Hard to defend NRL bunker which continually gives ammunition to ‘blow it up’ critics

By Paul Suttor / Expert

The NRL bunker is nowhere near the confused mess that its critics would have you believe.

It is not perfect and for the most part, does a good job in complementing the on-field NRL officials. 

… And then it lets Daniel Tupou stay on the field despite an old-fashioned coathanger on Anzac Day.

The bunker can have all sleek, state-of-the-art equipment under the sun but the technology can only do so much – there will always be a human element and when that happens, human error is also a possibility.

Anyone who has seen the way that office operates will tell you they have a sense of camaraderie, a team atmosphere where they want to do their job to the best of their ability irrespective of what the “blow up the bunker” naysayers would cry out.

.. And then they go and let Tupou off with a penalty being deemed sufficient even though the lanky Rooster’s right arm was never going to hit Dragons winer Mikaele Ravalawa anywhere lower than the chin.

When the bunker drops a clunker, the mood in the office the next day is grim. 

It’s like a footy team after a loss. Heads drop, banter between the desks is muted. 

Many old-school fans hate the bunker. The “get rid of it” outcry is emotionally driven and too simplistic.

(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)

Conveniently, many supporters who were around before video review say the bad decisions always even up with the good ones in the end. They forget about the howlers that a referee would make and then get crucified for days on end as many others cried “we’ve got the technology, why don’t we use it”. 

Immortal forward Norm Provan, way back in 1976 when colour TV was in its infancy, penned a column for Rugby League Week which shows the more things change, the more they stay the same.

His revolutionary idea was for officials to use the “television video disc” to help referees decide if tries should be awarded.

Provan proposed a “neutral video committee of three officials” to be set up at each suburban ground. Once they had reviewed a try-scoring play, they would wave a green flag to award the try or a red one to disallow it.

The St George legend – who played in 10 of the 11 successive premiership victories from 1956-66, the last five as captain-coach – was long retired by the time he wrote his prophetic column for RLW.

Norm Provan’s 1976 Rugby League Week front page

“Modern aids are being used by to crucify referees – why can’t modern aids be used to save them? Today, with the video disc operating, a referee has no hope in hell of being right.

“I would not be in a referee’s shoes for all the tea in China. And if I was a referee I wouldn’t make a decision on a try until the video has been examined.”

With the threat of lawsuits hovering over the NRL, there is no way they will get rid of the independent doctor in the bunker to help ensure any player with a suspected concussion is tested.

However, the NRL should heed the words of Provan, who died last October aged 88 after being named an Immortal in 2018: “I would not want to see the video used for every decision relating to the game.”

The NRL can reduce the interference from the bunker for on-field decisions by empowering the referees more, which head of football Graham Annesley has been trying to do by backing them over discretionary calls by saying he would have been happy with whichever decision they arrived upon. 

The captain’s challenge rule has helped refs take back control when decisions are disputed because often now when a player starts to blow up about a call, the ref puts it back on them if they’d like to review it, risking their one and only chance.

That question quickly quells the supposed outrage from players trying to bluff a ref into changing a call. Many players now put their hands up and take ownership when they knock the ball on or stuff up to the detriment of their team.

Referee Adam Gee has been binned for his sin in not giving Tupou a 10-minute breather, as has Chris Sutton for failing to do likewise when Warriors forward Aaron Pene whacked Storm centre Reimis Smith high later that night in Melbourne.

Ashley Klein was the bunker official on deck for the Dragons-Roosters game but has not been dropped – in fact he’ll be the video reviewer for two games in Round 8 as well as the on-field referee on Thursday night for Broncos-Sharks game in Brisbane.

NRL head of football Graham Annesley, in his weekly media briefing on Tuesday afternoon, conceded “there was very little doubt” that the Tupou and Pene tackles were sin-bin offences. 

He pointed to the guidelines referees and bunker officials should follow in determining whether a player should be sent from the field but if you listen through his detailed explanation, there is little to suggest it won’t happen again.

Curiously, he also admonished Gee for saying he didn’t think the Tupou tackle was as bad as it looked when he then referred it to the bunker for further analysis. 

Annesley said a referee shouldn’t be making any “rash judgements which may in fact influence the outcome of the bunker deliberation” saying it’s folly to give an opinion which defeats the purpose of the video review.

But shouldn’t the refs be encouraged to give their on-the-ground opinion of what they thought happened as they are supposedly in the best seat in the house? Just like they do when a try-scoring play occurs and they send it off to the bunker with a verdict either way.

Annesley said the ultimate decision always lies with the referee but the bunker “plays an important role in that”. 

After the extremes of the Magic Round crackdown last year when the slightest high contact was being punished with the sin bin, the perception now is the NRL is not doing enough to prevent these tackles, a dangerous place to be for an organisation that needs to do everything possible to limit concussions.

Annesley admitted he was concerned “in these cases that the on-field punishments weren’t strong enough” but said overall the judiciary process was working, pointing to a drop in grade-one offences and an increase in grade-two charges. 

“I think logic will tell you that most of our charges are going to be at the low end of the scale because the days of players going out and deliberately trying to hurt each other with illegal play are long gone,” he said. 

“Most of these things are accidents. When they’re more serious, they require more serious action. I think that the balance is OK but it’s these outlying incidents that set us back, no question.”

It shouldn’t be that hard for the referees and bunker to reach a point where forceful high contact means a player gets 10 in the bin, rather than the absurdity of Magic Round or the feather touch punishment for the Tupou tackle.

Maybe then, the bunker’s critics will go a week or two without calling for its detonation. Naaah, that won’t happen.

var request = new XMLHttpRequest();

request.open('POST', '/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php', true); request.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded;'); request.onload = function () { if (this.status >= 200 && this.status

The Crowd Says:

2022-04-29T06:58:10+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


Yes, Easts were good enough to make the grand final and score a good try to win it. It may have been different if Canberra kicked a field goal but they did not defend well enough in the last ten minutes. It was a pity that the flaw in the two referees was not found until the final game. The NRL add or change rules every year. The two refs was one rule change that will need more work before we see it again.

2022-04-29T02:48:58+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


What happened in 2010? There was doubt about the Young try who fumbled the ball that looked to be touched by a defender. It should've been a knock on but the final score was 32-8.

2022-04-29T02:43:04+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


I didn't know that. It must have been too late to kick as he had started running on the ref signaling six to go.

2022-04-29T02:38:15+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


The six again signal screwed the Raiders because it stopped them from kicking a field goal. They ran it thinking they had six to go. I looked up the 1972 grand final in Steve Haddan’s “100years of NRL finals” and I see referee Page made three “difficult” decisions. 1. Fred Jones scored the first try. Ballesty claimed the ball was not grounded. 2. He disallowed a try ruling Coote bounced the ball. 3. Branighan’s try to seal the match was after a forward pass.

2022-04-29T01:55:00+00:00

criag

Roar Rookie


Wighton argued about it, played the ball and they delayed the restart, giving them heaps of time to set their defence. It was not luck, it was fitness, brilliant passing and support play that won that game. It’s just too bad for them that Latrell is no longer there, as I don’t think they could score a try like that now.

2022-04-29T01:38:35+00:00

criag

Roar Rookie


He said he heard it.

2022-04-29T01:36:29+00:00

criag

Roar Rookie


But they didn’t deserve the chance, as it shouldn’t have been a six again call. Had the Raiders have won from there the Roosters would have been well and truly screwed, as they were in 1972 and 2010, and some argue El Masri’s try in 2004 shouldn’t have been allowed. But these things happen, as do the refs changing their decisions. I remember one being changed earlier in the game in the same circumstances going against the Roosters in a play-the-ball decision.

2022-04-28T20:21:44+00:00

Choppy Zezers

Roar Rookie


Reducing pay and a week on the sidelines??!?! Sheesh that's a bit harsh. If they did that for players making mistakes, Morgan Harper would owe Manly money.

2022-04-28T20:19:00+00:00

Choppy Zezers

Roar Rookie


Ref's explaining what they saw in a detailed and thorough analysis to the independent panel: "I called it as I saw it"

2022-04-28T16:39:06+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


4. The Roosters did well to be there and equal in score with minutes to go but they were lucky the Raiders were screwed by the two referees. The try they scored to win was lucky as the Raiders were not preparing for defence. They did score a good try but they may not have scored again with the Raiders defending a lead. The Roosters were lucky the two referee experiment failed miserably. It is no wonder it was scrapped.

2022-04-28T16:13:36+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


3. How could Wighton have heard the correction over the crowd? The referees weren't using a megaphone. If he had heard the correction he would've kicked a field goal or put up a bomb.

2022-04-28T16:00:48+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


2. The referee's ruling had always been final, correct or not. If the referee had not ruled six again they would've attempted a field goal. The Raiders deserved a chance to kick a field goal on the last but they were mislead by the referees. Don't you see how the two referees screwed the Raiders? They stopped them from kicking a field goal then reversed their decision and stopped them putting up a bomb.

2022-04-28T15:27:34+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


1. Right or wrong the referee did signal six again and all the Raiders saw it as you would expect. Whighton ran it thinking he had six tackles in which to score a try. The 2nd ref called last tackle but there was no signal to tell the players. They should have had some way of telling the players it was last tackle. Amateurish at best.

2022-04-28T15:06:34+00:00

Tim Buck 3

Roar Rookie


No it was 8-8 with less than 10 minutes to go. The Raiders were in position for a field goal when the referee signaled six to go. Wighton ran it because he thought he had six to go. He went to ground with the ball and got up to play the ball but the referee said it was a handover as the 2nd referee had overruled the referee. It was a fatal flaw in the two referee system. They didn't do enough, if any, analysis. The referee's rulings have always been final.

2022-04-28T06:23:35+00:00

criag

Roar Rookie


One could ask why did the idiot give Canberra 6-again in the first place, when it was clearly touched by them. He got it wrong (maybe his known bias against Roosters coming out) and then got word by the video ref it was touched. The call was correct in the end. What did you want? Raiders to get a 6-again they didn't deserve? Of course you would, but that's beside the point. The fact was Wighton heard the correction and chose to ignore it. His assertion he thought it was a Roosters player yelling is crap. He was playing the ref, trying to get him to change it back. Maybe one day people will give credit to the incredible courage the Roosters showed in defence in that GF and the amazing, spectacular and skilful try they scored to win, but I suppose you couldn't do that for the Roosters.

2022-04-28T06:11:44+00:00

criag

Roar Rookie


Raiders were behind by 2 points, Tim.

2022-04-28T05:12:44+00:00

Rob

Guest


Maybe Gee didn’t get a close enough or clear enough view of contact and the fact Ravalawa was conscious he thought it was more spectacular than high? Gee was genuinely looking for guidance referring to the bunker for a correct call. He got a bad call from the Bunker? Who’s control the Bunker BS. Sutton said “can you check if I have a support player taken out and a professional foul sin bin situation “. He got the wrong help also.

2022-04-28T02:22:37+00:00

Rob

Guest


Might as well say he’s not really supposed to tackle. I’m hopelessly incompetent sire my employer has given me the training to do that task?

2022-04-28T01:49:36+00:00

Rob

Guest


Okay with you know. And yes a clean record counts. I thought Tupou was a grade 2 and Hetherington a 1 due to Holmes wrong footing him slightly. Tupou had no excuse or mitigating circumstances. Point I was making about Tupou is he mightn’t be as clean as people think? His knees into Feldt’s back were reckless/ deliberate territory IMO. Tupou gets his knees up and leads in without getting within a foot of the ball? Grrrrr that’s a penalty and on report IMO.

2022-04-27T23:40:49+00:00

The Sporacle

Roar Rookie


I thought you wanted the judiciary to take into account previous indiscretions on Tupous case and use them to increase his ban, not arguing about Keary one, just using it as an example of the application of rules. You would have been happy for the rules to be applied correctly for Keary. You also wanted the judiciary to go against their rules and prosecute Tupou differently (not arguing about the charge or grading) It seems that you want to eat your cake and have it as well. :thumbup:

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar