In early 2015, the NRL experimented with having four touchline officials. So why has this not been implemented?
When I first noticed the NRL testing this, in an under-20s game, I was astounded they hadn’t thought of it sooner.
On each touch line there was an official watching the ten-metre line, and one watching the ball at all times. When the play got within the ten metres of the goal-line, the two extra officials wrapped around to become in-goal judges.
I warmed to the idea, as almost every angle was covered, and it would significantly reduce the need to go ‘upstairs’.
The advantage to testing this in under-20s was that there was no video referee, so the officials were already used to making a call on the spot, and had the confidence to do so.
An example of its effectiveness is an attacking kick inside the ten-metre line launched across to the other side of the field. One of the in-goal referees is already on the far side, and the other on the side closest to the kicker. It’s easy for the lead official to be blind-sided as he predicts the kick’s trajectory and follows it after the fact. The two in-goal officials are in prime possession for a decision before the kick is even made.
I was training with an NRL referee at the time, who was adamant it would not be implemented, due to the financial costs. Yet less than 12 months down the line, the NRL had put an estimated $2 million into a bunker system that has not impressed after Round 2 of this year.
Has Tony Archer written off this idea? Implementing the Bunker points to that conclusion.
Would you like to see the NRL experiment with this idea again?
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
They harp on about it and ruin the spectacle. Watch other commentators, particularly Super League ones, and whatever one thinks about their quality, no one can say they don't try and pump up the code. Other than Sterling and Sampson, Channel Nine's commentary is absolute rubbish.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
At the moment we have two referee and two touch judges on the field. The bunker should only be used on the rare occasion. The four officials should be enough. remember we used to have in goal judges when went very well in adjudicating. The problem more seems to be a lack of confidence from the referees especially in golden point time.
Surely
Guest
Could you imagine scrutinizing a game from the 70's or 80's with the camera angles and slow motion replays available now. The commentators seem to think the refereeing that has gotten worse and there is no "common sense" . The only thing that has changed is the replays and the over analysis not the refereeing. The was never "Black and White " and there never will be.
Craig
Guest
More touchies? You're kidding me? Their eyes are painted on and all they are good for is lifting their flag when a goal is kicked.
Mitchell Goldfinch
Roar Rookie
i agree commentators opinions can settle or rial up a fan. like in last nights game, when everyone disagrees with the mead send off, but the pure fact of the matter was they called it a professional foul, and thats the end of the matter. i don't like hearing commentators harp on about something for 10 minutes after the fact as it feeds the fire to the disgruntled fans
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
"What needs to change is the perception that they will be perfect." This, really, is the crux of the matter. The bunker and video refs are here to stay simply because of the sponsorship opportunity they bring. Otherwise, you would simple go back to on-field decisions only and save everyone the time, money and hassle. But that won't happen.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Maybe we should go the full NFL route. 20 officials per game all over the field. Even then they still get it wrong. And they have video as well (which also can be just as contentious as our Video ref). What needs to change is the perception that they will be perfect. If you listen to the American NFL commentators, when a bad call is made, they don't rip into the Video ref or the officials on the field. They accept it and move on. Our commentators need to do similarly
Mitchell Goldfinch
Roar Rookie
I am a big fan of the bunkers technology, but camera angles will also skew the perception of forward passes. So that is always a tough one. However, the extra two touch judges following the line of the ball the entire game means we shouldn't miss any, and their vision isn't skewed by a camera at half way on a tripod and various other cameras around the ground. I guess there are a million different ways we could make the game better but not everyone will agree, and not everyone has the same idea of a product they want to see as the end result. myself? i want it to be a fair game. I am not hell bent on wanting a faster game or a more high scoring game.
armchair expert
Guest
Totally agree Billyboy, Its obvious now that we have had Video ref and bunker for a few years that we cannot get every decision correct. I think the bunker in essence is a fantastic idea but with the obvious flaws that have been on display for all to see. The fact that we didn't see the side on view that the bunker used to disallow the Burgess try last week is so stupid it beggars belief. Also with the corner post gone and wingers scoring unbelievably acrobatic tries, no number of touch judges are going to get those calls right.
MAX
Guest
MG,with due respect to the merits of your 4tj system, the Bunker will go down in RL history as Todd Greenberg's finest achievement. When it is enhanced to include a check on forward passes, offside play and observance of the 10m rule it will be even better. Infringements need to be penalised. The imperative should be to get it right regardless of the few extra seconds it may take. I see the Bunker as a referee's best friend.
Richard Maybury
Guest
The biggest problem with the bunker is the ref making a pre-decision and then going to the bunker. By definition, the ref doesn't know if it was a try or not so how can he pre judge it ? The second issue with the bunker are the fans that think they know better. Just because the bunker decision is different to what you think does not make the bunker wrong. If it did then we could simply swap the bunker for some sort of voting system - yeah see how that works for ya. Seriously though, what the bunker needs to do is to explain its decision making more there and then through the tannoy and on screen just like ch9 and fox do. If fans could see something on the screen and the bunker saying things like " it looks like there is separation there" or "we think he used his arms in a double movement" etc then there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more acceptance. It might take a tad longer but would be better in the long run.
turbodewd
Roar Guru
Then we would have 6 refs. Does sound a bit much. I would like to see touch judges to have more power. In the NFL they have 7 refs, any of them can call a penalty. To what degree to touchies help the refs if they see a howler that the refs have missed? I don't know.
Billyboy
Guest
I think the bunker works well. There will always be 50/50 calls, I just can't work out why people expect black and white. I thought the 'souths' try was not a try while as a Roosters supporter I thought the 'Broncos' try should have been allowed, yet I could see how they came to that decision. Arrogant commentators who are never wrong (according to themselves ) deliberately whip up outrage so it may seem they have something important to say and we followers should listen. The absolute last thing we need is more layers of adjudication, the grey areas will still be grey if you pay 100 people to watch 200 replays of it. Take the good with the bad and let it go.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
no bunker, no video ref, no pocket ref
The Barry
Roar Guru
If video technology had never come along then it would be worth investigating. But in this day and age we'd have to change the culture within the game at almost every level to be able to implement it successfully. You could have 20 touchies but as soon as they made an incorrect call without going to the video ref you'd have commentators going ballistic, coaches frothing at the mouth, fans soiling themselves, the media calling for an investigation into a code in crisis thats alienating everyone, Bill Harrigan telling anyone who'll listen how they got it wrong and Tony Archer telling everyone they got it right.
Mitchell Goldfinch
Roar Rookie
They changed the title of my article when published. The bunker is here to stay for sure. Having the bunker officials controlling their own screens and looking at angles before the live audience is perfect. I think adding more eyes is great. I guess the main thing is confidence. If fhe referees are forced to make a decision we might start to see the results of more eyes on the ball. Maybe its implemented with the captains challenge as well?
The Barry
Roar Guru
When people say 'get rid of the bunker' are they saying get rid of the bunker and go back to video refs watching television screens showing channel 9s replays in a tiny room at the back of the grandstand or are they saying get rid of the video ref entirely? I don't think either is a good idea. As for more touch judges...what do they do now? They mark where the ball goes out, they don't come in for dirty play, there are forward passes all over the place, their opinion on tries doesn't count. Will adding two more per game really help anything. A few more sets of eyes to say "I think we should go upstairs..."
Oliver Matthews
Expert
It might just be one of the road bumps that the NRL and Refs need to work out but I think the major issue this season with the Bunker has been that Refs seem to have lost so much confidence when actually making decisions about tries. Technology has gradually taken over as a back up resource and has become the default option it feels like. Maybe over the coming seasons this will right itself and the Refs will get the game back under their control but at the moment it seems like so many of them will always defer to the Bunker when a decision is needed over a try, and that's a real shame as the game is far better when the refs make good, quick decisions themselves and keep the game moving.