Call Challenges in League.

[Bomber]

Call Challenges wouldn't work in league purely because the game is a spontaneous free-flowing sport, unlike the scripted action of American Football. Whereas the coaches in the NFL have at least 30 seconds to challenge the play, a set of six would almost be completed in the equilavent time in league.

Only if the referee has made an obvious, critical error should there be any interference, and only then from the video referee.

 

[Quidgybo]

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.

If there wasn't, we wouldn't have introduced a video ref. It wasn't done on a whim, there were plenty of examples of dodgy calls costing teams matches (ie. major issues for the team's affected!). I remember a famous one at Lang Park one afternoon in the early 90s where a Bronco (Kerrod Walters I think) bounced a ball from about a foot and a half off the ground but was awarded a try. Absolute uproar south of the border. That's why we have the video, to minimize (not necessarily eliminate) those sorts of clear mistakes.

But fine, I accept your position that the decision on the field should stand. But given that we have video and it is likely here to stay, which system is better? Challenge or Referee Handoff/Referral?

Leigh.

 

[Mr Saab]

I remember a famous one at Lang Park one afternoon in the early 90s where a Bronco (Kerrod Walters I think) bounced a ball from about a foot and a half off the ground but was awarded a try. Absolute uproar south of the border. That's why we have the video, to minimize (not necessarily eliminate) those sorts of clear mistakes.

Leigh.

You remember correctly. It was against Manly
The late Peter Jackson can be see with his face in his hands immediately after the Kerrod slammed the ball down as he "knew" it was no try.....then delight when Annesley awarded the try.

 

[Quidgybo]

Call Challenges wouldn't work in league purely because the game is a spontaneous free-flowing sport, unlike the scripted action of American Football. Whereas the coaches in the NFL have at least 30 seconds to challenge the play, a set of six would almost be completed in the equilavent time in league.

But if only used for Tries / No Tries as the existing video system is, why would it not work much the same in League? Try is scored and awarded - defending team has until the kick at goal (ie. 60-90 seconds) to Challenge. Try is denied for held up, attacking team has until they play the ball ten metres out (as long as they want really), Try is denied for dead ball, attacking team has until referee allows 20 metre restart (15-20 seconds). Yes there will be instances where teams have less then 30 seconds but there are plenty of instances where there are more than 30 seconds too. If the mistake is that obvious or that critical then it's a judgement call on the part of the potential Challenger whether to call for the video immediately or not.

Only if the referee has made an obvious, critical error should there be any interference, and only then from the video referee.

If it is such an obvious, critical error then I don't see why it wouldn't be obvious to the teams as much anyone else. In fact I'd suggest given that the mistake has most likely been made by the referee himself, it is possible that he wouldn't ask for a video review in many situations (because he doesn't realise his mistake) where the team affected and everyone else in stadium would. At the end of the day, all this thread is suggesting is that it be trialled.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

You remember correctly. It was against Manly
The late Peter Jackson can be see with his face in his hands immediately after the Kerrod slammed the ball down as he "knew" it was no try.....then delight when Annesley awarded the try.

I'm pretty sure that was the stand out incident that saw in-goal touch judges introduced. IMHO the video is really just a glorified extension of that policy (although I actually think we should have both - more eyes on the field judging in real time and the video back-up).

Leigh.

 

[Front-Rower]

no, enough americanisation of our game please

cheers

I agree with you 100%.

The only video evidence that should be used in Rugby League is to see, in the event of a try, if a player or players are onside, the ball has been grounded correctly, and if they are in the field of play, in touch, or touch in goal. That is it.

We start introducing "challenges" for knock ons etc we take away the human and luck nature of our game. Lets face it, what goes around comes around.

And really, do you want to be sitting at the ground for 3 or 4 hours to watch an 80 minute game. I know I don't want to. That would be boring, and our game is not designed to be boring stop-start affairs.

 

[Quidgybo]

I agree with you 100%.

The only video evidence that should be used in Rugby League is to see, in the event of a try, if a player or players are onside, the ball has been grounded correctly, and if they are in the field of play, in touch, or touch in goal. That is it.

We start introducing "challenges" for knock ons etc we take away the human and luck nature of our game.

But you're ignoring half the argument. What if we introduce Challenges only for the same situations that video is used for now - ie. to review "in the event of a try, if a player or players are onside, the ball has been grounded correctly, and if they are in the field of play, in touch, or touch in goal". Replace the Referee Referral method and let the referee go back to making his call as he sees it on the field (with the advice touch judges and so forth). If a team disagrees with his Try or No Try call then they can Challenge and send it to the video. Once upstairs, the Video Ref can only overturn the on field decision if there is "indisputable video evidence".

Leigh.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Challenges would slow the game down and we may as well play American Football.

 

[Razor]

Yes definitely. Scrap the ref called video ref. So the only times a try is video challenged is when the teams ask it to be.

 

[Timmah]

If we're talking about only applying to tries, I'd be open to it, but the impression I got was that it was to be applied to general play.

 

[mepelthwack]

Anything that get more decisions right has to be a positive. 1 or 2 challenges will hardly effect the speed of the game. Certainly not as as much as players feigning injury at least.

 

[Hass]

The amount of ignorance on this thread astounds me.

Please think the proposal through before you go about mouthing off such gems as...

"It will just make the matches go even longer"

- Actually, a challenge system is likely to result in less hold ups.

The match would continue as normal without the referee making any referrals. The game would only stop when a team makes a challenge (and they'd only be able to do this during a natural break in play and possibly only for tries).

A coach/captain would only have three incorrect challenges per game. So they can't go challenging willy nilly. Only when they are pretty certain they've been hard done by.

At the moment we can stop the match an indefinite number of times just to double-check things that are fairly obvious anyway.

"It will undermine the referee's authority - people will complain even more"

- Actually, a challenge system hands more power back to the on-field referee.

He makes the calls then and there. If the team strongly disagrees then they challenge.

80 per cent of the challenges in the recent Australian Open proved the umpire correct. It was the players who made fools out of themselves.

Also, nobody is going to care if an umpire's initial decision was wrong if a challenge results in the right decision being made. All's well that ends well.

*****************

Other benefits include:

* Fixing the benefit of the doubt rule. The benefit of the doubt goes to the referee's original decision unless the video can conclusively prove otherwise. Once again, more power to the on-field referee. The video ref is no longer forced to take a guess on the 50/50 calls.

* Coaches will have less right to whinge. If a try is incorrectly allowed/disallowed they
can't blow up because they had the opportunity to challenge. If the mistake wasn't obvious enough for them to mount a challenge then they can't blame the referee.

The Challenge System will both speed up the game and ensure we get more decisions right. The NRL should definitely implement a trial.

Cheers.

 

[Kiwi]

The downside is we'd see players calling for it to be challenged alot.

Players get cranky and see things from a slanted point of view as it is when they have just the slightest doubt a try was scored. I know coaches are the ones poeple say should make the call, but it wont stop players pushing for challenges

 

[Quidgybo]

The downside is we'd see players calling for it to be challenged alot.

Players get cranky and see things from a slanted point of view as it is when they have just the slightest doubt a try was scored. I know coaches are the ones poeple say should make the call, but it wont stop players pushing for challenges

That all depends on what the cost is to Challenge. If players are continually wasting vital interchanges on spurious Challenges against their coaches instructions then they'll find themselves in reserve grade as surely as the player that continually ignores the game plan. IMO the referee should only accept a Challenge signal from a team captain meaning that players have to badger their own captain, not the referee for a call. If non captains making signals all over the place proves to be a blight then just implement a policy of sin binning any non captain who gives the signal. It'll stop within a week.

As for what the cost should be, I'm a little undecided. I know the most discussed proposal is for three Challenges per team per game with a interchange lost for every unsuccessful Challenge. But I think an unlimited number of Challenges with *every* Challenge costing an interchange would work just as well (or even two interchanges, or one interchange to Challenge and a second interchange if unsucessful). A team could Challenge six times if there were that many dodgy Try / No Try decisions but they would have to accept the cost of having only half the normal interchanges and the potential fatigue factor late in the game. Either way the only question is cost. Make the Challenge expensive enough and team's will be very careful how they use it.

But just to reiterate I am only in favour of trialling Challenges as a direct replacement for the existing video referral on Try / No Try calls. I am totally opposed to extending Challenges to general play.

Leigh.