The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Stay calm and stick with the Bunker

Neil Pollard new author
Roar Rookie
19th September, 2017
Advertisement
You! Stay calm and keep faith with the Bunker system. (Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
Neil Pollard new author
Roar Rookie
19th September, 2017
13

The dust seems to have settled somewhat on the furore surrounding refereeing referrals to the Bunker in the first week of the NRL semi-finals.

A week’s a long time in footy so let’s recap.

In three out of four games there were difficult refereeing decisions that could have changed the outcome of the match. Afterwards, the coaches walked into the press conference and unloaded on the referees, and the NRL reacted with fines and warnings.

The fans and media feast on these controversies all week when they occur, and the coach usually settles down and apologises to everyone for the outburst.

Life cycle complete? Well, not quite. It will happen again unless some issues get addressed.

There have been calls to scrap the Bunker and there have been calls to go back to one referee. That would be as sensible as going back to contested scrums. People forget why these changes happened in the first place.

We have the Bunker because TV coverage now has so many cameras with such high resolution that refereeing errors that previously went undetected now look like howlers.

Go to YouTube and watch an old match. A scrum is packed down, there is no obvious tunnel, both hookers have dropped their blind-side arm so they can get their feet into the middle and close to the ball, the scrum wheels, the halfback chucks it in and then Greg Hartley whistles a penalty to the team that fumbled the ball leading to the scrum in the first place. It’s gold!

Advertisement

It was inevitable that the NRL would use video replay to help make the correct decisions. Unfortunately, the NRL probably set our expectations too high when they were spruiking the new bunker technology prior to its introduction.

The fans aren’t asking for much. All they want is to see the correct decision made every time and for it to be made immediately.

In 2016, the Bunker took far too long to arrive at a decision and they have been noticeably quicker in 2017. It’s a completely different skill for the Bunker boys and more like a TV production engineer than a referee. They need to improve their knowledge of the cameras at the ground so that they choose the best view at first opportunity.

Sometimes they need to use two camera views synchronised on a split screen. In their haste to provide a quick decision they have made the odd blunder. I’ve seen instances where the TV coverage later shows a better camera view which exposes a mistake from the Bunker.

The NRL Bunker has been a major source of derision in 2016

The referee determining ‘try’ or ‘no try’ before going to the Bunker is a slightly flawed process. It is the same process as the ‘ref’s call’ in the past, only back then we were held in suspense, not knowing what the referee would rule.

What we need is a default ruling applied to any situation where there is a lack of certainty. In other words, does the benefit of the doubt go to the attacking team or the defending team in every given situation? These default positions need to be debated in the off-season by an impartial panel and then written into the laws of the game.

Advertisement

Don’t bother with the premature ‘I have a try’, just ask the Bunker to check the grounding, knock on, obstruction, offside etc. The referee went to the Bunker because he was uncertain and if the Bunker can’t provide any certainty then it should revert to the default benefit-of-the-doubt position.

For example, the ‘behind the kicker’ rulings that are line ball, the rule may give benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and award a try. But in the case of a knock-on ruling when players contest a high ball you might give benefit of the doubt to the defending team and rule no try because of the scrappy nature of the lead-up.

The sooner we get the virtual-line technology the better for the ‘behind the kicker decisions’. Until then, the Bunker should use the high overhead camera shot from between the posts. That view shows the players in relation to each other and the existing line markings which best show the players’ positions relative to the goal-line. You may not clearly see their feet on the ground but if it is that close you revert to the default ruling that the impartial panel has agreed to.

The next issue is with the rule book. If a law is difficult to police then change it so that it’s referee-friendly while still upholding the integrity of the game.

Referee Ashley Klein during the Round 3 NRL match between the North Queensland Cowboys and the New Zealand Warriors at Townsville Stadium in Townsville, Saturday, March 22, 2014. (AAP Image/Action Photographics, Colin Whelan)

(AAP Image/Action Photographics, Colin Whelan)

A good example of this is the stripping of the ball in a tackle, which results in the most number of contentious decisions. The rule does not help the referee at all because it does not adequately define what a strip is.

In my opinion, a defender coming into contact with the ball with any part of his body is not a strip. Pressure applied to the ball with a hand after first contact is a strip. A player carrying the ball away from his chest and losing the ball should be classified as a loose carry.

Advertisement

Once the tackle is completed, the referee should go hard on defenders anywhere near the ball and benefit of the doubt should be with the tackled player. This will also help to speed up the ruck. When the referee is uncertain, default should be a loose carry and scrum. The scrum provides adequate time for the Bunker to view and, if needed, inform the referees of a penalty for a strip.

It would be great if everyone could put aside their bias or agenda and provide constructive input. We don’t want it to be an us versus them between the referees and clubs. When the referees are under attack, it’s human nature for them to defend their actions and their processes. Any discussions around changes to the laws or the default position for refereeing situations cannot involve any current coaches or club officials because of the obvious conflict of interest.

We need to all acknowledge how difficult the referees’ job is. In each ruck, the referee watches what happens in the tackle and in the play the ball. At the same time they have to look through 180 degrees across the ground for the 10 metres. They share the field with 26 players and they have to position themselves with a clear view at the correct angle.

Everything is evolving quickly, it is no longer just the one individual, they are now a team requiring a broad range of skills involving knowledge of the rules, athleticism, communication and technical knowledge of video equipment. It would be better if everyone connected with the game was working on solutions that can improve the game, not just raising the problems and criticising.

And lastly, don’t expect perfection but work to create a total system that reduces the difficulty of the referees’ role in the game.

close