- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The Bunker has been quite the success so far this year. It makes for far more interesting viewing on TV than the previous video referee system, decisions are being made quicker, and we are able to hear what the officials are actually looking for in regards to a potential decision.
Take out the fact that the screen being broken up into four parts makes it almost impossible to see what is happening on the big screen when you are live at many grounds, the Bunker has almost definitely improved the viewing experience.
(They should use just one angle for the big screen, as the poor view for the crowd kills all the tension and may add yet another reason for people to stay at home to watch games. I have resorted to bringing a small pair of binoculars.)
Back to the point though, the Bunker process has the same process flaws as the video referee system has had for several years.
The problem is that the on-field referee is forced to make a call on whether he thinks a try has been scored or not prior to sending the decision to the bunker. This decision is then integral in determining whether a try has been scored or disallowed.
As has been mentioned by many more respected rugby league minds than mine, this is preposterous. The on-field referee is, more often than not, in no position to rule on whether a try has been scored.
Requiring conclusive proof to overturn what is often a piece of guesswork by the on-field referee is often impossible, so even if the original piece of guesswork was obviously wrong it is not within the rules for the officials to overturn the decision.
Would it not be a better idea to simply use the balance of probability? With the Bunker, we have an objective set of officials that will not be swayed by the crowd or momentum of the game, so they can rule whether it is more likely that a try has been scored or not.
With all camera angles available to them they will be able to get the decision right far more often than an official on the field who usually has several bodies between him and the ball, and is therefore unable to see what has actually happened.
In such a situation, the on-field referee is making a judgement using the balance of probability based on the one angle that he sees, and the angles his fellow on-field officials see, which are usually impaired by similarly sub-optimal views.
Why not allow someone in a comfortable environment, who is not under fatigue from officiating an 80-minute match of elite athletes, provide a far more educated and objective opinion on whether a try has likely been scored?
There have been several recent controversies regarding the Bunker, including one that involves the Canberra Raiders, whom I support. Don’t take this as fan bias, it is merely an excellent example which highlights the Bunker system’s flaws.
The Gold Coast Titans’ final try in Round 4 appears to be a ‘no try’ on all available video evidence, and the on-field official appeared to be of the no-try opinion at the time, before the touch judge claimed to have seen the ball briefly touch the ground.
Now, on the video it appears the ball is nowhere near the ground at any point, and the touch judge was roughly eight metres away when it happened and had his view obstructed by several moving bodies. How is that the best view on which to judge a potential try?
Again, the point is not whether this particular incident was a try or not, but on the flawed system which led to the decision.
What is your opinion on the current system? Is it the best it can be?
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.