Cam sparks HUGE debate on set after doubling down on his post-Origin 3 comments | 100% Footy

Key takeaways.We're going to start, we're going to go there, Cameron.You were quite vocal post -game about your thoughts on the bunker and that Jack Bostock, did he touch it or did he not touch it?Jack says he didn't still, by the way.Oh, the NRL said he did.So, afterwards you said as a game we probably need to look at the bunker system as a whole.

Now you've had a bit of time to chill.Do you still feel the same way?And if so, is there a solution here?And do you actually believe that changed the course of the game?

Did it change the course of the game?Well it could have.At that point in time, Queensland were down by 10 points and there was 23 minutes left on the clock.I think we've seen in the past both teams have fought back from that deficit with that time left on the clock.I said in the post game, I was very disappointed as a Queensland supporter with the way they played and the result, there's no doubt about that.New South Wales were by far the better team and deserved to win.

They played better on the night, there's no doubt about that.My comments were all centred around, as a game, are we okay with making mistakes like that in the big matches?They matter every week in club football, there's no doubt about that.But in the big matches, when that is exactly what the bunker is designed for, is to find those errors.The question I still have for the NRL, and they gave a brief comment on the Thursday morning saying, after a more detailed review of the incident, we found that there was a touch.Number one, there should have been a detailed review in that exact point in time to make sure they come up with the right decision.

And secondly, our entire broadcast box, the Channel 9 broadcast box, I'm the only Queenslander in there, every single person said he touched it.I've looked over the vision of all the other radio broadcasters, there were three or four there as well.Every single person in thosecommentary boxes all agreed that he touched it.So if everyone there commentating on the game, seeing Jack Bostock touch the ball, How does the bunker not see it?

I was at the ground.I was at the ground and I saw him touch it.I thought he touched it and I saw Cameron's comments post -game and I actually felt sorry for him because I could see the pain and the anguish in his face and how upset he was.Imagine being a player in that position.I disagree that it would have had an effect on the game.I think the Blues were way too good.

I don't think it affected the result of the game.But then I thought back to about 10 hours earlier, me and Cameron Smith done a couple of functions that day and I remember a time back in 2012 where Greg Inglis dropped the ball over the trial line and it was given a shot at the side of the match.I remember at the side of game three where Justin Hodges scored a trial for Shepard and they beat us by one point, not 18 like Queensland were beaten by.So what goes around comes around, get that up you Queensland, we won.

This was fantastic.This was great.Someone sent me this the morning after.I actually had a really good laugh at this.

I saw Joe eating three packets of them on the plane on the way home.

Yeah, and I contacted Smith's.I wanted some, but they sold out.So, obviously very popular.

They've got to do something about it.They should genuinely make them.They're great.

Yeah, I thought you were actually saying generally something about the bunker.

In all seriousness, if the NRL are going to come out the next day and say we got it wrong, what are you looking for as a fan of the game?Are you looking for them to get it right in the moment or for them to come back and for there to be a consequence for the person who was controlling the bunker?

I don't want punishments, I don't want consequences.

But players get consequences.

I understand that.I think if we're going to invest an enormous amount of money, of the Games money, $22 million in fact, to build a bunker, that's what it's built for to get those decisions right.That's what we spoke about.it was introduced.Gail just spoke about a couple of those incidents.We didn't have a bunker for Greg Inglis's...

Oh yeah we did.A $22 million bunker.

Oh maybe not 22, but we had a bunker.We had a bunker.

It was a Queensland bunker.

No, we did have a video ref, but do you know where he sat?

Doesn't matter, we had a video ref.Do you know where he sat, mate?I don't care, you got it wrong.I agree, they got it wrong the other night, and they have to be better, but whenever you've got human beings involved in these decisions, things will go wrong.That's the way of the world.So let's get rid of it.

No, we can't get rid of it.Why?Because these days everything is on that phone right there.As soon as the game finishes, every single replay is on the phone right there.It's too accessible for people these days.So they need a bunker there to get the majority of decisions right.

Whenever we have human beings involved, there will always be some sort of human error, which there was the other night.It's wrong.Whatever the other night was wrong, I'm with you on that.100%, they should have got it right.But the fact is, we cannot get rid of the bunker.It just won't happen.

If we're going to continually have human error, right, like you said, let's scrap the bunker because it cost the game millions and millions of dollars.Let's reinvest that back into Junior Rugby League or money out in the bush where Rugby League is struggling at the moment.Let's put that money back there and take it back to the old days where the video ref, not the bunker, the video ref, he sat in a little room, looked at a screen about this big next to the commentary box and made decisions.Let's do that.Put it this way.I see a lot of club jerseys in the studio tonight.

You're a massive Sharkies fan.If the Sharks go to the grand final this year and they're in a position where they're up by two points with a minute to go, that kick goes across, there's a fumble, they get it wrong, the opposition team goes down the other end of the field and scores a try and beats the Sharks, how are you feeling on Monday morning?

I'll be exactly the way you are.post -game.They've got to get it right.I'm with you.They've got to get it right.

What do you want from me?I'm just saying you're doing your little paint and you scrunched the corner of your lung down.Listen to these two gibberers up the other end.Wait on, you've been talking for five minutes.

What have we said that's not right?

It's a philosophical argument about what the bunker is and what the bunker is supposed to be doing and where it should infiltrate into the game.Let's have the scenario where they go up for the ball, the ball comes out the way it is and Bradman Best falls on it.He doesn't run, he doesn't pick it up and run, he falls on it.Or Caelan Ponger tackles him 50 metres downfield.He gets up and plays the ball and NSW scores then.There is no chance to go back and review that incident during the game.

Which means the very same incident is treated two different ways if points are scored.The same goes with obstructions and anything else the referee wants to bring up the whole time.Now we grew up as footballers accepting the referee's decision knowing they blatantly got it wrong at different times during the game but we had to play on and go.I watch football from New South Wales and Queensland Cup level all the way down to under sixes every weekend.I watch a million games and it's beautiful watching rugby league without the bunker because it keeps moving and everyone accepts the umpire's decision which we were all grown up to do.Now we don't accept anything the referee does.

We have referee's challenges and we show how many times they do get it wrong during games and we treat incidents differently We even rule on them differently because a try has been scored.And I find that philosophically incorrect.I find that wrong.I think the whole role of the bunker needs to be either wound right back or got rid of altogether.Now too many times we get a good decision when there's a ball being dropped in the end goal or a footham on the line, which are very easy ones to interpret at the time.But asking the bunker to go back and review incidents in the field of play, particularly these ones where they're up for the ball or there's a strip or there's

hit him high or didn't and all these sort of philosophical obstruction things are not for the bunker and never have been.But the referees have delved into that space because they want to protect themselves.It's not about the game, it's about protecting the referees from making howlers and being criticised.That's what it's about.You're being a referee, you've got to put up with that.I think you either wind the bunker right back or get rid of it all together.

I don't think you can get rid of it all together because we've had it for so long and it is important for the actual scoring of the try in the end goal.But between the try lines and the side lines, it should never interfere with the play.We leave that up to the officials on the field.There are two linesmen and there's a referee and if they get it wrong, they get it wrong.We've grown up with it and fans need to grow up with it too.It's as simple as that.