The bunker!

Topic should be renamed the Blunder Bunker

our first try was a try they must be kidding themselves he didn't drop that ball

Posted by: @jedi-tiger

our first try was a try they must be kidding themselves he didn't drop that ball

I don’t know how they took that try away. Kelma has his hands on the ball until it comes into contact with the grass.  Bad decision. And the first Dragons try, the ball is not played properly. I think it was Molo, he rolls the ball and makes no effort to touch the ball with his foot.

@eastiemagpie we were dudsed bit geez we had plenty of possession

if we can get Laurie and Douhie and simpkins onto the park with Hastings and Brooks we can do some damage 

https://twitter.com/nztigerinoz/status/1520976346427817986?s=20&t=SzAux2ZMSdtrdqjfzFWqvQ

BLOODY BUNKER! QUICK TO DISMISS!

WATCH THIS VIDEO!

This is how is SHOULD'VE happened!!

Posted by: @nztiger

https://twitter.com/nztigerinoz/status/1520976346427817986?s=20&t=SzAux2ZMSdtrdqjfzFWqvQ

BLOODY BUNKER! QUICK TO DISMISS!

WATCH THIS VIDEO!

This is how is SHOULD'VE happened!!

That is a try every day of the week. Changed the course of the game.

@eastiemagpie Tigers fans need to retweet this to show their disgust! Enough is enough! 

I watched the game on channel 9 and the footage shown was not conclusive to disallow that try. Simply, a bad decision by the bunker.

Posted by: @eastiemagpie

I watched the game on channel 9 and the footage shown was not conclusive to disallow that try. Simply, a bad decision by the bunker.

Ch 9 has different footage to the bunker but i agree it was a try.

I think the bunker is just one of many problems with the state of refereeing, and the NRL needs to solve strategically for the whole by people who have a ‘feel’ for the game.

I’d pull back heavily on the bunkers scope – and limit what they can rule on to grounding of the ball, stopping the howler, and captains challenge. The problem as many sensible commentators have said is the bunker’s default setting is to work out how can they disallow a try and what infringement even minor or inconsequential to the play, that a player caused in general play.

The next thing I’d do is give the referees and touchies full control and tell them to use their judgement. Stop telling them that x infringement equals y decision; start telling them that accidents don’t necessarily need to be a penalty or judiciary referral; and stop the bunker getting in their ear.

And this should be made clear to the coaches and clear to the players at the start of every match – if you show a genuine attempt to play to the rules and the spirit of the game then I won’t penalise you – if you don’t or take advantage of things then I’ll whack you. And if their judgement is lousy (including if they missed something important that the bunker had to catch), then they should get dropped to reserve grade and be paid accordingly.

All you want is consistency. It doesn’t matter if the 8 games are refereed a bit differently, as long as the decisions in the individual matches are consistent.        

Posted by: @mac_tiger

I think the bunker is just one of many problems with the state of refereeing, and the NRL needs to solve strategically for the whole by people who have a ‘feel’ for the game.

I’d pull back heavily on the bunkers scope – and limit what they can rule on to grounding of the ball, stopping the howler, and captains challenge. The problem as many sensible commentators have said is the bunker’s default setting is to work out how can they disallow a try and what infringement even minor or inconsequential to the play, that a player caused in general play.

The next thing I’d do is give the referees and touchies full control and tell them to use their judgement. Stop telling them that x infringement equals y decision; start telling them that accidents don’t necessarily need to be a penalty or judiciary referral; and stop the bunker getting in their ear.

And this should be made clear to the coaches and clear to the players at the start of every match – if you show a genuine attempt to play to the rules and the spirit of the game then I won’t penalise you – if you don’t or take advantage of things then I’ll whack you. And if their judgement is lousy (including if they missed something important that the bunker had to catch), then they should get dropped to reserve grade and be paid accordingly.

All you want is consistency. It doesn’t matter if the 8 games are refereed a bit differently, as long as the decisions in the individual matches are consistent.        

A couple of things on this post, I agree with you so much mate.

In regards to the bunker, I would have tge referee ref the game as if there is no bunker and the only time the bunker becomes involved is if there is a captains challenge. I would increase each teams incorrect challenges to 2 per game and if the captain disagrees with a decision, including try scoring decision then they need to ask for it to be reviewed. 

In regards to the referees officiating a game differently, I believe this is the biggest issue with the game as we have taken away a refs ability to referee the game using their personal strengths.  Just like all people refs are individuals and should be able to referee as such.  Police, teachers etc don’t all deal with people in the exact same way, they implement the rules in a way that allows them to get their job done. I think if we allowed refs to be a little bit more individual it would take away some of the robotic nature of the game, all games don't have to look the same.

Naturally some refs would be more authoritarian and others more game managers, that is not a bad thing. Allow refs to use their individual strengths. 

Agree - your points on individuality in the recent pod certainly resonated with me.

I liked where we were back in the late 80's early 90's when Greg McCallum, Mick Stone and Bill Harrigan were the top guys. They made mistakes of course, but they really owned the decision making and were smart enough to know that the players determine the outcome of the game. The touchies played a role to help them, especially on foul play whereas they are pretty much useless today.   

Posted by: @mac_tiger

Agree - your points on individuality in the recent pod certainly resonated with me.

I liked where we were back in the late 80's early 90's when Greg McCallum, Mick Stone and Bill Harrigan were the top guys. They made mistakes of course, but they really owned the decision making and were smart enough to know that the players determine the outcome of the game. The touchies played a role to help them, especially on foul play whereas they are pretty much useless today.   

Thanks mate, I have thought that way for a really long time. Consistency is important but really only within the same match, I don't care if the ref in one game blows 10 offside penalties but in the next game the ref manages the teams and only blows 2, they just have to be consistent in how they deal with the 2 sides they are refereeing. People are not robots, so lets stop treating them that way.

Posted by: @garry

Posted by: @mac_tiger

I think the bunker is just one of many problems with the state of refereeing, and the NRL needs to solve strategically for the whole by people who have a ‘feel’ for the game.

I’d pull back heavily on the bunkers scope – and limit what they can rule on to grounding of the ball, stopping the howler, and captains challenge. The problem as many sensible commentators have said is the bunker’s default setting is to work out how can they disallow a try and what infringement even minor or inconsequential to the play, that a player caused in general play.

The next thing I’d do is give the referees and touchies full control and tell them to use their judgement. Stop telling them that x infringement equals y decision; start telling them that accidents don’t necessarily need to be a penalty or judiciary referral; and stop the bunker getting in their ear.

And this should be made clear to the coaches and clear to the players at the start of every match – if you show a genuine attempt to play to the rules and the spirit of the game then I won’t penalise you – if you don’t or take advantage of things then I’ll whack you. And if their judgement is lousy (including if they missed something important that the bunker had to catch), then they should get dropped to reserve grade and be paid accordingly.

All you want is consistency. It doesn’t matter if the 8 games are refereed a bit differently, as long as the decisions in the individual matches are consistent.        

A couple of things on this post, I agree with you so much mate.

 

In regards to the bunker, I would have tge referee ref the game as if there is no bunker and the only time the bunker becomes involved is if there is a captains challenge. I would increase each teams incorrect challenges to 2 per game and if the captain disagrees with a decision, including try scoring decision then they need to ask for it to be reviewed. 

 

In regards to the referees officiating a game differently, I believe this is the biggest issue with the game as we have taken away a refs ability to referee the game using their personal strengths.  Just like all people refs are individuals and should be able to referee as such.  Police, teachers etc don’t all deal with people in the exact same way, they implement the rules in a way that allows them to get their job done. I think if we allowed refs to be a little bit more individual it would take away some of the robotic nature of the game, all games don't have to look the same.

 

Naturally some refs would be more authoritarian and others more game managers, that is not a bad thing. Allow refs to use their individual strengths. 

I would go as far as increasing the challenges to three and leaving the bunker to look at head shots and other illegal play. Would probably result in less stoppages.