“The Bunker was introduced to provide NRL review officials with world-class technology and enable them to deliver more accurate, efficient, consistent, and transparent decisions.”
These words, taken from NRL.com, have been consistently used to justify the use of the Bunker since its inception in 2016.
Under the frequently asked question of why the Bunker was introduced, those exact words are used again – accurate, efficient, consistent and transparent decisions.
The NRL took some time to implement the usage of the bunker and ran appropriate in-game trials during regular season games. In 2015, Todd Greenberg, in spruiking the Bunker, was quoted as saying, “This is about fans. It’s about giving them a product they want to watch.
“To do that we want the ball in play, and we want the game being played more continuously.
“We want to come to decisions, make them quickly, make them efficiently, make them accurately and get on with the game.”
The efficiency of the Bunker, for the most part, cannot be questioned. Time taken for decisions during initial trials showed a steep decline, resulting in a three-minute saving throughout a typical game and more change this season has seen a greater emphasis on behind the scenes reviews.
This is no mean feat but was largely achieved by the Bunker’s impressive 57-screen set-up which was a big improvement from the at times single screen available at some grounds.
(Image: Joe Frost/The Roar)
Where the system is currently not living up to a high standard is the consistency and transparency of decision-making.
I have intentionally set aside the accuracy of decisions as I genuinely believe that 100 per cent accuracy as a goal is unattainable because of the variable nature of live sport.
What is attainable is a better sense that the Bunker is delivering on the transparency and consistency of decision making.
The main question that must be asked as part of the improvement of the Bunker is what its level of authority should be.
Remember that the Bunker is just a location, and is now run by one individual (rather than when two review officers were responsible). Why has the NRL decided to put so many eggs in this basket in Eveleigh, but not trusting of the official at the ground?
This is the issue in a nutshell: the NRL has overseen responsibility creep – the Bunker is quickly becoming an all-seeing, all-knowing authority in the sky, and that’s a problem.
So how can the NRL improve the issues with the Bunker?
Funnily enough, the issue could be rectified by reverting back to the protocols that have previously been in place – that the Bunker can only overturn a decision if there is clear evidence to do so.
And this is where the NRL, or probably more realistically the referees’ boss, needs to lean into the idea that the referees on the field are the most qualified to make the decisions.
Understand this: despite all of us claiming otherwise, referees understand a great deal more about the game than all of us, former players and coaches included.
So, it is no surprise that a vast majority of the decisions they make are correct, or at the very least, not wrong – and that’s the kicker here.
The protocol for recent seasons before 2021 was for the soft on-field decision to go up to the Bunker, which is a sound concept.
Where things went wrong is the amount of times the Bunker decision overturned the original decision with next to no evidence, but in another game a decision was not overturned because whoever was in the Bunker decided to follow the directive on the field.
See, it was confusing. But it doesn’t have to be.
The relationship between the on-field officials and the Bunker needs to become more collegial. Why are the three on-field officials and the Bunker official not working together, considering their qualifications are for the most part the same?
Imagine for a moment a close try in the corner – the referee awards a try (after checking the touch line with the assistant) but the official in the Bunker is less than certain and asks for a halt in proceedings.
First viewings are inconclusive, but there is an angle that is a bit iffy.
Instead of an overturn, the Bunker should provide this view to the referee on the big screen and the decision can be made – with the final decision being for the on-field referee, because at the end of the day, the referee will often hear and see more than any camera can.
Or even better, keep it simple and go with the on-field decision unless it is obviously incorrect – and follow these rules every time.
This back and forth makes for a much more transparent process and having the process itself improves consistency, maybe not between games, but at least within a game.
Because maybe the Bunker isn’t meant to be blown up.
Adam
Roar Guru
Some referees give an idea of what they think is wrong. But it seems to me that the Bunker is very inconsistent in taking this into account
Danielle Smith
Editor
Great article Adam, thanks for the read. Random thought - I have often wondered when the referee sends anything upstairs, do you think that they shouldn't share their opinion on whether they think it's a try or no try? They can say "just check grounding" check the sideline" "chekc offside" etc, but that way the bunker is soley looking at the vision clearly without a preconceived idea? Would that make any difference?
Rob
Guest
My pet hate has become the deliberate Captain Challenge to stop momentum or prevent a try scoring opportunity. For example, twice this year the Cowboys have quickly taken the ball back to the 20m for a quick restart only to be stoped from possible going the length of the field by a captains challenge? Both times the ref's call was correct but the stop in play allowed the position to get back and reset. The last time it happened (Kieren Foran) Manly wasn't even the captain and bullied the Ref into looking at the ball being taken dead. It didn't even count as a challenge and stopped Hammer taking a quick tap with about 10 Manly players behind him.
The Sporacle
Roar Rookie
100% thats the issue, we need to accept that refs make errors. Stop blaming them for results, sorry Cowboys fans :stoked: Maybe it's the broadcasters and not the refs that are the issue :thumbup:
Tony
Roar Guru
Brilliant
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Rob the Feldt Try intrigued me as well.Surely a case study on how the Bunker functions in 2021.We’re all none the wiser ,since they let the Genie out of the bottle with real time video reviews all those years ago.What is the Mission Statement of the Bunker? Is it to mitigate all those 50/50 calls to 99.99 to .01. Is it really necessary that we spend 2 minutes examining a potential double /triple knock on to satisfy the desire for fairness perfection.All this navel gazing is driving everyone crazy and turning off new viewers. My advise ,go back to the old Benefit of the Doubt Call with a 10-15sec time limit on the Bunker.if the reviewer cant decide in a short time frame -then B of D applies .We all get over the decision and get on with life -Like Every Other Football Code Does!!
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Or money for nothin an your clicks for free
Succhi
Roar Rookie
I think the problem is the broadcasters who continually play back ref decisions to look for or highlight a possible error. If we look hard enough we could probably find a reason to disallow most tries.
Heyou
Roar Rookie
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
Rob
Guest
Jimmmy I was right in front of Feldt’s try last weekend where he reached out and planted the ball short. The touch and ref saw it and both believed he didn’t get it on the line. They were correct from my position. They sent it up as no try. Yet the Bunker found camera angles from in front and behind the try line with the ball appearing to be touching the line? Why did they not show the corner post angle that would have shown conclusive evidence he got the ball to the line? Then you have the on field officials ruling Hass offside in Origin and the Bunker rules it doesn’t matter? On the weekend Cleary was ruled to have arrived early and taken Tedesco out in the contest and a CC has the Bunker over turning the call? Cleary bumped into Tedesco before the ball arrived and completely missed getting a touch on the ball? What a joke. Don’t even start me on the sin binning of Robson and Takeako. It’s the 3 I’s. Incredibly, inconsistent, incompetence.
Adam
Roar Guru
So it's Bunker in the Bunker Bunker checking on the Bunker? TBH I wanted to use the 'KFC Bunker' throughout but didn't want the Roar to get into some sort of advertising issues
eagleJack
Roar Guru
He's a switched on fella, that Sterlo
The Sporacle
Roar Rookie
Have we thought about another Bunker.... hear me out, technically it would be simple. Bunker rules on play... then you guessed it the Bunker Bunker checks the Bunkers ruling, makes sense to me now if we can only get Adrian Brunker in the Bunker. "Its Brunker in the Bunker, we have no try" :thumbup: Good article we need simplification not more layers
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think the refs say that to hose down any potential debates. “If you don’t like my call, challenge it” in other words “put up or shut up” To be fair it’s one of the things I do like about the captains challenge…
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
"But momentum is such a key part of the NRL right now." eagleJack, are you actually Peter Sterling?
astro
Roar Rookie
One small thing that amazes me about the Captain challenge, is hearing Refs on the field ask the captain "Do you want to use your challenge?" after making a call against them. Why are the Refs prompting players in this way? Are they uncertain themselves, but dont want to ask the bunker, so prompt the Captain? Its a separate thing, but the way Refs and NRL players interact never sits well with me. Using first names to call out players instead of numbers...etc
catcat
Roar Rookie
Good article and something I have thought about- what is the bunker's role? It's become the lead referee that cannot be challenged, even by the on field ref. In a Dogs game recently a player was pulled up 2-3 plays after a head high shot- I actually thought for a second maybe the on field ref would question when it happened and say "too far back mate, I'll put him on report, now play the ball and continue". but no...the bunker rules, onfield refs often asking- so what's the ruling? in the bin, just report ok? I know the Rugby ref is different and still has complete control of the game and that is a bit clunky, but perhaps it's time for the bunker to become a more of tool for the ref, rather than the surveillance system detecting high tackles it seems to have become.
Heyou
Roar Rookie
Bunker blokes take the ‘might is right’ stance: 57 eyes makes the bunker all powerful…power can corrupt so maybe it is meant to be blown up after all. Have you watched the grimacing faces of the on field referees throughout games? They will shake their heads and put a hand over their ears. They will put their heads to the side and frown and you know they are about to give a signal that the bunker bloke demands yet another stoppage, as he thinks he spots something not quite right out there on the pitch. Rewind, slow mo, fast forward, rewind, slow forward, again and then again and yep AGAIN, until a decision is made by Bunker bloke or a referee decision is overturned because super slow mo caught a maybe tiny something… that something isn’t always meaningful in relation to this NRL rule ‘book’…perhaps ‘hefty, unwieldy tome’ is a better description…just add a new chapter for every season and scribble out those rules which have been made redundant. Oh it’s a tricky dicky thing this bunker with its BB acting like the Wizard of Oz. My love of the great game has me mourning the steady erosion of it. What’s right with the game? It’s still resembles Rugby League. What’s wrong with the game? The bunker is pretty wrong. Can the bunker get it right? Sometimes. Can the referee get it right? Sometimes. Can the bunker and the referee work together to get it right? Sometimes. The all-seeing bunker bloke has taken much of the power of adjudication from the on-field referee. The ref can’t even call a try without the bunker confirming it. Some tries come with multiple replays from the bunker. Some tries come with zero replays from the bunker and it is confirmed. In another game on a different day at a different stadium that confirmed try is called no try or visa versa. It’s becoming farcical. I won’t go into the ‘stop the game illegal tackle!’ - on report, sin bin/send off, charged, found guilty, fined/suspended, match review committee misses and hits and judiciary misses and hits. What’s good and right for one bloke from one team is not good and right for another bloke from another team Ex players on the judiciary seems wrong… ex players as referees and bunker officials seems a bit wrong too. No …I give up. I’m waving the white flag. I surrender. I’m past believing in the nrl and it’s six again ,bunker infested nest of vipers. Loved the game, love my team. ABC Grandstand radio is now my go to. I’m not putting on the box for the foreseeable future because personally I don’t like watching the game anymore. It’s become quite unbearable for me at times. After all this whining from me, sometimes a great game is still to be found amongst the rabble and confusion. Id hate to miss that one great game but I’m in protest mode for a while. My editing is poor - apologies. I can’t find my spectacles.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
I hear ya TB. I'm not saying refs decide games, but I'm more than happy to see some of their decisions challenged. Now we are still going to see errors made & let go. That's part and parcel of every sport. My main point is that the system is ok, but needs significant tweaking. It is inefficient, when it really shouldn't be. Get the processes right. Get more eyes in there, working as a team, communicating with one another. There is no reason why they can't make a decision after 2 viewings. It should be quick and painless. They should know which camera angle is going to provide the best view of a particular incident. Not muck around replaying one, that is clearly obscured. The training is inadequate.
Short Memory
Guest
Agree TB. Particularly dislike the increasing incidence of bunker going back for a minor / pedantic head contact earlier in a set and awarding a penalty. As far as consistency goes, League could benefit from employing intended contact zone as a key factor in grading high contact penalty.