NRL coronavirus: Legends discuss potential of getting rid of the Bunker to save money

[Rod67]

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/lea...greg-alexander-2020/nmfpa7dwppcx1l3gn3asa12ec

Personally if it means saving the game why not but I'd go the other way and go back to ONE referee as well.

Cannot understand the comments from Cooper Cronk about keeping the TWO referees.

The game is struggling and will continue to struggle financially so it makes perfectly good sense to go back to the ONE referee.

The Game was played under the ONE referee since it began in 1908. There is still only the ONE referee under ARL games (Test Matches) and Super League still have the One Referee.

The game was far more enjoyable with he ONE referee and they still get it wrong and in the way of the players with TWO referees.

Now is the time to not only save the game from going broke but to make some positive decisions in saving money that the code so very much needs.

As someone once said after the introduction of the TWO referees. "It dilutes the talent of our referees". No confusion when there is ONE referee but there certainly is when there are TWO.

 

[The DoggFather]

Get rid of it because it's corrupt/incompetent.

 

[MatstaDogg]

Get rid of it because it's corrupt/incompetent.

The NRL in whole is corrupt and incompetent. Even more so clearer now.

Also, go back to one ref as Rod suggested.

 

[Rodzilla]

I think the opposite, they should go with THREE referees because THREE heads are better than TWO

 

[Alan79]

I'm more inclined to think that scrapping large salaries for the heads of the game will be a better cost cutting decision. If huge wages weren't available we might actually get someone that has the good of the game in a position to run it.

We've seen a constant stream of people there that have had little knowledge of the game left in charge of crucial decisions that are increasingly alienating the fans and changing the way the game is played.

I understand that some changes around scrums and things had player safety in mind. But I used to enjoy when scrums were competitive. What we see now is just a relic that slows the game down. They used to be another source of excitement requiring a whole skillset from every player involved. Many people these days wouldn't be able to explain that the loose head and feed were seperate ways to get an advantage in the scrum.

I might be seen as a tinfoil hat wearer, but most of the rule changes in the last ten years don't serve any other purpose than to allow referees to alter the outcomes of the game with their own discretion. Even though we now have two referees, the ten metres is rarely policed evenly. It can take the form of referees calling one team to hold and letting the defence of the other team go early.

Players stepping off the mark and Shepard running are also rampant and only policed when it suits the referees.

So in theory the bunker should be a great tool to make the game fair, but in practice it's as useless as a neutered bull in a breeding facility. I am going to get really sick of hearing from former players during this shutdown. Subscription services will no doubt keep them talking in hopes of justifying customers to continue paying for the product, but it's pretty useless to have them on air when there's really nothing to discuss.

 

[The DoggFather]

I think the opposite, they should go with THREE referees because THREE heads are better than TWO

Not when it's 3 dumb ***** like the nrlol employ.

 

[MatstaDogg]

Not when it's 3 dumb c*** like the nrlol employ.

Are you talking about the Sutton brothers

 

[Alexander the Great]

 

[Scoooby]

Would definitely be interesting, the decision would have to be quick and would all be at the reffs discretion.. make for good entertainment. Not sure about it, but it may work.

 

[Howard Moon]

I think the opposite, they should go with THREE referees because THREE heads are better than TWO

*Queensland has left the chat*