Has a $3.2 million investment, all bells and whistles included, been the answer? No. Is it the fact that the technology, responsible for the vast majority of the spend mentioned, is not up to scratch? No. Sadly, like so many things in Rugby League at the moment, it’s the interpretation of the rules that is the problem. 

At the end of the day, it all comes down to one person’s opinion. Or is that, one persons opinion based on 2 other people's assumption, based on their point of view? And when can The Bunker intervene? Does it depend how quickly they can run over replays or the opposition can pack a scrum? Confused? I don't blame you.

Yes, the ‘ Bunker’ has very quickly become another dirty Rugby League word, much like Golden Point, Obstruction, and a pre-season without Incident.  Fans at home or at the ground don't want to have to listen to someone, with often a quite uninspiring tone, explaining play by play what has occurred.

They certainly don't want to have to listen to things like " The player is on the inside shoulder of the player who releases the ball..." and "we can see that the player initiates contact with the defender", and they most certainly don't want to hear - "based on the angles available...". Please.

Simplicity and common sense have a place in Rugby League, so surely there is a solution to the very expensive elephant in the room. Quite often, adopting a process from another sport is bandied about when discussing the problems with Rugby League. Some are good, some are a bit pie in the sky, and some Gus Gould comes up with. There are two options which I believe would improve the current Bunker process.

The first is borrowing the NFL's Instant Replay review process, where, the on field referees would walk to a screen on the sidelines or behind the dead ball line, plug in headphones and view the angles required on a screen, with the assistance of the Bunker. Why is this better?

It puts the onus back on the on-field referees who are closest to the action, should know exactly what to look for, and the decision is made by the very people who should be making decisions, the referees. In this example, the Bunker acts simply as the technology to assist a decision. It removes another persons interpretation. Simple.

If the Bunker must stay given the NRL have apparently taken a five year lease on the space, adopt something they use in Boxing which removes a single point of failure. This would have three officials or ex-players if you like, sitting in sound-proof-booths in the Bunker, and submitting their decisions to the on-field referees independently. Majority rules.

This means the interpretation of 1 person doesn't come under scrutiny, as there will be either 3-0 or 2-1 results. Either way, majority rules. The reason this will never happen however, if that referees boss Tony Archer wouldn't want to admit that some officials interpret the rules of the game differently. Unfortunately for Tony, it's proven time and time again, that a majority of the NRL public's interpretations do differ from his officials'.