The NRL’s bunker looked decidedly shaky over Round 5. Yet the errors that referee’s elite performance manager Tony Archer has admitted is not the most troubling aspect of the system that was exposed last weekend.
The role of the video referee has evolved over the years from having one when the NRL came into existence to the situation today, where there are three of them on each game.
In fact, it has evolved to an extent that we no longer have video referees at all. They are now ‘review officials’, and their charter is to review the original on-field decision and decide whether it should be upheld or overturned.
The change started when Daniel Anderson took over at the end of 2012. His feeling was if a scoring opportunity was sent straight upstairs the video referee had to rule on every aspect of the play without really knowing what ruling was expected. The idea was that if the on-field referee made a judgment on whether he thought a try had been scored or not, then that would be given to the video referee to review.
At least it gave the guy in the box a starting point to work from, went the argument. That became the ‘try’ or ‘no try’ live decision, and the vide ref would need “sufficient evidence” to overturn it.
A lot of people don’t like the referee having to make a decision based on what he’s seen, as they feel he often has to guess. That’s far from accurate – both touch judges and the pocket referee have input into any decision, so there are four sets of eyes that contribute to the decision.
And do you really want to go back to the days of ref’s call and benefit of the doubt? People seem to have forgotten how flawed that was.
Former NRL players were added to the box – because the footballers had a better ‘feel’ for the game – so we had two video referees with separate roles. From there we have arrived at the bunker, where there are three officials adjudicating on decisions.
So what is going wrong?
We’ve had obstruction calls that have caused debate, an offside call that was not overturned, and a penalty try that was not awarded.
I can handle all of that – the people pushing buttons are going to make errors, because they’re people. Their communication to the referee recommending a sin-bin can sometimes lapse.
Except on Saturday night, we had what looked like a clear-cut decision of the North Queensland Cowboys’ Gavin Cooper being held up by the St George Illawarra Dragons defence. Referee Ben Cummins and his touch judge were only metres from the ball and ruled that Cooper had been held up. Every replay that was broadcast saw the ball off the ground, until well after the on-field decision of ‘held’ was made.
The decision was sent to the bunker as a ‘no try’ and the replays were duly examined. Not all the angles observed were broadcast to the viewers, which only added to the confusion.
However, one thing should not have been confusing. The on-field decision by the officials is to be reviewed by the bunker – the officials are not supposed to come up with their own interpretation of events.
The on-field officials ruled Cooper was held up and there was no sufficient evidence to overturn it.
The bunker is not there to determine when the tackle is complete. The referee does that – and that was exactly what he did. The bunker operators overturned the decision not because they reviewed it but because they looked at it without regard for the original ruling.
We were suddenly back in 2012, which is the year video refereeing really started to get into trouble (the Inglis Origin II try, Origin III obstruction, the ‘Hand of Foran’ finals match etc.).
On Saturday night, I saw the bunker functioning outside its charter. It must use the on-field decision as a starting point and review it.
As for some of the other rulings over the weekend, they were by a large majority correct. We seem to forget that fact – only the errors are highlighted. Part of the reason for that is the impact that they can have, but mostly because the standard of officiating is very high indeed, and the rugby league public expects perfection.
I hope we see a lot fewer referrals to the Bunker in Round 6. The on-field officials are cut a lot more slack by the public and they don’t get much wrong anyway!
Dan Eastwood
Expert
Forgiven
bigbaz
Roar Guru
I think the crowd should vote, of course with a loading against the home fans.
Noel
Guest
The reaction to the comments about this debarcle are likely to be many and varied , however , as I see it , the problem lies in the instruction to the Referees and the way the mess has developed over the last few years . Let's start from Bill Harrigans' retirement and the introduction more scrutiny from the video reviewers . The onus of getting the decision right started to shift from the referee and two touchjudes to the man in the box . Next we had two referees and because neither of them were allowed to be in line with the play to make decisions on knock ons' and forward passes , that responsibility was handed to the touchjudges and the referees fell further behind the play . Now we get to the Tony Archer era where secrecy and lack of responsibility have pushed more onus onto the video reviewers and when interviewers ask Tony about decisions they get a policical answer .It's a mess and won't get better without pain . We need to go back to one referee and two touchjudges reduce the responsibility on the bunker to an assistance role without the authority to go delving into things they wern't asked to . Referees to be in line with the play and be given back the authority they were intended to have when the rule book stated The Referee will be the sole judge of matters of facy on the field . Then Referees need to be taught to be in control and demand the respect that is rightfully theirs , players to be identified by Number not Name , They ,the Referees, need to make judgement calls on the likes of obstruction and because they will be in the position to do so there will be much less dissatisfaction with them from Fans and Officials alike . Will this happen DEFINATELY NOT and why wont it - Because the game is being run by the media because they are paying for it and the commission is far too weak to take it from them . It is a sorry state of affairs but sadly it is where we are at the moment . We the punters can only hope , I am sure there are people in the system that know what is needed but they need to stand up and get bit right , let's hopee they will .
Muzz
Guest
Money!
Muzz
Guest
of
Muzz
Guest
Waste
Womblat
Guest
Oh what rubbish. Union referees are true amateurs and to even imply they are better because they have more "authority" stinks of the arrogance that infects Union.
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
The bunker is much worse than the previous system. Having more people looking at the footage doesn't make the decisions any better. They should just have a coaches challenge system.
steveng
Roar Rookie
The likes of Maxwell and Co 'do that now' and very rarely make a call, that 'knock on' decision and overturning the refs interpretation in the Eels vs Panthers game was a shocker and it cost the Eels the game.
Kevin
Guest
Sorry Dan. Dan not ben. Not trolling, just simple.
Joseph Doueihi
Guest
Why not scrap the bunker all together and let the on field officials make the decisions, never have been a fan of the video ref, Mr.Archer is not going to admit to how many times the bunker get it wrong, he would lose his job if he did, this whole video ref, bunker is a waste of good money that could be out back into the game at grass roots level, why not look at the other sporting codes who don' t seem to have these problems and take a leaf out of their books, maybe not a good idea as the ego's of the Nrl hierarchy may get hurt, what an absolute joke.
Andrew
Guest
Personally the bunker is good, though there are teething problems at the moment. The bunker has to set the rules and stick with it. Any team and any player. Was it momentum or he was held up? Fix that and the league supporters will be happy. With coaches, they're are never happy ?
Stu
Guest
Why not have 5 in the bunker and each have a vote with majority winning?
Lovey
Guest
Dan Archer was very comfortable with the bunker ruling. I don't know whether they actually over-ruled the ref on when the tackle was completed, or that the ball was actually grounded before he called. But are you sure that such an over-rule would be out of bounds for the bunker when reviewing the whole movement, anyway? We have seen the bunker over-rule on-field decisions, unasked, more this year. So far, it seems it is a good thing.
ChubbzyK96
Guest
Why don't we sign Nigel Owens on a 1million/year contract and bring him to the NRL. Union referees are the authority on the field and their decisions are far less derided than leagues ones whether right or wrong! This may be because they display that authority and are confident in their decisions from the get go!
Kevin
Guest
futility of human endeavor..... Overall better than last year and the year before. They are heading in the right direction. Nice piece Ben.
Dan Eastwood
Expert
Lovey my point was that the on-field officials ruled tackle complete. The Bunker officials then applied their own interpretation to when the tackle was complete - which is not their job.
Dan Eastwood
Expert
This is very true, but I don't know how we're going to change it. I have seen a referee (now retired) send up a video ref decision to rule on grounding thinking it would be a good way to ease into the game only to have an obstruction missed by the video ref which then blew up into a problem that was never there. Just award the try!
Lovey
Guest
There must be a subtle point here I am missing. The ref thought he was held up, the bunker decided there was "sufficient evidence to overturn the decision".. Which is their brief, is it not?
MAX
Guest
Positive I saw a timer icon measuring decision time? Interesting stats. to evolve from that one.