NRL Bunker Changes

[Big Pete]

The bunker can only rule on point-scoring plays, goal-line restarts or foul play.

That means that on-field knock ons and 40/20s will be left to the referees.

You can read more on NRL.com: http://www.nrl.com/changes-to-the-nrl-bunker-in-2017/tabid/10874/newsid/103579/default.aspx

I don't think those changes go far enough. Either the bunker should be restricted to scoring plays and goal line drop outs or they should be able to be used whenever necessary.

My biggest gripe here is that you're still encouraging players to take a dive and you're asking the bunker to play the role of the Match Review Committee which isn't their job. So what ends up happening is that you get inconsistent rulings and the fans get pissed off because it can make or break an entire game.


BHQ_NEWS_ARTICLE

 

[Nashy]

Can they rule on forward passes yet? Or are we still avoiding that stupid rule?

 

[Porthoz]

Can they rule on forward passes yet? Or are we still avoiding that stupid rule?

It's very hard to judge on those from a video feed imo. Some may be clear as day, but often the perspective can be treacherous.

 

[broncos4life]

Can they rule on forward passes yet? Or are we still avoiding that stupid rule?

No, apparently the human eye is still not capable of determining direction even with guidelines provided every 10 metres...

 

[broncos4life]

It's very hard to judge on those from a video feed imo. Some may be clear as day, but often the perspective can be treacherous.

Agreed, which is why they should be able to rule on howlers, not 50/50's.

 

[Nashy]

It's very hard to judge on those from a video feed imo. Some may be clear as day, but often the perspective can be treacherous.

Yeah I understand that. But sometimes the four useless pricks miss obvious ones, and in the video it's just as obvious, but they can't do a thing about it, essentially awarding an illegal try.

 

[holdzy]

Yeah I understand that. But sometimes the four useless pricks miss obvious ones, and in the video it's just as obvious, but they can't do a thing about it, essentially awarding an illegal try.

I really hate the whole 'we can't rule on that now' line the refs trot out.

 

[Big Pete]

The press release didn't mention anything, so I assume not.

I'll be interested to know what the hold up is. When they introduced video referees, originally they could adjudicate on forward passes but after a couple controversial calls they scrapped it. The technology wasn't good enough then, but 17 years later surely there's a way to rule on it?

Some interesting figures in the press release.

Review times were down by 17%.
The Bunker had a 99.3% Success Rate with only 5 errors from 709 Reviews.

I don't know if I buy into that last figure.

 

[Dash]

It's very hard to judge on those from a video feed imo. Some may be clear as day, but often the perspective can be treacherous.

They never seem to have a problem with perspective for knock-ons. Why is 'forwards' determinable for those but not forward passes?

 

[holdzy]

That would allow of course for subjective interpretations that would not be considered 'errors' per se, I assume.

 

[Porthoz]

They never seem to have a problem with perspective for knock-ons. Why is 'forwards' determinable for those but not forward passes?

Knock-ons are easier to determine because you only have to determine position where the player touches the ball, and compare it to where it lands.

Forward passes involve trajectory and forward speed of the player making the pass, not just departure and arrival points.

 

[Porthoz]

Surely you would agree this technology isn't beyond us? It's similar technology to the NFL's (and NRL's) overlaying of ground graphics/advertising. The ignorance of not using such simple solutions really pisses me off.

It's not beyond us, but I don't agree it's simple either. It requires multiple angles of simultaneous unobstructed imaging to determine aerial trajectory.

They had a similar dilemma with "soccer", determining whether a ball had passed the goal line in its totality or not, and often generated endless discussion from images where one essential measure was lacking, which was depth. Like this one for example (excuse the vid quality):

 

[Super Freak]

The press release didn't mention anything, so I assume not.

I'll be interested to know what the hold up is. When they introduced video referees, originally they could adjudicate on forward passes but after a couple controversial calls they scrapped it. The technology wasn't good enough then, but 17 years later surely there's a way to rule on it?

Some interesting figures in the press release.

Review times were down by 17%.
The Bunker had a 99.3% Success Rate with only 5 errors from 709 Reviews.

I don't know if I buy into that last figure.

Unless they have more camera angles, it will be the same as it was last time.

Camera angles can be deceiving. They can make a pass look forward when it actually wasn't and that's why they scrapped it. Because it was causing too many wrong decisions.

They need a camera like the spider cam, but instead it goes up and down the sideline and keeps in line with the player with the ball. With zoom capability, as well.

That would be a good thing to use to determine a forward pass.

 

[Sproj]

Would it be possible to use ball tracking to determine if a ball went forward?

 

[Super Freak]

Also, that 5 mistakes call is a load of fucking shit.

 

[Sproj]

Also, that 5 mistakes call is a load of fucking shit.

Yeah it was a mistake in itself, it meant to say only 5 were not mistakes.

 

[Super Freak]

Would it be possible to use ball tracking to determine if a ball went forward?

They were planning on using this some time ago. But I think they scrapped it because it wouldn't be able to determine whether the ball left the hands backwards or not.

 

[Sproj]

They were planning on using this some time ago. But I think they scrapped it because it wouldn't be able to determine whether the ball left the hands backwards or not.

Could simplify everything though, the trajectory is forward it is simply forward, none of this grey area business that stuffs everything up.