Captain's challenge system

[jimmythehand]

what will they be able to challenge? Alot of the time the try is fine, it's the wrong call 4 plays earlier that lead up to the try could be the problem.

What if any defensive player can call out 'challenge' for a non-decision during the set of 6. Play continues until the end of the current tackle count, at which point the ref asks the captain if they want to challenge the play. The captain has maybe 10 seconds to decide.

If any attacking player calls out 'challenge' for a non-decision, time-off and review straight away.

 

[Hanscholo]

No lets not.

Because all that is going to happen is that shit refereeing will coast along unchanged and the onus will go onto the coach for not challenging or challenging everything. The system is broken from start to finish and that is how we need to correct it.

We need to do the following:

1. Lets write the actual rules down. Include all of the strange and random rulings that come up that there is NO rule for, but is refereed. I'm talking about things like the in goal grounding the other week by the roosters, like 40 seconds to take a drop out, voluntary tackles, dominant tackles, knocking the ball lose etc. There is way too much that sits outside the official rules and that causes the majority of issues for me. I challenge you guys to download the rules of rugby league and to see just how much isn't in there. It's absolutely staggering how much has been added without updating the rule book. Its like giving someone a procedure manual that has 50 adjustments to it, and they are all given verbally to you after you make the mistake...Its absolutely f**king ridiculous the way it operates. If international RL gets butthurt about changing the rules, write an NRL rule book.

2. Lets get referees to focus on the newly created set of laws. No more blitzes, no more having to ask bill harrigan every monday if something is right or not. Its there in black and white and if there is any ambiguity it goes to a rules committee for review.

3. Referees should be totally removed from rule changes. They are there to enforce the written rules, not fiddle with them. This is how you end up with shit like dominate tackles and the ridiculous robert finch obstruction law.

4. Lets get professional in teaching and testing the rule system with our referees.

How about we actually give this a go for 12 months before we start adding layers of shit onto a massively broken system.

RL is a fast game, the video ref is already a massive problem to the fabric of the flow of the game, if you want to add another stop start feature to it, the games will be boring and you will end up with a smoke break every 5 mins. Its not RL to me, you need to have people getting tired....way too many breaks already imo.

EDIT One final thing. People need to stop bitching about every single mistake someone makes. Its a human ruling on humans, there are bound to be mistakes. You don't think that a coach's challenge is going to come back wrong? lol nah that never happens does it. The best we can do is make it as professional as possible and we are clearly way way behind other sports in this regard.

 

[SharkShocked]

I agree with this, as Gus Gould has been saying, call time off in the last 5 Minutes of each Half when the Ball goes dead

I've never understood this. Why are the first 5 minutes not equally as important as the last 5?

f**k calling time off for only the last 5 minutes of a half to make it more of a 'spectacle'.

Either have time stop on all stoppages or none.

If players are too lazy at the start of a game to rush to pack a scrum then so be it.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Why would we not want that? We want players deciding the outcome of games, not referees. If a referee makes 100 wrong decisions in a game I'd be happy to see them all reviewed.

It was more of a question directed to make you think about one of the possible outcomes of this. As I said I would love to see it trialled, only then can you really make an educated decision on the matter. Yes we can see how it works in NFL, but that game has natural breaks that suit this sort of situation occurring.

 

[Dogs Of War]

No lets not.

Because all that is going to happen is that shit refereeing will coast along unchanged and the onus will go onto the coach for not challenging or challenging everything. The system is broken from start to finish and that is how we need to correct it.


EDIT One final thing. People need to stop bitching about every single mistake someone makes. Its a human ruling on humans, there are bound to be mistakes. You don't think that a coach's challenge is going to come back wrong? lol nah that never happens does it. The best we can do is make it as professional as possible and we are clearly way way behind other sports in this regard.

Ahahaha, you say to make ref's perfect, but then say ref's are human and make mistakes. I guarantee ref's know more about the rules than anyone on this forum. Unfortunately there are always grey area's in the rules, it's impossible to make rules that make every situation black or white. Not to mention how the rules are interpreted, via either direction of the NRL, or the referee themselves when their view is coming from an angle that makes a situation look different to how it actually is. I do believe they do their best, which is why this rule change I believe would enhance there performances.

 

[jimmythehand]

I've never understood this. Why are the first 5 minutes not equally as important as the last 5?

f**k calling time off for only the last 5 minutes of a half to make it more of a 'spectacle'.

Either have time stop on all stoppages or none.

If players are too lazy at the start of a game to rush to pack a scrum then so be it.

I think the answer to this is pretty obvious. Players do not use tactics to slow the game down in the first 5 minutes of the game.

In the last 5 minutes of the game, players have much more of an idea on what they can/can't/should do to improve their chances of winning. Also referees can, and we have seen them, put their own interpretation of time out in the last 5 minutes, and not consistently so.

Hence this idea would probably result in a more fair and consistent system...

 

[Perth Red]

If they get it right, then the best thing is that 'howlers' will be removed from the game, and let's face it PERTH_RED, you ask just about any fan what the worst part of the NRL is at the moment and they'll say the bad refereeing decisions. Can't quite see how you can't see 'any advantage for the viewers of the game.'. In fact it's quite a ridiculous comment. I've seen comments on foxsports like 'congratulations nrl, you've lost another fan' because of the poor performance by the referees.

.

Video refs get it wrong as well, I can just imagine the massive coach whine when they call for a review and the video ref goes against what the coach thinks he saw. If we replace the video ref it will be a start but going back 5 tackles in the middle of play will kill the flow of a game. Would allow more adverts though!

 

[jimmythehand]

No lets not.
We need to do the following:

1. Lets write the actual rules down.

2. Lets get referees to focus on the newly created set of laws. No more blitzes, no more having to ask bill harrigan every monday if something is right or not. Its there in black and white and if there is any ambiguity it goes to a rules committee for review.

Sounds good in theory, but is the reality really that things can be put in black and white? Coaches push the boundaries on rules to get an advantage, and that has played a huge part in all these different interpretations being introduced. By pushing the boundaries, grey areas are always going to be introduced, and changed, as coaches and players come up with new and different ways to try and gain an advantage.

4.
RL is a fast game, the video ref is already a massive problem to the fabric of the flow of the game, if you want to add another stop start feature to it, the games will be boring and you will end up with a smoke break every 5 mins. Its not RL to me, you need to have people getting tired....way too many breaks already imo.

We can actually make this reduce the stoppages in play. If the on-field referees have to make a call based on what they see, and are not allowed to call on the video-ref, then it's up to the captains to challenge the decision. There will be fewer video ref opportunties, since teams are only allowed 2 incorrect challenges per half. They will more commonly only challenge obvious mistakes for fear of losing challenges.

You don't think that a coach's challenge is going to come back wrong? lol nah that never happens does it. The best we can do is make it as professional as possible and we are clearly way way behind other sports in this regard.

Of course a coach's challenge can come back wrong. But the idea is to remove more of the howler's from the game, and get a higher % of decisions correct. IE to make it as professional as possible

 

[The Engineers Room]

What they need is a panel of at least 2 video refs at every game that have an independent video feed that they can use at any time to look at decisions. Also, the video refs need a copy of the rule book with them that they consult and stick to the actual rules.

 

[Raidersrawesome]

Bad bad bad idea.

It will be exploited by the men that want it there.

 

[jimmythehand]

who are the men that want it there and how will they exploit it?

 

[Raidersrawesome]

The coaches

 

[clarency]

Explain how it could be exploited, bar time wasting which is a quick fix.

 

[Canard]

Can anyone explain to me why they think a coach's challenge will result in less "clangers"?

If the video ref is called to review something, how is any different to what is happening now (when intiated by the on-field ref)?

There will still be controversy about the "intrepretation" of the challenge (i.e. Dogs fans will complain it was a knock on, whilst Souffs say its a knockback)

As for needing to change something because someone complained on Foxsports they are no longer fans of the game due to one decision, FMD get a grip!

 

[Raidersrawesome]

Hows time wasting easily fixed , the captains do it on every referee decision now. and Im not necessarily referring to the clock winding down.


The coaches if they are the ones calling for the challenges can and will manipulate it to suit themselves , I think its naive to think they wont.

Whats stopping them keeping there challenges up their sleeve , 1 min to go , under the pump defending their line and calling for a challenge regardless if its justified. Defence gets a 60 sec or more rest and gets to set its line.

Of course it all depends on how its structured which isnt clear right now.

If they get rid of the VR , then Im fine with a challenge system

 

[jimmythehand]

Can anyone explain to me why they think a coach's challenge will result in less "clangers"?

If the video ref is called to review something, how is any different to what is happening now (when intiated by the on-field ref)?

There will still be controversy about the "intrepretation" of the challenge (i.e. Dogs fans will complain it was a knock on, whilst Souffs say its a knockback)

As for needing to change something because someone complained on Foxsports they are no longer fans of the game due to one decision, FMD get a grip!

I don't like the idea of a 'coach's challenge. I think it should be a player challenge, which the captain confirms or not.

There is a big difference between the players challenge and the refereees calling the video into play. Instead of most tries going up to the video, there's only 2 (unsuccessful) chances for teams to have tries reviewed.

What doesn't change is that video refs might still make clangers. But really, what can you do about that? In the NFL, you can dispute the video refs decision - it goes back to the referee on the field who can look at replays and then rule on the challenge.

Controversy about interpretations are hardly 'clangers'. Yes there will always be controversial interpretations. In my opinion the objective is
to remove clangers, and to change 'probably wrong' decisions.

 

[jimmythehand]

Hows time wasting easily fixed , the captains do it on every referee decision now. and Im not necessarily referring to the clock winding down.


The coaches if they are the ones calling for the challenges can and will manipulate it to suit themselves , I think its naive to think they wont.

Whats stopping them keeping there challenges up their sleeve , 1 min to go , under the pump defending their line and calling for a challenge regardless if its justified. Defence gets a 60 sec or more rest and gets to set its line.

Of course it all depends on how its structured which isnt clear right now.

If they get rid of the VR , then Im fine with a challenge system

a possible solution:
defensive challenges could possibly be flagged at the time they happen (eg a player yells out challenge). But the play goes on until the set of 6 is played out, at which time the captain can confirm or deny the challenge.

 

[Card Shark]

I like the idea but only 1 per team per game.

Take away the absolute shocker that could change a game but not change the game itself by having ridiculous / time wasting reviews.

 

[jimmythehand]

i like the idea of 2 per half. The problem with 1 per game is that you're going to get, say 50/50 or 60/40 calls that are probably reasonable to challenge, but would be quite unfair to lose their only challenge on. Especially if the video ref is only used for team challenges and not called on every time by the ref ... you're still going to have fewer stoppages.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

After what happened with Archer on Jack Reed on Sunday, I cannot take any position except to be in support of this. I would much prefer a small delay in the game then watch my team get screwed.