Captains challenge

[LineBall]

It's a blow by blow account.

 

[Whino]

Not really a fan of it.
The video ref/bunker was brought in to get decisions right and get rid of the howler. They still stuff things up.
I think it be another stoppage the game doesn't need and decisions still being stuffed up.

 

[Jimmy Clark]

Shit merkins doing a shit job is what the problem is.

 

[unforgiven]

Not really a fan of it.
The video ref/bunker was brought in to get decisions right and get rid of the howler. They still stuff things up.
I think it be another stoppage the game doesn't need and decisions still being stuffed up.

It would be less stoppages

 

[Whino]

It would be less stoppages

How?
If they challenge the decision there will be countless replays, wasting more time trying to make a decision to overturn the original ruling.

 

[unforgiven]

How?
If they challenge the decision there will be countless replays, wasting more time trying to make a decision to overturn the original ruling.

Because this is in try scoring opportunities only.

An example of how it could work is:
1. A try is scored and the ref makes a decision.
2. If the captains are happy with the decision nothing happens, game moves on.
3. If the captain disagrees with a decision then he challenges, then and only then does the bunker become involved.
4. If the challenges is confirmed then the team keeps its challenge, if they are wrong then they lose 1 of their 2 challenges.
5. Once they have no challenges left they can not challenge a call.

Would result in significantly less bunker interference in the game.

 

[Whino]

Because this is in try scoring opportunities only.

An example of how it could work is:
1. A try is scored and the ref makes a decision.
2. If the captains are happy with the decision nothing happens, game moves on.
3. If the captain disagrees with a decision then he challenges, then and only then does the bunker become involved.
4. If the challenges is confirmed then the team keeps its challenge, if they are wrong then they lose 1 of their 2 challenges.
5. Once they have no challenges left they can not challenge a call.

Would result in significantly less bunker interference in the game.

Just to be clear you are saying under your example all bunker use wouldn't come into play unless a captain challenges a decision?
The ref couldn't check grounding or the sideline to make a decision with the bunker, unless called by the captain?

 

[thorson1987]

How?
If they challenge the decision there will be countless replays, wasting more time trying to make a decision to overturn the original ruling.

Because the only time we would go to the bunker is when a captain (who may only get 1 challenge per half) makes the choice to go for it, and if the captain is wrong then stiff shit.

 

[thorson1987]

Just to be clear you are saying under your example all bunker use wouldn't come into play unless a captain challenges a decision?
The ref couldn't check grounding or the sideline to make a decision with the bunker, unless called by the captain?

That is exactly how it worked in the NYC when it was implemented.

 

[unforgiven]

Just to be clear you are saying under your example all bunker use wouldn't come into play unless a captain challenges a decision?
The ref couldn't check grounding or the sideline to make a decision with the bunker, unless called by the captain?

Yes that is the proposal, the ref officiates the game as if there is no bunker.

 

[unforgiven]

That is exactly how it worked in the NYC when it was implemented.

Only problem with the NYC trial was they were allowed to challenge certain decisions in general play such as knock on. I wouldn't allow that and only let try scoring situations be challenged.

 

[thorson1987]

Only problem with the NYC trial was they were allowed to challenge certain decisions in general play such as knock on. I wouldn't allow that and only let try scoring situations be challenged.

Yep agreed. Leave bunker for only try scoring situations.

 

[Whino]

Yes that is the proposal, the ref officiates the game as if there is no bunker.

Thats fine by me if they do it that way.

 

[unforgiven]

Thats fine by me if they do it that way.

It has so many positives for the games, removes the option of a ref waiting to make a call because it looks like a try might be scored. Will take out a lot of the diving in obstruction situations because there is now a risk when challenging a call.

The biggest thing is it puts the onus back on the referee to officiate the game and not rely on a crutch to make a decision.

 

[simmo05]

Only problem with the NYC trial was they were allowed to challenge certain decisions in general play such as knock on. I wouldn't allow that and only let try scoring situations be challenged.

Thats where it went to shit. The captains could stop the game whenever they wanted for a break. It has to be for tries only for it to work

 

[Vee]

Just to be clear you are saying under your example all bunker use wouldn't come into play unless a captain challenges a decision?
The ref couldn't check grounding or the sideline to make a decision with the bunker, unless called by the captain?

By George, I think he's got it!

Your name and avatar are most appropriate.

 

[Vee]

Another example of the lack of transparency and leadership by the NRL.

We've heard from Nathan Brown, one of the coaches involved in the only NRL trial of the rule, he never heard from the NRL again. No feedback from the U/20 trials.

Just a report the coaches weren't in favour of it.

Let's see arguments for and against.

But No, #notmynrl.

 

[AJB1102]

What would you call sacking 2 officials but keeping the head ref who is also the brother of the refs boss? Giving him a “demotion”.

Nepotism

 

[AJB1102]

They are blowing them now, what's the difference?

The mess in the Cronulla/ Canberra game wouldn't have happened with captains challenge

Why not? It went to the bunker and they cleared it. Can't see why it'd matter if it was the ref or Gal who sent it up.

 

[Card Shark]

Only problem with the NYC trial was they were allowed to challenge certain decisions in general play such as knock on. I wouldn't allow that and only let try scoring situations be challenged.

If you are only using the bunker under a limited captains challenge system (e.g. 2 incorrect per half), I see no reason why it can’t be used on any decision.

There are bad calls in general play that can influence a game.

I’d have liked a captain’s challenge on the dropout on Thursday night, when Moylan got penalised but it was more Roberts involvement that caused Isaako to be upended.