The bunker

[reptar]

I must be missing something - how does the bunker, which acts only at time off (or during natural breaks in play, but not interfering with the break) give us more time with the ball in play?

[BJ]

I remember a super rugby game where the ball was in play for 27 minutes. The rest of the game was conversions, penalty kicks, line outs, scrums etc.

[Raidersrawesome]

Flanagan unhappy with NRL bunker

The honeymoon is over for the bunker, according to Cronulla coach Shane Flanagan.

The Sharks mentor was particularly incensed by a try awarded to Manly hooker Matt Parcell early in the Sea Eagles' win at Brookvale Oval on Monday night.

Parcell's touchdown was sent to the bunker as a try, although there was doubt as to whether there were two defenders in the tackle in the immediate lead-up in which Luke Lewis had the ball stripped.

Read more: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016 ... nrl-bunker

[The Nickman]

Hahahaha if Flanagan doesn't like it then I am 100% behind the bunker.

What an absolute **** pig. **** should've been rubbed out of the game after the whole peptides incident.

[DJ89]

God Flanaghan is a **** idiot.

His side plays such a boring, grinding and disgusting style of play he deserves everything that comes his way.

[gerg]

It was a 50/50 call I thought. I didn't have a problem with a second tackler but he was on the ground when the ball popped out. Still not a bad decision I thought. Flanagan is probably more annoyed at the on field refs but cannot criticise them. Manly were atrocious in the ruck. In the first 20 the refs penalised them repeatedly then ignored it for the rest of the game.

Sharks should have put 20 on them in the first 20 minutes but Manly slowed every single play the ball to allow their line to reset. I can imagine this place having a meltdown if it happened to us.

[zim]

I thought the decision was 100% correct. The guy on the ground is just laying there. Not trying to make a tackle.
There's been some instances where you could have a go at the bunker this year but this one is not even close flanno.

Sharks had enough ball to win 2 matches but their attack was rubbish and most of it centred around bad work from Maloney.
They went side ways far too often.

[Raider Bell]

Flanno gives me imagery of him with a dummy in his mouth, until something doesn't go his way and he spits it out and just bawls and bawls and bawls.

[The Nickman]

I thought the decision was 100% correct. The guy on the ground is just laying there. Not trying to make a tackle.
There's been some instances where you could have a go at the bunker this year but this one is not even close flanno.

Sharks had enough ball to win 2 matches but their attack was rubbish and most of it centred around bad work from Maloney.
They went side ways far too often.

I honestly haven't seen the bunker make a decision I disagree with yet anyway.

[Matt]

I thought the decision was 100% correct. The guy on the ground is just laying there. Not trying to make a tackle.
There's been some instances where you could have a go at the bunker this year but this one is not even close flanno.

Sharks had enough ball to win 2 matches but their attack was rubbish and most of it centred around bad work from Maloney.
They went side ways far too often.

I honestly haven't seen the bunker make a decision I disagree with yet anyway.

I think its been great. However, Id put that Dogs vs Eels one under scrutiny. They did make the right decision, as Kasiano did throw a forward pass. However, I believe it was an incorrect way of getting there; reason being, the on field Ref said 'Try', and because the Bunker cant rule on a forward pass, I believe by the rules they should have awarded it. As Gus got out of Archer on the night, ref should have said 'No Try', then 'check an Eel doesn't get a touch'.

[The Nickman]

I thought the decision was 100% correct. The guy on the ground is just laying there. Not trying to make a tackle.
There's been some instances where you could have a go at the bunker this year but this one is not even close flanno.

Sharks had enough ball to win 2 matches but their attack was rubbish and most of it centred around bad work from Maloney.
They went side ways far too often.

I honestly haven't seen the bunker make a decision I disagree with yet anyway.

Id put that Dogs vs Eels one under scrutiny. They did make the right decision, as Kasiano did throw a forward pass. However, I believe it was an incorrect way of getting there.

I have no problem with that whole situation once gangrenous explained it to me.

The bunker didn't rule on a forward pass, they ruled whether a parramatta hand had touched it.

The onfield referees called it a forward pass.

[Matt]

Sorry, changed my post as you replied.
I understand too, however, the ref still should have said 'No Try, check an Eels player doesn't get a touch'.
As we all agree, the decision is correct, just the process of getting there wasn't... or at least was a bit 'grey'.

[The Nickman]

No, he ruled Try because he thought a parramatta player had touched it!!

It makes sense to me

[Matt]

No, he ruled Try because he thought a parramatta player had touched it!!

It makes sense to me

Making sence isn't why this is contentious. The ruling is correct. Its the process taking that's wrong, and it why Graham nearly blew his stack and why so many were confused.

For the Bunker to say he didn't touch it, and then no try, they are saying its a forward pass. A rule they cannot rule on. However, if the Ref say No Try, forward pass, but check the hand. If the Eels player touches it the Bunker can over rule and say it wasn't forward, it was touched. This is exactly what Archer said after the game too. The on filed ref got the process wrong, even if the decision made was correct.

Does that make sense?

TBH, I was expecting the Bunker to be forced to say try, a wrong decision, because of the process they are supposed to follow, all because of the on field guy getting it wrong. I would have blown up as much over that as this correct ruling via what I believe to be an incorrect process.

[The Nickman]

No, he ruled Try because he thought a parramatta player had touched it!!

It makes sense to me

Making sence isn't why this is contentious. The ruling is correct. Its the process taking that's wrong, and it why Graham nearly blew his stack and why so many were confused.

For the Bunker to say he didn't touch it, and then no try, they are saying its a forward pass. A rule they cannot rule on. However, if the Ref say No Try, forward pass, but check the hand. If the Eels player touches it the Bunker can over rule and say it wasn't forward, it was touched. This is exactly what Archer said after the game too. The on filed ref got the process wrong, even if the decision made was correct.

Does that make sense?

TBH, I was expecting the Bunker to be forced to say try, a wrong decision, because of the process they are supposed to follow, all because of the on field guy getting it wrong. I would have blown up as much over that as this correct ruling via what I believe to be an incorrect process.

No, you're wrong, Matt. The referees on-field said it was a forward pass PROVIDED a Parramatta hand didn't touch it, which they though one did.

The bunker did not rule on a forward pass, they just overruled the on-field referees call that a Parramatta hand touched it.

[Professor]

No, he ruled Try because he thought a parramatta player had touched it!!

It makes sense to me

Making sence isn't why this is contentious. The ruling is correct. Its the process taking that's wrong, and it why Graham nearly blew his stack and why so many were confused.

For the Bunker to say he didn't touch it, and then no try, they are saying its a forward pass. A rule they cannot rule on. However, if the Ref say No Try, forward pass, but check the hand. If the Eels player touches it the Bunker can over rule and say it wasn't forward, it was touched. This is exactly what Archer said after the game too. The on filed ref got the process wrong, even if the decision made was correct.

Does that make sense?

TBH, I was expecting the Bunker to be forced to say try, a wrong decision, because of the process they are supposed to follow, all because of the on field guy getting it wrong. I would have blown up as much over that as this correct ruling via what I believe to be an incorrect process.

No, you're wrong, Matt. The referees on-field said it was a forward pass PROVIDED a Parramatta hand didn't touch it, which they though one did.

The bunker did not rule on a forward pass, they just overruled the on-field referees call that a Parramatta hand touched it.

I see what you're saying, but Matt's not totally wrong. Matt has said that the process in which the decision was made was wrong, and it was. If the on-field ref thought it was a forward pass providing the Parra player didn't touch it, he would / should not have called try. He did, then the bunker overturned the decision based on it being a forward pass which did not touch the Parra players.

Why, seriously why did he call try if he thought it was forward? It makes no sense. Parramatta players touching it at that point is irrelevant because referees are no longer judging whether a ball has floated forward, but rather whether or not it was forward out of the hands. Should have just called it off the bat and we wouldn't be discussing this.

It was a cock up, though as you believe it was a forward pass (most do yet I'm not convinced) the right decision was ultimately reached.

[The Nickman]

I disagree. The on-field referee thought a Parramatta hand touched it, and if so, it's a TRY. The video ref overruled it and said a Parramatta hand didn't touch it.

I think they got it dead right.

[Matt]

No, he ruled Try because he thought a parramatta player had touched it!!

It makes sense to me

Making sence isn't why this is contentious. The ruling is correct. Its the process taking that's wrong, and it why Graham nearly blew his stack and why so many were confused.

For the Bunker to say he didn't touch it, and then no try, they are saying its a forward pass. A rule they cannot rule on. However, if the Ref say No Try, forward pass, but check the hand. If the Eels player touches it the Bunker can over rule and say it wasn't forward, it was touched. This is exactly what Archer said after the game too. The on filed ref got the process wrong, even if the decision made was correct.

Does that make sense?

TBH, I was expecting the Bunker to be forced to say try, a wrong decision, because of the process they are supposed to follow, all because of the on field guy getting it wrong. I would have blown up as much over that as this correct ruling via what I believe to be an incorrect process.

No, you're wrong, Matt. The referees on-field said it was a forward pass PROVIDED a Parramatta hand didn't touch it, which they though one did.

The bunker did not rule on a forward pass, they just overruled the on-field referees call that a Parramatta hand touched it.

Firstly, as you probably know, I was doing the GH commentary. So I saw it all and have a pretty go recollection of it.

Ok, so your saying they thought its a forward pass.
Which means the on field guys have to make the decision there and then.
And yet:
1. He called it a try before the referral.
2. He sent it 'upstairs' at all.
Both are wrong in the case of a forward pass.
Sorry, but the on field ref got the process wrong.

[The Nickman]

I disagree entirely and I've stated why on several occasions.

[zim]

The problem is him calling it a try before referring it. You shouldn't call a try if you think it was a forward pass. You call it a no try and then send it up to check if anything else might have pushed the ball forward (eg a touch).

I think that is where all the confusion comes from on game day.

[Professor]

How's the ironing? You're supporting a decision that may have cost you a leg, and I'm not supporting a decision which may have won me the leg

[The Nickman]

How's the ironing? You're supporting a decision that may have cost you a leg, and I'm not supporting a decision which may have won me the leg

Hahaha oh it cost me money alright, but unlike 95% of the Greenhouse I try not to let bias cloud my judgment of refereeing decisions.

[Matt]

I disagree entirely and I've stated why on several occasions.

Your statement is exactly why I keep pointing out the process.
Even more infuriating is that the Tony Archer agreed with my statement on the night saying the on field Ref got it wrong. He should have said 'No Try', check if the Eels touched it. That way the Ref has ruled on a forward pass already.

[The Nickman]

The problem is him calling it a try before referring it. You shouldn't call a try if you think it was a forward pass. You call it a no try and then send it up to check if anything else might have pushed the ball forward (eg a touch).

I think that is where all the confusion comes from on game day.

No, he called it a TRY because he thought a Parramatta hand touched it!

Ugh, why is this so hard to explain to you people?!?

[Matt]

The problem is him calling it a try before referring it. You shouldn't call a try if you think it was a forward pass. You call it a no try and then send it up to check if anything else might have pushed the ball forward (eg a touch).

I think that is where all the confusion comes from on game day.

Exactly my point.
Exactly what Archer said.

[Matt]

The problem is him calling it a try before referring it. You shouldn't call a try if you think it was a forward pass. You call it a no try and then send it up to check if anything else might have pushed the ball forward (eg a touch).

I think that is where all the confusion comes from on game day.

No, he called it a TRY because he thought a Parramatta hand touched it!

Ugh, why is this so hard to explain to you people?!?

Its as hard to explain as why the on field refs call of 'Try' means the Bunker should have been forced to make a wrong decision.

[zim]

The problem is him calling it a try before referring it. You shouldn't call a try if you think it was a forward pass. You call it a no try and then send it up to check if anything else might have pushed the ball forward (eg a touch).

I think that is where all the confusion comes from on game day.

No, he called it a TRY because he thought a Parramatta hand touched it!

Ugh, why is this so hard to explain to you people?!?

In that case the bunker can't rule on the forward pass. That's why as far as the on field call goes it makes sense to go the other way. You take care of the part the bunker can't rule on.

[The Nickman]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

[zim]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

So why do they give it a no try?

Because parra don't touch it. So it goes back to the ref. Ref says it was forward. Which he should have called to begin with. Which means original call of no try. Circle of life.

[The Nickman]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

So why do they give it a no try?

Because parra don't touch it. So it goes back to the ref. Ref says it was forward. Which he should have called to begin with. Circle of life.

Ref said it was forward unless it touched a Parramatta hand, which he believes it did.

Video ref says it didn't touch a Parramatta hand, so the on-field ref's call of forward stands.

[Matt]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

Yes, but if they didn't touch it, what does that mean? Forward pass. Can they rule on that? No.

[Matt]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

So why do they give it a no try?

Because parra don't touch it. So it goes back to the ref. Ref says it was forward. Which he should have called to begin with. Circle of life.

Ref said it was forward unless it touched a Parramatta hand, which he believes it did.

Video ref says it didn't touch a Parramatta hand, so the on-field ref's call of forward stands.

If he thinks its been touched, and he is happy with the pass, call a 'Try'.
If he thinks its a forward pass, its a 'No Try'.
If he thinks its a forward pass, and touched, its still a 'No Try'.
So why even go to the Bunker at all? The touch only makes a difference if they believe the pass to be legitimate.

[The Nickman]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

Yes, but if they didn't touch it, what does that mean? Forward pass. Can they rule on that? No.

THE ON-FIELD REFEREES CALLED IT A FORWARD PASS PROVIDED IT DIDN'T TOUCH A PARRAMATTA HAND!!!

Ugh, you're just going around and around in circles here!!

[Matt]

The bunker rules on whether a Parramatta hand had touched it though, not the forward pass.

Yes, but if they didn't touch it, what does that mean? Forward pass. Can they rule on that? No.

THE ON-FIELD REFEREES CALLED IT A FORWARD PASS PROVIDED IT DIDN'T TOUCH A PARRAMATTA HAND!!!

Ugh, you're just going around and around in circles here!!

So Refs ruling in simple terms:
Forward pass = Try
Bunker prove me wrong/ right.

What he should have said:
Forward pass = No Try
Bunker prove me wrong/ right, due to Eels hand.

[The Nickman]

No, Matt. I disagree and I've told you why ad nauseum now.