Call Challenges in League.

[Bring back John Fifita]

After watching the Aus Open Tennis, I was thinking if/how a similar "call challenge" rule in Rugby League would be a benefit to the game.

For those that don't know, In the Open tennis a player has 3 challenges available to him/her - meaning that if they disagree with a call they can immediatley request "hawkeye" to make a ruling. If they are proven right, they keep all 3 challenges. If they are wrong, they have 2 challenges remaining and so on etc.

In League, I would suggest that a side have 3 challenges per match. Ie The captain can ask that a refereeing decision be taken the video ref for a ruling. If he's correct in gaining an over-rule, he keeps all 3 etc. If he's wrong, he only has 2 left. You get the drift.

Take last year's grand final, a perfect example of where this could have been used was when Shaun Berrigan lost control of the ball in a tackle, which was taken by Billy Slater who then took off downfield. The Ref called a strip had occured - Penalty Broncos. It was only obvious to Billy at the time that it was a straightforward loss of possession, and obvious to the world after a replay that this was indeed the case. Billy could have told his captain to request a challenge, the replay viewed by the video ref, then a correct decision made.

There are pro's & cons as I see it, but worthy of at least trialling during pre-season games IMO.

Pro's
(i) incorrect decisions can be over-ruled.
(ii) Less frustration for players (& fans). Thus on-field tension between players & refs is reduced.
(iii) Possibility of eliminating video-ref intervention without request that currently happens (which I personally loathe)
(iv) Less pressure on referees post-match if an incorrect call is made (ie the captain has a say in his sides destiny, he had the opportunity to challenge the call).

Cons

(i) Stoppage of play, delays
(ii) What rulings can be fairly judged by the video ref? eg forward passes, strip rules, off-side etc etc - could be some grey areas.
(iii) Possible embarrasment to on-field refs

The ref could still call for video assistance as he currently does for try-scoring situations etc. And limiting the challenges to 3 per game limits abuse of the system by making frivolous requests.


Worth considering if nothing else. Discuss.......

 

[Stonecutter]

I would love to see it as long as it doesnt turn into the NFL with stoppages after every play. A free flowing NRL game with quick accurate challenges would be great IMO.

 

[The Engineers Room]

No way. The referee is always right. Even if he isn't. And we have seen in recent years how the video ref is almost less accurate. Besides in the tennis they are only calling if a ball lands on a line or not. The calls in league are not handled by a computer program they are human and therefore will still be wrong occasionally. The other issue is that we will encourage dissent against referees.

 

[Ice777]

I think the idea has plenty of merit and at the very least should be trialled. I'm sure it'll get and argument against from the traditionalists/purists of the game, but if we have the technology there then why not use it?

A good example is the one you used with the strip in the GF, now of course mistakes happen from the ref or they aren't in a position to see exactly what happens sometimes. At least if that's the case there's measures they can take to in regards to the challenge system.

I can't see it holding up play that much unless it's a line ball decision and the replay is inconclusive from each angle. But if that happens you could just go back to the refs original call whatever that may be. I'm not worried about the stoppages that it would cause in play anyway as long as they weren't excessive. Personally i think it'd add another new dimension to the game and IMO would make it better.

 

[Quidgybo]

After watching the past season of the NFL, I've been quite interested in the contrast between their Challenge system and the NRL Video referee. The number one difference with the NFL system is that every decision is still made on the field by the officials watching the game in real time. Certain decisions may be Challenged but any time a decision goes to the video it is on the basis of over turning an existing ruling. This is quite different the the system in RL where the game stops without a decision having been made by the referee and then the video is used to make a call one way or other.

The second key difference is the burden of proof. Again because a call has already been made, the assumption is that the call as made on the field is correct unless "indisputable video evidence" shows otherwise. In RL there is no existing decision, so the video has to come up with a call one way or the other (except in certain cases where it can be handed back to the referee) even if the call is borderline. In those cases the benefit of the doubt theoretically goes to the attacking team. The end result is that the NRL video system regularly throws up disputable borderline decisions, while in the NFL video system if there is *any* doubt then the referee's call stands (which is not to say the referee's call isn't disputable or borderline but it moves the responsibility back to the onfield officials).

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

I would love to see it as long as it doesnt turn into the NFL with stoppages after every play. A free flowing NRL game with quick accurate challenges would be great IMO.

Which are two mutually exclusive aims IMHO. You can either have a fast flowing game or a game with stoppages for challenges in general play. But you can't have both. I would be totally opposed to the use of video replays during general play. Tries or no tries for sure but general play, no way.

What I would like to see trialled is a Challenge system where the referee always makes an immediate call on a try or no try and either team captain then has the right to Challenge by going up to the ref and giving the television square signal. Using the same burden of proof as the NFL, the decision could only be overturned if there was "indisputable video evidence", otherwise the referee's original call stands. A failed challenge would cost an interchange and a call couldn't be challenged if the team is out of interchanges.

Leigh.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

So quidgy, are you saying that a challenge should only be made on the back of a referee's judgement, and not in general play where the play would continue otherwise?

 

[Quidgybo]

I am opposed to Challenges in general play because of what it would do to the game. RL's biggest strength is its fast flowing nature. A Try is the one natural break in play where video replays can be accomodated without fundamentally altering that nature. Apart from that I've liked what I've seen in the NFL and I think they've got it right by only using replays to test an existing ruling by the on field official, as opposed to removing the decision from them.

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

I'd be worried about how many the VR clearly gets wrong atm. For something so apparently simple, they have immense problems with it.

 

[Stranger]

In theory its a great rule but in something like tennis you have those constant stoppages. It will slow League down to much.


Also, being a ref myself, i don't want to have to question my own decision or have my decision questioned. Also on what can the vid ref rule on? I'm a firm believer in what the man in the middle says goes, be it wrong or right. Its just part of the game. We have the video ref for tries and foul play, leave it there.

 

[Rotten Rooster]

I think if they gave each coach say two chances to challenge a decision it would not greatly affect the speed or enjoyment of the game. Lets face it each week there are at least 1 or 2 games affected by bullsh*t decisions. Most games a pretty clean and incident free, those crappy decision change momentum and the nature of the game on many occasions do affect the outcome. I think there is nothing wrong with evolving the game and trying new ideas. They should give it a go in PL and see how it goes. I think Tim Sheens suggested the idea last year!

 

[>zuzu<]

Plenty of merit, and an idea to greatly reduce the amount of stopage, put a timer at 30 seconds. The ref and VR watch the video from appropriate angles, and make the decision on the spot.

Good idea, but i cant see it happening

 

[RL1908]

I would favour the "coach's challenge" (lose an inter-change if wrong) being adopted by the NRL provided our referees can no longer call for a video replay.

In other words, we go back to the days before the video ref, when the on-field officials made their own decisions. By doing it this way the entire onus of whether the video needs to be called for falls onto the coach (who will lose an inter-change if wrong). Field position, the score, and/or fear of losing an inter-change, will prevent most coaches calling for a video review of a 50/50 call. Won't this reduce the pressure on referees?

The result will not be more stoppages for video replays, but less! It will allow referees to once again back their own judgement, make on-the-spot decisions, and stop the video ref being called on to review try after try. It will also allow the use of the video ref at any point in the game, not just the tackle that led to the try, or where foul play happens.

Take away the ability for the referee to call for a video replay, and use the "coach's challenge" instead. The details would have to be worked out about how/when a coach can challenge, but it is certainly worth a trial anyway.

 

[Charlie124]

Absolutly not, Vid Ref gets enough wrong now.

 

[Timmah]

Absolutely not - refs are undermined by the video referee as it is. The level of complaints about refs has rarely been higher than it is in our modern age, this will only make it worse.

 

[Moffo]

no, enough americanisation of our game please

cheers

 

[Inferno]

I'm not a fan of it because I like having ref's decisions as part of the game. the 50-50 calls even themselves out over the course of a season anyway.

 

[Quidgybo]

Absolutely not - refs are undermined by the video referee as it is. The level of complaints about refs has rarely been higher than it is in our modern age, this will only make it worse.

How does letting the referee make all calls instead of handing off some completely to the video ref undermine him more? The advantage of the Challenge system (assuming the video ref is still restricted to reviewing tries, not general play) is the ref on the field makes his decision, Try or No Try, immediately there and then based on what he saw in real time. He doesn't have an option to pussy foot around making a call by handing it off to someone else. It would be a return to the traditional way of refereeing. He gets on with running the game as he sees it and only if one of the teams chooses to Challenge does it go to the video ref. And the video ref can only overturn the existing decision if there is "indisputable video evidence" that the wrong call has been made. If there are *any* doubts then the decision on the field stands.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

no, enough americanisation of our game please

What a cop out. We have video now, so do they. The question is whether the Challenge system is better than the Referee Referral system the NRL now uses. Which country originated which system is totally irrelevant. To ignore an option just because of where it comes from is potentially cutting off your own nose to spite your face (especially if their system works better and generates less controversy!).

Leigh.

 

[Timmah]

The bottom line is that the decision on the field should always stand. There was never any major issue between 1908 and 1996 with having no video referee. There'll always be arguments either side, but allowing challenges to the ref... too dubious IMO.