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.
Yep I could cop 3 as well, just wary of team at the end of the game with them spare throwing them around to slow the game up.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
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.
Three is too many and 1 is not enough. I think two is OK, so you get a second chance but not a third.
Three is too many and 1 is not enough. I think two is OK, so you get a second chance but not a third.
Thinking about this further maybe 1 per half each would be good as well, but they don’t accumulate. So literally 1 unsuccessful challenge each per half allowed.
Three is too many and 1 is not enough. I think two is OK, so you get a second chance but not a third.
Thinking about this further maybe 1 per half each would be good as well, but they don’t accumulate. So literally 1 unsuccessful challenge each per half allowed.
Challenge it as much as you like ...but if you are wrong you get penalized and the Captain goes to the sin bin for 10 .....
I still like the idea of 3, but the Bunker doesn’t review tries. Up to the Captain to decide if there was an obstruction, no grounding, etc etc. This would also place onus on the refs to watch the play more closely rather than to rely on the bunker as their backup.
The Bunker was put in place to stop the obvious incorrect decisions (howlers) from being made. The bunker is now the cause of many obvious incorrect decisions (howlers) and has therefore outlived it usefulness.
Time to get rid of the bunker all together or severely restrict it’s use to captain’s challenges only.
I still can’t fathom how they got that obstruction wrong in the Broncos v Knights game. That was a howler.
interesting comments from Rick Williams.
Former ice hockey referee Rick Williams, the man who introduced the bunker concept to the NRL.
“When it first started, I said to [NRL official] Graham Annesley, ‘you are getting guys into the bunker who want to referee the game. You can’t do that, it’s not right.’ That’s the way it has gone, which is unfortunate.
“It has one function in the NHL – goals. Everything else, the referee deals with on the field. If there are consequences afterwards, the tribunal can deal with it.
Hard to disagree. Bunker should only be used for try scoring. That’s it. The refs on the field should take care of everything else. Williams is right the people in the Bunker want to referee the game. This needs to stop.
