I know I’m echoing the opinions of many, many league followers, but the NRL Bunker has been a failure and its influence on the game should be reined-in rather than expanded.
Otherwise, we run the risk of ending up with a game as ponderous as the NFL. Yawn!
Barely a game goes by these days where the live game commentary on The Roar doesn’t reveal a high level of dissatisfaction and confusion with the Bunker’s decisions and the way they go about it. I really hate to be in agreement with Phil Gould, but many of the Bunker’s recent decisions are unfathomable, and the game may be heading for death by video.
When the high tech and expensive Eveleigh Bunker was launched by Todd Greenberg some years ago, we were told that its aims were to provide both the game and the viewers with accuracy, consistency, transparency and efficiency.
You really don’t need me to run through these four failed goals one by one, do you? Probably the only high marks would go to consistency, on the basis that the Bunker consistently fails to deliver on the other three. Two recent decisions in Round 18 clearly highlight to me that the Bunker is useless.
(Image: Joe Frost/The Roar)
In the first, the Dogs’ Jayden Okunbor flew high to field a kick in the Manly in-goal, and as he came down to attempt to ground the ball, appeared to knock on. Linesman and referee obviously consulted and sent the decision to the Bunker as a no try.
After 14 replays the Bunker came back with the ruling of try, thus overruling the live decision. If they had to watch it this many times, surely there must have been enough doubt in their minds to stay with the ref’s call?
In the second, in the Roosters versus Knights game, Lindsay Collins scored a great second-half try against the Knights’ poor middle defence. The live ruling by the referee was no try and this was confirmed by the Bunker on the basis that a Knights defender was obstructed.
Rubbish! This was clearly a try. We now learn that Graham Annesley will review the Bunker process in the light of this particular decision. Apparently, the Bunker decision makers Jared Maxwell and former player Beau Scott couldn’t reach agreement, thus resulting in the no try decision.
Interestingly, Annesley refused to outline what their process was in reaching this decision. So much for transparency. And why isn’t the Bunker co-pilot a referee rather than a former player?
Another Bunker bugbear is the try review process. Often, a referee will arrive at an on-field ruling of try, and then send it to the Bunker, for example, just to check grounding. The Bunker then goes back to the start of the tackle and checks a whole heap of stuff (except of course a forward pass) all the way through to the grounding.
Why? And why not check all the other plays in the set leading up to the try while they’re at it?
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The recently added captain’s challenge is another area where the Bunker is performing miserably. For a start, the scope of the challenge is limited to reviewing decisions made by the referee, for knock-ons and strips.
Non-decisions, like offside and forward passes, that aren’t picked up can’t be reviewed, even though a non-decision can be just as much of a howler, and as influential on the game, as a decision that is made. And the right to challenge is also limited, depending on whether the previous challenge was successful or not. In other words, it’s a gimmick.
The matters referred under the captain’s challenge result in the same Bunker lottery, particularly for ball stripping, and a high percentage of unfathomable outcomes. Some cynical judges believe that the captain’s challenge is just another way of getting a rest for a defensive team when the chips are down.
All the Bunker really appears to be doing is adding another layer of human error to the game and slowing it down even more. Next we’ll have challenges issued from the coaching box, as they do in the NFL.
Recent reports are that the league is now investigating skeletal tracking technology, which will enable them to review and rule on forward passes. Presumably then the Bunker will then be able to review each pass leading up to a try to determine whether it was forward or not.
If it doesn’t drag the game to a halt then nothing will. League wasn’t meant to be played this way. I guess then we can look forward to technology to determine whether defenders are offside. I can’t wait for that.
Too much technology, together with the apparent inability to use it effectively, presents a real risk to the game.
The Bunker’s role should be limited to live reporting of foul play to the referee, particularly where it results in injury, or otherwise affects the run of play like an eight-point try. I’m happy to accept the decisions of referees and linesmen for everything else.
Ian_
Roar Rookie
Something I don't like about the Bunker is the way that once the referee asks them to make a decision, he/she almost washes their hands of it. You hear the ref explain to players "that's what they decided". I think it would be much better if the ref and bunker worked interactively to reach the decision, similar to union. The ref watches on the big screen at the ground and gets the same vision as the bunker. They have a 2 way discussion about how they are thinking and how they come to the decision. The bunker assists the ref in coming to the decision rather than making it for him/her. And the discussion is relayed to the viewers/crowd.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
It's just talking about the game we all love. Wynn was not confronted, he was punched from behind as he was walking away from the scrum, muscles relaxed so that the damage from the punch would be maximised. This is why it was such a bad call from the referee. Having spent the 1972 season, my D grade year, getting knocked out I reckon I suffered brain damage as it would go into slow motion when I was under pressure.
Monorchid
Roar Rookie
BB, I think you've made a good point. I'm an older bloke, but I wonder if all this technology is being used just because it can. There's nothing wrong with appropriate use of technology. But experience so far suggests that the bunker technology appears to be flawed at times. Why worry about exact decisions? Part of the theatre of the game has always been arguments about decisions by the officials with or without the technology. None of this mattered so much until squillions of cameras were able to be deployed around and above the ground. Now it's all paramount. And there's still arguments. Why not leave it all to the officials on the ground? Or is is related to doing something responsibly?
fr4d
Guest
Personally I'm against all video refs. I remember the corrupt bloke who used to run FIFA once said during a world cup that soccer would never have video refs, because it meant the exact same rules were used in your local under-13s game and the world cup final. I really like that idea, for me that truly preserves the integrity of the sport. But I'm a realist, the money doesn't come from the sport. It comes from TV. And if you pay the money you get a say. As we see, 10 years down the track soccer has back-flipped on that sentiment.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yes Tim I know But you’re only looking at one side Wynn, Craig’s Young, Pat Jarvis and O’Grady dropped cowards elbows into every tackle they made Wynn was the ultimate cheap shot merchant but went to water whenever he was confronted. He got found out by Beetson in State of Origin 1, when Beetson dropped him for trying to bash a halfback. Wynn got no more than he deserved The Dogs absolutely deserved it. They completely outplayed the Dragons for the entire game. The Dragons had pace and skill out wide but insisted on trying to bash the Bulldogs through the middle. They played against their strengths and into the Bulldogs Dragons waited until the 76th minute to spread the ball out wide and scored immediately It was a terrible coaching performance, terrible playing performance and Wynn getting KO’d had nothing to do with the result Let it go buddy. It was 35 years ago and no amount of one-eyed salty tears will get the Dragons the premiership
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Although I wouldn’t say they didn’t deserve it, Easts were very lucky the 2nd referee ruled six to go misleading Canberra and causing them to run it on the last with no intention of passing the ball. They played to the Ref’s signal and got stuffed. What a time for a two referee system fail to occur.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Peter Kelly punched Graeme Wynn from behind as he walked away from a scrum. It was a coward's punch that knocked him out and put him out of the game so Kelly should've been sent off but he wasn't even penalised by referee Kevin Roberts. It was a bad referee decision, in response to Ad-O's request, and no accumulation of cheap shots could excuse such a disgraceful omission by referee Kevin Roberts. While not as bad as 1955 the 1985 grand final was won by a team that didn't deserve it remembering Michael O’Connor was also concussed from a high shot by Andrew Farrer who was also not penalised.
Hawko
Roar Rookie
Set up screens on the sidelines so the refs can review and make the decision. It’s way too complicated and way too many people involved. Put the accountability with the on field refs
The Barry
Roar Guru
The ref also ignored Graeme Wynn, Pat Jarvis, Craig Young and Graeme O’Grady dropping the forearms on the head of every Canterbury player they tackled... can’t complain about the opposition getting away with cheap shots and ignore your own It went both ways... Dragons forwards wanted to play tough guys but lost the battle, lost the fight and lost the game
Tony
Roar Guru
Good observation. So more bunker the better then? :happy:
fr4d
Guest
I think you're missing one of the points of the bunker. It helps generate content (articles like this). Number 1 goal of the NRL is to be in the sports news 7 days a week, ideally not for off field dramas (but they're still better than nothing). Refereeing controversies are just one ingredient to that along with (precious little) game analysis, "good bloke" community stuff, lineup changes, player/coach movement (when did we start caring so much about what players get paid?), origin speculation, and (my least favourite) the ex-player bagging someone/something. Not saying they need the bunker specifically, they would still have ref controversies anyway. But why throw away a slice of your content if you don't need too. Additionally it could be argued while a video ref does not necessarily make for a better game it makes for a better TV product. A try can now be stretched into two emotional moments for fans. The initial elation/disappointment when the try is scored, then the secondary (and sometimes stronger) elation/relief/outrage when the decision is delivered. Generating an emotional connection to the game (even if it's "outrage") is always a good thing. And KFC of course. I know we like to think of footy as pure sport, and not a TV product (soapies for blokes). But that's a luxury we have because our careers are not impacted by how the televised games and news coverage during the week "perform".
Dane DC
Roar Rookie
Yeah rightly so
Tony
Roar Guru
And if they're going to check all that, they may as well check the previous tackles in the set
Dane DC
Roar Rookie
The Bunker should only be ruling on things like if the player grounded the ball, if the player stayed in the field of play, or if it was a knock on and so on, just the basics. However, they should not be ruling on things like obstruction, I believe that's a common element of frustration that comes from the fans. In live play, the one ref, and the two touch judges can have a feel for the game a bit better and rule on obstruction right then and there on the field. Another bit of confusion and frustration is like what you mentioned, the number of times they have to re-watch the tape and try to look for a reason to potentially overturn the referee's decision. If they have to look at that many angles and replays, obviously they haven't found sufficient evidence to overturn the referee's decision. Also, I've noticed countless times where the referee on the field simply asks the Bunker on occasions, "Just confirm grounding and in-goal mate." But guess what, the Bunker ends up checking every little thing from the play-the-ball to the final grounding, such as offside, obstruction etc, and they try their very hardest to try to overturn their decision once again. So, my overall message is to not get rid of the Bunker entirely, but limit the range of rulings they can go and check after the referee has sought confirmation from the Bunker like the rulings I stated in my very first sentence.
mushi
Roar Guru
I also love how commentators use the "should have" or "that's always" been a try/penalty etc in one breath and then seconds later want the strictest adherence to the black and white rule (which invariably isn't actually that black and white other than the typeset).
Watda
Guest
In other news.....tradesman blames tools for stuffing up his work results???
Nat
Roar Rookie
400x a game.
Nico
Roar Rookie
A lot of sports have this problem about what to do with video technology. It's completely killed soccer for me because the few moments of joy in a match when a goal is scored are always put under the microscope, because of the lack of scoring soccer relies on having non-stop action (a 'flow' if you will) and the video ref kills it to a large degree. The NRL bunker definitely has its flaws but in a way I think it's better suited to league than many other sports. League naturally has a pause after a try or drop ball which offers a decent chance to review a try without being as disruptive to the flow of the game. I think a lot of the issues come from the lack of clarity over certain rules in the game rather than the technology itself
Rob
Guest
As a Cowboys supporter I was gutted as it ended up costing them any chance of winning the game but I'm happy McGuire got sent. So he should and a Sharks player got penalised whilst in possession. Ref's need to have some punishments for abuse. I don't know how JWH, Duggan and few others don't cop the McGuire treatment also?
Rob
Guest
Totally agree the 50/50. A look from the front back and side nothing blatantly obvious stick with the refs call. Done move on. Can't stand this stop, repeat, slow down go back to the other angle watch for a finger flick freeze frame garbage. My personal annoyance favourite was the one they pulled in Origin to disallow a Gagai try. The split screen freeze frame with 2 out of sync cameras ? I don't think i've seen it since. It was embarrassing.