bunker can't rule on offside from the play the ball. This could explain this.

 

[master blaster]

We can beat the rorters, they were lucky to win that game

 

[StuBoot]

I am pretty sure I've heard the bunker can't rule on offside from the play the ball. This could explain this.

Yet they can rule on a downtown penalty which is offside isn’t it?

 

[Eagles4Life]

Why didn't the bunker intervene? Because intervention wouldn't have favoured the Roosters. Basically because Roosters. 😐

 

[pt73]

Why didn't the bunker intervene? Because intervention wouldn't have favoured the Roosters. Basically because Roosters. 😐

They were on a Zoom call with you know who.

 

[The Who]

I am pretty sure I've heard the bunker can't rule on offside from the play the ball. This could explain this.

Not really that much The Bunker can rule on, is there?

 

[The better Robbo]

Yet they can rule on a downtown penalty which is offside isn’t it?

Yep but they can't rule for offside at the play the ball. Odd rule I know

 

[cc eagle]

Yet they can rule on a downtown penalty which is offside isn’t it?

They didn't rule on the downtown, it was a touchies call, they can't rule on general play, only illegal/foul play

 

[castle eagle]

no different to when guac was penalised after review for pushing down on c.untster's head and the vidiot referee ignored the elbows thrown by him which lead to guac's reaction.
as soon as i saw the elbows i got flashbacks of 2011

 

[robbiea]

Time to roast some chickens....

 

[Shoe1]

The bunker should have intervened and instructed Herbert to pass the ball.

 

[mickqld]

In that last play by the Tits, most of the Easts defenders were way offside. They never got on side, and just scrambled back and illegally forced Herbert to throw that dumb pass.
Now, why didn't The Bunker get involved like it does at other random times? This time it meant the difference in an important finals match. The Bunker should have awarded a penalty to the Tits in front, or even a penalty try because the Easts defenders were guilty of a professional foul.
I think we know the reason; Easts are a protected species.
So, why didn't the Tits opt for a Captain's Challenge? It was so obvious the defenders were never on side.
It's just frustrating. If we have to have the bloody Bunker then you'd think a match-defining play would come under scrutiny, wouldn't you?

Well we all know why it wasn't given. They're koalas.
The Titans had already blown their review. But yes it was clearly a situation which we've seen hundreds of times where the ref blows an offside penalty if an attacking play breaks down.

 

[StuBoot]

They didn't rule on the downtown, it was a touchies call, they can't rule on general play, only illegal/foul play

I was under the impression that the touchie had his/her suspicions and the bunker looked at it and confirmed it, I may be wrong.

This is one of the problems with the game at currently, no one - commentators, players, coaches, spectators etc - seems to know where the bunker's boundary actually is.
We see some decisions getting picked up/ruled on but not others.

Like why do they wait for bunker confirmation of a try but say, the match winning field goal where a couple of players are in front of the play the ball and standing in a formation to impede the chasers ( which Annesley says is illegal) is not under the same scrutiny?

 

[maxta]

I am over this stuff where a ref pulls a game up for an offence from 3 plays back....then other occasions they say its too late and on report.
Just another I found hard to get is this attacking player NOT getting through the line and bumping a defender....rules are it's an instant penalty, then like a try yesterday to Newcastle and it was interpretation that the defender had a chance to still make the tackle...which I don't mind common sense interpretations, can't have it both ways....

 

[cc eagle]

I was under the impression that the touchie had his/her suspicions and the bunker looked at it and confirmed it, I may be wrong.

This is one of the problems with the game at currently, no one - commentators, players, coaches, spectators etc - seems to know where the bunker's boundary actually is.
We see some decisions getting picked up/ruled on but not others.

Like why do they wait for bunker confirmation of a try but say, the match winning field goal where a couple of players are in front of the play the ball and standing in a formation to impede the chasers ( which Annesley says is illegal) is not under the same scrutiny?

On Annesley's Monday review he turned up the volume so you could hear the touchie calling to the ref, "Downtown and also Murray offside". The play then continued until the "downtown" player got involved with the play then the ref blew penalty.

I suppose we all get frustrated at what the bunker gets involved in or not, especially when we notice indiscretions and nothing happens, but Annesley keeps saying, the bunker can"t get involved in general play, but how do we know it's not tipping off the ref about certain things that happens during play, I'm not sure whether the bunker can be heard during play or only when we're waiting for a decision on try, challenge etc.

 

[StuBoot]

On Annesley's Monday review he turned up the volume so you could hear the touchie calling to the ref, "Downtown and also Murray offside". The play then continued until the "downtown" player got involved with the play then the ref blew penalty.

I suppose we all get frustrated at what the bunker gets involved in or not, especially when we notice indiscretions and nothing happens, but Annesley keeps saying, the bunker can"t get involved in general play, but how do we know it's not tipping off the ref about certain things that happens during play, I'm not sure whether the bunker can be heard during play or only when we're waiting for a decision on try, challenge etc.

Thanks @cc eagle, I sometimes watch the Annesley review but on this occasion I didn't and to be honest it's not teh most compelling viewing.

Would be great if the journo's had have asked him back -"So how can a touch judge see that and call it with conviction yet can't see six forward passes from dummy half?