The bunker made the right call in controversially disallowing a Joe Burgess try in South Sydney’s loss to Manly on Monday night, according to NRL referees boss Tony Archer.
Bunker official Ashley Klein turned down the onfield decision of a try by referee Henry Perenara, in the 59th minute of the Rabbitohs’ 20-12 round-20 loss at Allianz Stadium. The try could have tied the scored up at 18-18. Instead, Souths’ fightback from 18-0 down was stopped in its tracks.
On Tuesday evening, the NRL released a slow motion video on its official website which it said supported the decision.
According to the NRL, “the bunker officials did not include all relevant angles in the vision provided to the broadcasters and this oversight added to the confusion over the decision”.
As the vision of Burgess rolled, Archer said Klein’s decision was correct.
“As you can see from the vision, Joe Burgess in attempting to ground the ball, loses possession and fails to re-grip, re-hold or re-catch the ball which he is required to do to score a fair try – correct decision to overturn.
According to the NRL’s rules, “A player who has had possession or touches/touched the ball and knocks the ball forward must regain possession (catch, hold or grip) prior to the ball hitting the ground, another player, goal post or cross bar.
“For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce.”
Souths were livid with the decision which effectively ended their NRL season. They will miss the finals for the first time under coach Michael Maguire.
Stand-in skipper Sam Burgess said he was dumbfounded.
“It thought it was a dead-set try,” he said.
“I just don’t know how they can get it wrong – I really don’t.
“I tried to ask a question on the field what has it been disallowed, and there is no answer. I don’t think the referees knew why. As a player, it is pretty frustrating.
“I’m not blaming the referees. I thought Manly were good but some big moments in the game, we (as a game) need to get better.”
Coach Maguire was equally confused.
“They are defining moments in the game,” he said.
“We made it hard for ourselves in the first half but we achieved what we wanted to in the second half, getting our completions up, but those sorts of things in the game are defining moments.
“You say you thought it was a try and I did think the same.”
Richard
Guest
Mike from tari I agree..
Jaime O'Donnell
Guest
He never regripped the ball, therefore the Bunker decision was correct.
Oingo Boingo
Guest
I'd say B also , but my issue with the technology is that even when they look at decisions over and over they still get it wrong ...
db
Guest
B
Jimmmy
Guest
B is definitely the right answer , Baz. I hate it when they rule on anything else like when they check for a 'try' just to determine the correct restart. Make a decision and get on with it. I can live with mistakes, I've made plenty of em myself but I can't live with the constant checking. Get the video out of it as much as possible.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Interesting question... There's an old school part of me that would like to say A) but realistically it can never happen. Look at how many people are moaning about this try and it's one the refs got right. One bad decision and everyone would be howling at the moon. So I would say B). I think it's too inconsistent when they intervene on foul play or scrum feeds. It seems like sometimes they do, five minutes later they don't. I'd live with the refs call in general play.
Mark
Guest
Just curious, what would you rather out of the following following options: A) See the game go back to just having the referee make the decision with no assistance of technology B) Technology only for try scoring situations C) Technology for try scoring situations, contentious calls and player infringements (current situation) Personally, I tend to not care what call the referee made as I am just happy that they made it. I get bored watching the replays. So, I guess I would choose the A option above. It will be interesting to see the responses.
Dingo
Guest
The sideon view on the NRL website shows he clearly lost it and under the current interpretations as discussed above it was no try
Dingo
Guest
The penalties for delay were garbage - they barely slowed the tackled player down at all and similar tackles occur all over the field with no penalty so he was clutching at straws...What happened to low penalty refs to keep the game going and not go back to the 80's of a penaltyathon
Mike from tari
Guest
He got his hand back on it before it hit the ground, That rule on the grounding is bullshit.
Josh
Guest
That is a really good point. I find micro analysis quite boring but that is the way of the world now. Everybody has their own view on the Bunker. I quite like it. Maybe they have not been perfect but they have also made some great decisions and I like it way more than the old Video system. The only two things I find confusing are the obstruction rule and the lack of use of the sin bin. I am sure it used to be that if somebody took no part in the play and had nil impact then it was not deemed an obstruction. It seems that if they are anywhere near the play that is enough. The one against Mike Ennis was confusing because he just walked forward after playing the ball against Newcastle and he was pinged for interfering. I was watching a game on Fox recently where there was a clear cut professional foul and the ref correctly used the sin bin. Mark Gasnier had a fit in the commentary box asking why it was a sin bin. The main commentator calmly put him in his place, which was gold.
Josh
Guest
That was an awesome response. I love how you put "journalists" in inverted commas. So true. Anybody can be an expert apparently. Thanks Internet....not. I wish that fans could form their own opinion. They catch the media ranting about something they have never even seen and go along with it. I only believe it if I hear or see it myself. If somebody rants I just turn away.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
"The rules have changed.." Yeah, back in my day, you lost the ball forward, it was a knock on. Oh wait, that's what the ruling was. http://home.arcor.de/lornaavy2/Image1.png
soapit
Guest
short memory oingo. fans got plenty upset by mistakes from the ref after they were shown to be wrong by replays. if there was any lessening of outrage it was outweighed by there being a lot more of them. 1 per round doesnt seem too bad really does it?
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I agree that the commentary is toxic, but, I think it is partly that way because the video referee is used too often. The slowing down of the game has 2 effects: 1, it makes viewing boring, and 2, it allows for the commentators to spend 2 minutes just watching and re-watching replay after replay, while whingeing about the decision or, complaining how long it is taking. I don't think it is solely an issue of the commentators being the problem so much as the coverage needs to change. If a decision was just made 'on the run' and then play resumed, the whingeing would likely disappear (or at least reduce). I think this is why there isn't as much of this in AFL or Union - no (or not as many) video referee decisions means the game goes on. No time to whinge...
John
Guest
The unfortunate thing is that people who criticise the refs are the ones that would micro analyse each decision made, hence the arms race for micro analysis and the need to take things into millimeters.
Richard
Guest
The rules have changed.. Obviously downward pressure means nothing if you don't have 5 fingers on the ball. .That`s how I see the rule being interpreted. The was no seperation so ( no knock on) So now the rule it seems is players must have full control of the ball before grounding it .. ( what is full control ?).. .I`m not a Rabbitoh supporter, far from it, but fair dinkum, that was the most horrendous decision I have ever seen.. Barbas try, was a try as well imo..
BargeArse
Guest
That decision took wind out of Sourhs sails and cancelled their comeback.What annoyed more was Manly gave away three penalties in a row on their line (twice) and no-one was sinbinned. Then Lyons goes to ref "its as if you trying to get them back in the game" ... no penalty, nothing.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Agreed. A 50/50 call via video ref that half the punters disagree with is clearly the lesser of two evils compared to a ref making a howler with no support because he was unsighted. Everyone would be up in arms the second a ref made a mistake demanding the return of the technology.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Perfect summary...