Possible Changes to Bunker Refeering Next Season



  • Big refereeing changes in 2017

    Josh Massoud and Liam Cox
    7Sport on September 15, 2016, 6:45 am

    Reeling all season from refereeing dramas, the game copped an unwanted sequence of body blows during the first weekend of finals action. The multitude of blunders that cruelled the Titans, combined with the failure to check Josh Morris’s legitimate touch down, sent fans into previously unfathomable layers of lather.

    As the fire raged around them, NRL officials kept thinking back to the previous weekend – and their incident-free trial of the Captain’s Challenge in the meaningless Dragons-Knights clash. Under the new rule, whistleblowers were unable to refer tries to the bunker unless one of the captains challenged their rulings.

    Ten tries were posted – and not one was referred. And every decision was correct – a remarkable ten out of ten.

    What the NRL learned from the experiment is that putting the onus back on the players has a genuine capacity to release officials from levels of pressure that are clearly crippling them, not to mention impairing their general decision-making ability.

    We’re hearing there’s now a very real chance the concept will be embraced fulltime next year; with both captains to receive two unsuccessful challenges per half. There’s also a chance the challenges will be renewed in the final ten minutes, when decisions can be particularly crucial.

    The ultimate decision will be made by the NRL’s Competition Committee at the end of the year. We can’t support the idea enough; given how well the concept has been embraced in cricket and tennis.



  • It’s just buck passing, what happens if the players miss it and the decision is wrong? Does that mean the refs are off the hook, no it’s still the refs job to get the calls right. Having said that I do like the idea of the Capt’s Challange

    I thought the bunker was onto something, but I would have liked to have seen 3 video refs in separate rooms, no contact with each other, watch a predetermined sequence of replays and they make a call, majority rules. If 2 say yes and 1 no then majority decision is yes.

    Maybe this in conjunction with the captains challenge?



  • I’ve been saying it for years, the ONLY person who should watch a slow-motion replay of an incident is the person who asked for it… Only they know what they are looking for!

    Its not right the bunker over-turns a Try Scoring scenario that has not been picked up by the Referee on the field.

    RL isnt won by scoring plays, its won through possession flow and field position. They dont go back and correct any other incorrect decisions the referee make, so why just this phase of play?

    Further to this, if we can accept the highly paid athletes making mistakes week to week, why cant we accept the referee’s?



  • @Tiger Watto:

    I’ve been saying it for years, the ONLY person who should watch a slow-motion replay of an incident is the person who asked for it… Only they know what they are looking for!

    Its not right the bunker over-turns a Try Scoring scenario that has not been picked up by the Referee on the field.

    RL isnt won by scoring plays, its won through possession flow and field position. They dont go back and correct any other incorrect decisions the referee make, so why just this phase of play?

    Further to this, if we can accept the highly paid athletes making mistakes week to week, why cant we accept the referee’s?

    So what do we get the ref to leave the field and head for the video room to sit down and watch the replay he has asked for with a scone and a cuppa?
    “RL isn’t won on scoring plays”…… Huh?? Not understanding that one, doesn’t the team who scores the most points win?
    The reason refs (more so the video refs) shouldn’t get the same leniency when it comes to making errors is that unlike the players, they get umpteen looks at a play in slow bloody motion and they still get it wrong most times. That cannot be accepted as good enough.



  • One ref please. 2 challenges in total would do me - not necessarily one per half.



  • Well, something needs to change. Happy with the Captains Call, I agree with wd, probably 4 in total for each team is a bit much, but we’ll see……maybe they are pushing for 2 and will get a compromise of 1 per half.



  • They made a rod when introducing ‘benefit of the doubt’,unless its a clear try,ball grounded, it should be ‘no try’. Several times this year,i’ll make that countless,the Ref. has no idea as a pack of players try to keep an opponent from scoring and sends it to video with a try ruling,no evidence to show if the ball was grounded or not and its suddenly a try.



  • No video ref
    No captains call
    One ref

    Old school !


  • Banned

    The game is too fast for 1 ref. He wouldn’t keep up at the back end of each half.

    2 refs.
    1 captains call each per half.
    Ref must make a decision.



  • @stryker:

    The game is too fast for 1 ref. He wouldn’t keep up at the back end of each half.

    2 refs.
    1 captains call each per half.
    Ref must make a decision.

    Not too sure its any quicker or not and internationally league only uses 1 ref. I just think if there are capable touchies to keep an eye on the ruck its a no brainer that the premiership should go back to one.
    On the refs call I think 2 per half is fine then 1 each for the final 10 minutes of the game.



  • @hobbo2803:

    No video ref
    No captains call
    One ref

    Old school !

    That was working so well, they decided to change it to 2 refs. People forget that the changes brought in were to try and fix existing problems at the time. One ref had so many dramas. We just have to accept that they won’t get everything right all the time. However, I do agree that they need to get a hell of lot more right than they are at present.



  • @hobbo2803:

    No video ref
    No captains call
    One ref

    Old school !

    I don’t honestly think you can go back to no video ref, though I am interested in only bringing it out for captain’s challenges, like in tennis or cricket.

    A lot of people seem to forget the bad old school days when teams would be awarded tries off dropped balls or feet in touch. Certainly I would agree that the pendulum has swung too far into the opposite direction - over analysis of every play - but we need some level of referral on strongly dubious calls.

    And if teams waste their challenges on superfluous calls, then they have no right of complaint should something worse happen down the line. It sort of encourages challengers to either speak or shut up.



  • I’ve been a fan of one Ref for each half of the field……

    It means one Ref has a chance to mentally and physically recover, while play is in the other half.
    They would stay in the same half for the entire game, so when teams change over, they don’t have the same Ref ruling on their attacking plays.



  • Double….



  • 👿 ye and the shoulder charge on Joel Edwards,n Tedescos busted jaw. NRL are bunch of tossers, had it happened in the early rounds they would have been charged.


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics