Would you be unhappy to see The Bunker scraped?

[Nordburg]

Until fans,coaches,players,media etc learn to stop whinging about decisions,the Bunker needs to stay.It gets more right than wrong.The problem isn’t the Bunker,it’s the rules the NRL has implemented that the people in the Bunker have to adjudicate on,that’s the problem

 

[mickqld]

Use it for grounding only. These rediculous obstruction denials are ruining the game. If the refs can't rule on it or see it then it wasn't blatant enough to deny a try. Last night was even more rediculous than Jake's one last week.

 

[XV-1]

Only use it for try scoring reviews.

Everything else, use the 3 officials on the field.

 

[Hotspur2014]

Get rid of it & let the refs do what they are paid for !
But if it stays only rule on tries & captain challenges.
BUT PLEASE GET RID OF 6 AGAINS !

 

[ALinda]

I like the captains challenge rule, you need the bunker for that..

That was my immediate reaction...no bunker means removal of the evidence for captains' challenges.

It also still has its uses for determining tries and incidents involving the sidelines and dead ball lines.

 

[globaleagle]

Yes - I would be unhappy - but it needs a total over-haul, immediately.

Year after year, tweak after tweak, failure after failure.

Remember a couple of seasons ago they went through a stage where play was being pulled back 3-4 tackles later? fmd.

It's bad enough now feeling great a try being scored only to have that feeling replaced by anxiety until the 'try confirmed' signal comes up.

Howlers + captains challenges.
Groundings and in-touch calls.

No going back to find 'tiny bobbles' by a player if the ref doesn't ask for it, nor ruling no try because a player 30 metres from the play ran into another player.

If the Nrl "don't manage" games why is SOO reffed so very different (and mainly better) and internationals get done with few problems?
There's such b/s decisions being made that surely the person in the bunker knows this...I can only deduce there's something 'rotten at the top'.

- I have spoken - (typed)

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Less f**kwits is > more f**kwits ∴ blow up the Bunker.

 

[The Who]

The Bunker was introduced to stop a refereeing "howler", yet last night Penrith was awarded a try where the lead-up pass went 3-4 metres forward. How the ref missed it I'll never know, nor will the South's players and fans. The Bunker was forced to stay mute. It knew the ruling was a "howler" yet had to clear the 'try'. I know rulings on forward passes can be difficult, but this one was obvious. It is yet another reason how muddled up The Bunker has become. If we have to have The Bunker it must be able to rule on all aspects of a try.
Top-level cricket has an equivalent of The Bunker but it can rule on all aspects. In fact, the only plausible reason we still have cricket umpires is to hold a bowlers cap and/or sweater.

 

[Cliffymagic]

Refs love ruling no try to manly. Id say the bunker proves us right more than not. Just a guess.

 

[cc eagle]

The Bunker was introduced to stop a refereeing "howler", yet last night Penrith was awarded a try where the lead-up pass went 3-4 metres forward. How the ref missed it I'll never know, nor will the South's players and fans. The Bunker was forced to stay mute. It knew the ruling was a "howler" yet had to clear the 'try'. I know rulings on forward passes can be difficult, but this one was obvious. It is yet another reason how muddled up The Bunker has become. If we have to have The Bunker it must be able to rule on all aspects of a try.
Top-level cricket has an equivalent of The Bunker but it can rule on all aspects. In fact, the only plausible reason we still have cricket umpires is to hold a bowlers cap and/or sweater.

Non of the review systems are perfect in all the sports that use them, DRS in cricket goes with the umpires call when the ball is hitting the stumps by 50% because they know ball tracker isn't 100% accurate, VAR gets criticised every weekend so we just have to live with the bunker decisions same as we did with the refs calls years ago.

 

[The Who]

Non of the review systems are perfect ....

Exactly. So why have them?
May as well return to the referee/umpire's decision is final. It is the system used for all sports up to the elite level. We have all been brought up to accept on-field decisions but for some reason when a sport reaches the top level it introduces a system where the ref/umpire is second-guessed by TV and technology.
The Bunker and DRS are making incorrect decisions. They are both wastes of money, plus detrimental to the authority of on-field refs/umps.

 

[Shoe1]

Would scraping it achieve anything?

But seriously, no it shouldn't be scrapped. It mostly gets it right. It was absurd in the pre-bunker days when there were clear shots of legitimate tries being disallowed, or tries being awarded that shouldn't have been etc - yet the tech wasn't being used by the refs to check the accuracy.

 

[cc eagle]

Exactly. So why have them?
May as well return to the referee/umpire's decision is final. It is the system used for all sports up to the elite level. We have all been brought up to accept on-field decisions but for some reason when a sport reaches the top level it introduces a system where the ref/umpire is second-guessed by TV and technology.
The Bunker and DRS are making incorrect decisions. They are both wastes of money, plus detrimental to the authority of on-field refs/umps.

Unfortunately we have 4K and HD replays from every angle showing up right or wrong calls, fans including us would be blowing up big time watching a player's boot touch the sideline before he planted the ball and the ref awarded the try, or similar situations, we'd all be calling for a review system to get the decisions correct.

 

[MissKate]

Can’t blame the technology it’s the operators and the system that are stuffed

 

[Hotspur2014]

Just my opinion-
1.They have invested too much into the Bunker to get rid of it. So in saying that it should only be used for try decisions that the ref WANTS a review ie. grounding of the ball or touch line breach. Nothing else. The ref has final decision on everything else.That is his responsibility !!
2. Get rid of the SIX AGAIN. It is a dud.Full stop.
3. The BYE system where a team gets 2 points needs to be scrapped as it totally skews the “live” NRL table. A BYE should be ZERO points for all teams and the table based only on WIN/DRAWS no matter how many games you have played , like all other elite sports eg.EPL, NBA etc
There are more issues hat need review but the three above are a start.

 

[Stewbojevic]

The Bunker was introduced to stop a refereeing "howler", yet last night Penrith was awarded a try where the lead-up pass went 3-4 metres forward. How the ref missed it I'll never know, nor will the South's players and fans. The Bunker was forced to stay mute. It knew the ruling was a "howler" yet had to clear the 'try'. I know rulings on forward passes can be difficult, but this one was obvious. It is yet another reason how muddled up The Bunker has become. If we have to have The Bunker it must be able to rule on all aspects of a try.
Top-level cricket has an equivalent of The Bunker but it can rule on all aspects. In fact, the only plausible reason we still have cricket umpires is to hold a bowlers cap and/or sweater.

The cricket system is better in my opinion because it puts the responsibility on the players. They get limited reviews and if they have used them up then the umpire’s decision stands.

I think the same could work in the NRL. Give each team 2 try reviews. If they feel like they have been ripped off by an obstruction, knock on, or whatever else, they can review the try. If they don’t review it then the referee’s decision stands.

This forces the referees to try and get the decisions right and make calls on the field, rather than knowing they can rely on technology to fix their mistakes. It also prevents every single try going to the bunker.

 

[Will on the hill]

Exactly. So why have them?
May as well return to the referee/umpire's decision is final. It is the system used for all sports up to the elite level. We have all been brought up to accept on-field decisions but for some reason when a sport reaches the top level it introduces a system where the ref/umpire is second-guessed by TV and technology.
The Bunker and DRS are making incorrect decisions. They are both wastes of money, plus detrimental to the authority of on-field refs/umps.

There is 1 simple reason we have them. The widespread broadcast of slow motion, high definition replays. The game in some part needs to be judged in the way that it is consumed.

The only way that getting rid of the bunker would work is if the NRL stopped selling the broadcast rights or banned any replays. Obviously this will never happen so the best we can hope for is improvement.

 

[Will on the hill]

The cricket system is better in my opinion because it puts the responsibility on the players. They get limited reviews and if they have used them up then the umpire’s decision stands.

I think the same could work in the NRL. Give each team 2 try reviews. If they feel like they have been ripped off by an obstruction, knock on, or whatever else, they can review the try. If they don’t review it then the referee’s decision stands.

This forces the referees to try and get the decisions right and make calls on the field, rather than knowing they can rely on technology to fix their mistakes. It also prevents every single try going to the bunker.

Love this. I'd even be happy with 2 per half that can be used at any stoppage in play but other than that 0 bunker intervention. The players know when they have been wronged and if they don't then its close enough to let it slide.

 

[The Who]

There is 1 simple reason we have them. The widespread broadcast of slow motion, high definition replays. The game in some part needs to be judged in the way that it is consumed.

You are presuming everybody watches the matches on TV. What about the true supporters -- the ones who go to great trouble and expense getting to matches and paying entrance fees (memberships, merchandise etc) -- who are watching in real time? Shouldn't they be the priority? Sport prospered when there was no TV, no Bunker, no technology . . . And as I've pointed out, 99.9% of sporting contests are played without TV and technology, and spectators, players and coaches seem to accept the ref/umpire's decisions.
Let TV stations go back and replay events in slow motion but by the time they return they would have missed minutes of live action because the game has moved on. Let's see how TV viewers like that.