In a corrupt competition like the NRL.....NO ONE!!!The majority of us league fans like to believe
I believe it's the " Gamble responsibly " people.In a corrupt competition like the NRL.....NO ONE!!!
Definitely. The bunker was always a tool to make it easier.I believe it's the " Gamble responsibly " people.
I know when the NRL originally got in bed with bookmakers, they had a deal where they got a set sponsorship deal plus 7% of the gambling take from NRL fixtures. Straight away that puts the game in a position where they'd increase their income by allowing match fixing. At the same time as all this happened we started seeing ref criticism increase dramatically by coaches. Soon after coaches became liable to pay fines on their wages if they criticized refs.I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.
I'm not a big gambler but it would seem to me that moving the result away from what the bookmakers have taken the most bets on would be the most favoured outcome for them. For example, the Rabbits were the overwhelming favourites at a large margin with the majority of money on them, hence us winning would be the most favourable result for the bookmakers. Of course a rogue wager of huge value could change that but the NSW Liquor & Gaming Authority would be all over that.I won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.
The bunker was introduced to add suspense to your multi legsThe bunker was introduced (allegedly) as a means of redress in case the referee got it wrong. It has the glaring weakness that the bunker official sitting in judgement on the referee is himself an active referee, and, next week, the roles can be reversed. Consequently, the bunker will never reverse an on-field decision if it might embarrass the on-field referee.
The clue is in the on-field referee's instructions. If he says "I have a try - check the grounding and on-side", what he is really saying is "I didn't get a good look - feel free to over-rule me".
A captain's challenge has no chance of succeeding unless the on-field referee's view is inadequate to make an informed decision. If the on-field referee should have got it right but failed to do so, the video ref will always cover his nether regions, and rubber stamp the wrong decision.
And some bunker officials love to show their contempt for the challenge and/or challenger by taking a split second to review.
Him and Ben CumminsI won't be surprised if Sutton is one day implicated in a corruption scandal with bookmakers.
What about the continues rules changes such as 6 again, a rule that helps teams they want to win to get a roll on, not only that that it also takes away the teams choice to go for a goal if needed.Definitely. The bunker was always a tool to make it easier.
The thing is, unless you actually got to scrutinise the flow of money you don't know what the profit margin will be for a set result. I do know that the dogs have a huge fan base probably in more affluent areas than the typical South's fan. So not only the number of bets, but the amount per bet might be something to think about.I'm not a big gambler but it would seem to me that moving the result away from what the bookmakers have taken the most bets on would be the most favoured outcome for them. For example, the Rabbits were the overwhelming favourites at a large margin with the majority of money on them, hence us winning would be the most favourable result for the bookmakers. Of course a rogue wager of huge value could change that but the NSW Liquor & Gaming Authority would be all over that.
Maybe someone with more gambling experience can explain how Souths winning by the expected margin would benefit the bookmakers enough to bother influencing the result?
Always a Bulldog
Even though I dislike certain refs, the NRL is responsible for the rules and how they are interpreted by the refs.The majority of us fans like to believe that there's still honesty in the game...Is there ?
Who ever controls crooked refs controls the bankerThe bunker was introduced (allegedly) as a means of redress in case the referee got it wrong. It has the glaring weakness that the bunker official sitting in judgement on the referee is himself an active referee, and, next week, the roles can be reversed. Consequently, the bunker will never reverse an on-field decision if it might embarrass the on-field referee.
The clue is in the on-field referee's instructions. If he says "I have a try - check the grounding and on-side", what he is really saying is "I didn't get a good look - feel free to over-rule me".
A captain's challenge has no chance of succeeding unless the on-field referee's view is inadequate to make an informed decision. If the on-field referee should have got it right but failed to do so, the video ref will always cover his nether regions, and rubber stamp the wrong decision.
And some bunker officials love to show their contempt for the challenge and/or challenger by taking a split second to review.
There would be few.Him and Ben Cummins