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?
Casper
Guest
Quite right, for 100 years refs made decisions on the balance of probabilities and there were no replays to prove them right or wrong. Just get the howlers right. I could live with all the tries disallowed in the Broncos-Cowboys game, except the forward pass which appeared clear, being given but can't condemn the refs because the system is there and they invested a $M in it. That fingertip try in the parra game was pushing the downward pressure rule to the extreme, looked to me like the ball was going forward out of his grip but we want tries in games. The Cowboys whinged about decisions but should have been defending with 12 men.for 10 minutes in that game and might have been well behind with no controversy if the refs had any guts. In my days in footy as a mediocre player, a trip was an automatic send off and still should be. The biggest issue with players going on report is that the beneficiary of any sanction is the next club or clubs they play and the team against whom the foul is committed gets no benefit. Why not issue the suspension for whatever the offence warrants plus, if it was foul play, rule the player out of the next clash of the two teams. How's that for a new can of worms.
Agent11
Guest
Fair enough mate, i admit I probably skimmed through it quickly. I did not know the touchie claimed he saw it touch the ground. I thought the ref was just calling benefit of the doubt and then double checking with the video.
Michael l
Guest
One of the reasons that the bunker is not going away anytime soon is purely from a financial point of view. NRL has partnered up with KFC to be one of their major sponsors who happen to bring in revenue each time the kernal awards a try or no try. Just looking at it from this perspective, from a rational business point the NRL will not take this away as it helps pay for their bills. Having said that I resonate with what you are saying. I certainly would like to a system of refereeing that doesn't require outside assistance other then the refs officiating on the field. There would be a lot of benefits to this but reality is that will probably never happen.
Doc79
Roar Rookie
Anyone know if macguire got charged (missed opportunity for 10 mins there) for repeated elbows to granville friday night- seemed pretty obvious. As for the cows and raiders losing- they had their chance and blew it. Coote dropping it at the play the ball pushing out at the marker and the brain explosion of FPN (seriously how old is he now? Supposed to be a senior player.) Ian, spot on- dish out the ten like gravy on the sunday roast!
up in the north
Roar Rookie
Outstanding Ian. You've said everything I always wanted to but couldn't. Cheers The bunker is fine, they just need to decide whether or not they're going to fully embrace the concept for every try or if they only want to use it as a back up for the difficult decisions. Some ref's never seem to make a call and send everything upstairs.
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
The NFL system is very good and well implemented, though it would need tweaking for the NRL. What would the NRL use as collateral for each challenge (NFL uses timeouts). Perhaps the NRL could use an interchange, though that calls player safety into question and is probably overdoing it.
Ian
Guest
I am a Raiders supporter and while I didn't like that decision I can see why it was made. Had there been no video ref it would have been a try, as it would have been in the last 100 years of rugby league, because the on field official (touch judge in this case) convinced the referee he had seen the ball grounded. I think the current system for the Bunker works pretty well. I also think there are much bigger problems with refereeing than this. For instance, why does a team once it gets to a handy lead suddenly stop getting penalties for the same things it was getting them for earlier in the game? Is it because referees see their role as keeping games competitive as long as possible? Why is it that a team (eg Penrith yesterday) can get penalised 9 or 10 times in the first half hour then not at all for the next 50 minutes? Only because the refs are concerned to give the impression of even-handedness by keeping the penalty count reasonably even? Why is there no meaningful sanction for repeated penalties, especially in a scoring situation? The refs effectively only warn the offending team that "do it again and I'll give you more warnings" and never follow through with action - I prefer the union approach, after 2 or 3 penalties they basically tell the team next bloke who gives away a penalty gets yellow carded. Why is there no meaningful sanction for foul or dangerous play? Because refs treat using the sin bin and send off with the same gravity as a judge handing down a death sentence. Why do refs not deal with niggling play, and why since the no punch edict a few years back do they seem to interpret that as punching is the only thing to use the sin bin for? Sin bin the nigglers who do the slapping and start the push and shove melees, send off the squirrel grippers. Why do refs decide one day that there is no 10 metre rule and just ignore it? Why do they decide not to worry about a team slowing down the rucks? Why do they decide its easier to ignore rules than expect teams to lift their standards to comply with them?
jimmmy
Guest
In case he was wrong !! If the bunker could prove conclusively that the ball was held up then the decision is reversed. It could not so it was not. It is not that hard to understand.
turbodewd
Guest
The NRL needs to copy tennis and the NFL and cricket. Let the teams or coaches throw a flag on the field when they want a video review. Its a no-brainer!
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
How about next time you contribute something positive to the conversation, rather than whinging about whinging? The point of articles such as these is to attempt to promote discussion on ways to improve the game, not to push it down.
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
Did you even read the article? If you can't understand the issue I believe to be present then I don't know how else to explain it to you. I make it quite clear that the article is not about the one decision, but merely uses that as a fresh and recent example. It seems to me that you have read the article with a preconceived idea of how you wanted to comment and stuck to that regardless of the article's content. If the referee or touch judge did see ball on ground, then fair enough. But if the touch judge saw ball on ground, why even go to the bunker? In all other rugby league competitions that would be a quick chat with the main referee and a try awarded.
Gaz
Roar Rookie
Problem really is the closeness of the games causing all the current negatives regarding the bunker and bad refereeing decisions. I agree with Cowboys prop Matt Scott who says his team needs to play above the close or bad decisions. In other words be in front of the opposing team by far enough to absorb a bad decision and still win. The good teams over the years seem to be able to achieve this ploy and there will always be close calls, some good, some bad depending on your following.
Baracuda
Guest
Obviously the ref has an idea by making an on field call, you people complicate things. The bunker on the other hand may not have any idea therefore the on field descision stands. Power to the ref...
jimmmy
Guest
Richard I understand your reasoning but what if the bunker has no clear view of the incident as well. Ref says I have no idea , bunker says we have no idea . I guess you could say if no one knows then it is a no try . Benefit to the defending team? This situation does not apply to the Olive try anyway, linesman said the ball was down. Personally I like the infield officials to judge.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think the regaling a call is fine. If there was no technology the refs would have to make a call not declare unsighted or unsure so I don't see why that should change. Then the technology should only ever over rule the on field decision when there's evidence that it's incorrect.
Richard Maybury
Guest
I agree with one exception, in addition to try or no try the ref should be able to declare "unsighted" in which case the bunker gets to decide.
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
Refs and touchies should be allowed to be honest. What is wrong with them saying "mate I think its a try but it all happened a bit quick, can you check it"
Baracuda
Guest
To determine a try the referee carries the most responsibility (not the bunker), 75% of the call is made on field and the bunker can only overturn the descision with 'inclusive' evidence for and against according to the referee's demands. In the Titans matter the onfield descision was try, but was there inclusive evidence to overturn that decision (according to the bunker there wasn't). Had the onfield descision been no try, you would have been staring at red letters because there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule. Just highlights the importance of the referee's call, not the bunker's.
DT
Guest
Sigh, whinge whinge whinge. People who write about league need to focus more on positives. It seems every week there is new articles complaining about reffing, for no other reason than to create clicks or sell papers. No matter how hard you try, there will always be some calls that fall through the cracks. Move on though. The system isn't perfect, but it does alright - how about next time you write about some of the good matches? Just an idea.
Agent11
Guest
It seems like you are just disagreeing with a ref decision, not questioning the system. The on field refs made a decision, went to the bunker who saw no evidence to over turn it. Not sure where the issue is?