The Bunker

[Fade_To_Black]

Yep, the hype around the bunker is fizzing fast….That obstruction decision against the knights was clearly wrong....All they have done is speed up the decisions, **which didn't need a bunker to achieve that!**...interpretations are still the issue

how would you speed it up without a bunker?

The decisions that are just blatantly obvious after one look don't need to be re- looked at another 4 or 5 times like they insist on doing. Some decisions are clear cut plain-as-day, just quickly check 'em once and get on with it.

 

[maxxy86]

Yep, the hype around the bunker is fizzing fast….That obstruction decision against the knights was clearly wrong....All they have done is speed up the decisions, **which didn't need a bunker to achieve that!**...interpretations are still the issue

how would you speed it up without a bunker?

The decisions that are just blatantly obvious after one look don't need to be re- looked at another 4 or 5 times like they insist on doing. Some decisions are clear cut plain-as-day, just quickly check 'em once and get on with it.

Yep I agree totally….hate it when they have 4 or 5 looks when it is plain as day its a try.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

The bunker is a complete waste of time, fair dinkum the NRL should have donated that $2 million to charity.
The Gillett no- try tonight was a try for your life, don't know how they managed to get that one wrong. And the time it took to make a couple of the decisions in the Souths/Dogs game was longer than what it took in past years when there was no bunker. It is useless more often than not.

 

[tigers05]

Agree today there's been some errors but overall way better than video refs. Those in the bunker today should be held to account

 

[happy_tiger]

Look if the bunker is here to stay I want to go back to benefit of the doubt

Refs shouldn't be referring stuff with an opinion on the result , send it up without a bias before it gets there and if you can't tell either way benefit of the doubt try

 

[Sabre]

How come they've gone back to showing just 1 camera angle rather than all 4?

 

[Fade_To_Black]

How come they've gone back to showing just 1 camera angle rather than all 4?

Probably because looking at 4 different camera angles at once was like looking through a kaleidoscope . You couldn't see anything clearly. 1 angle at a time is much better, but slower.

 

[Sabre]

How come they've gone back to showing just 1 camera angle rather than all 4?

Probably because looking at 4 different camera angles at once was like looking through a kaleidoscope . You couldn't see anything clearly. 1 angle at a time is much better, but slower.

For the most part I agree.
But I think the majority of decisions it helped to have 2+ angles where you could see kore than 1 thing.

The bunker itself still shows 4 cameras at a time, but the broadcast only shows 1.
And the Bunker official still says top right camera, bottom left camera, etc.

I'd rather see all 4 and then zoom in on the best one like what was happening for the first 3 rounds.

 

[Newtown]

Look if the bunker is here to stay I want to go back to benefit of the doubt

Refs shouldn't be referring stuff with an opinion on the result , send it up without a bias before it gets there and if you can't tell either way benefit of the doubt try

Ironically, for the Thurston no try the referee had the best view possible.

 

[hobbo]

Look if the bunker is here to stay I want to go back to benefit of the doubt

Refs shouldn't be referring stuff with an opinion on the result , send it up without a bias before it gets there and if you can't tell either way benefit of the doubt try

The bunkers crap IMO
As you say , the refs shouldn't be making the call as they don't have a clue !
Dogs were given 2 dodgy tries today on the back of the ref's not having a clue .

 

[happy_tiger]

I reckon most fans can sit with benefit of the doubt when you can't tell either way

Until we lose by a benefit of the doubt try LOL

 

[jirskyr]

Here's a question: tonight's Broncs v Cows game, GP when Thurston is ruled to have bobbled the ball in crossing for what would have been the match winner.

The winger Eden dives back into the field to play at the ball, with legs still in touch. Now in simultaneous motion of him touching and JT swooping on the pill, you award possession to JT, fine. But because JT is deemed to have knocked it on in that motion, is there thus a previous infringement by the winger?

Or even does the winger simultaneously touching the ball whilst standing in touch void the whole play, resulting in a scrum to the Cowboys?

 

[happy_tiger]

Here's a question: tonight's Broncs v Cows game, GP when Thurston is ruled to have bobbled the ball in crossing for what would have been the match winner.

The winger Eden dives back into the field to play at the ball, with legs still in touch. Now in simultaneous motion of him touching and JT swooping on the pill, you award possession to JT, fine. But because JT is deemed to have knocked it on in that motion, is there thus a previous infringement by the winger?

Or even does the winger simultaneously touching the ball whilst standing in touch void the whole play, resulting in a scrum to the Cowboys?

I think it is OK as long as you don't improve your position from being out of the field of play

A good example of what I mean was the SOO game back in 2014 when Morris comes from an off side position from the sidelines to tackle Inglis in Game 2

 

[ricksen]

According the the Bunker's own twitter account, they disallowed the try on account of Feldt knocking it on, rather than Thurston.

https://twitter.com/NRLBunker/status/713332832223924224

 

[Tigermama]

It's not perfect, but it's better then what we had. It speeds things up a bit more. Like Happy mentioned, i like to see the " Benefit of the doubt" back. I really dislike the try no try, that refs a forced to say when clearly, they don't have a clue. 😕

 

[TIGER]

The on field ref shouldn't have to make a call "Try" or "No Try" if he's not sure, he should just send it to the bunker and go from there, if the bunkers view is obscured they should put up "Benefit of the doubt" and award a try.

 

[Russell]

Disagree with "Benefit of the doubt"

B of the D should favor the defending side.

If you can't see it is a try - it isn't imo.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

According the the Bunker's own twitter account, they disallowed the try on account of Feldt knocking it on, rather than Thurston.

https://twitter.com/NRLBunker/status/713332832223924224

$2 million bucks worth of the same stuff-ups we used to receive without the "benefit" of the bunker :unamused: :deadhorse: :brick:

IMO Feldt knocked the ball back, not so sure JT didn't lose the ball over the line though.
Gillett's one was a certain try.
They can have as many camera angles as a blue movie but it will never change the fact that incompetent fools will always find a way to make incompetent decisions.
Its embarrassing.

 

[WestsSupporter]

I like the obstruction rulings. Having it black and white means no confusion or complaining, same thing for everyone. It means the decoy runners can't be lazy and they have to get their lines right. If you impede the next man from the ball, no try.

 

[southerntiger]

Thurston's try was definitely not a try. He dragged the ball forward. Clear knock on by JT.

I don't care the reasons for the decision but it was clearly correct.