A sub-committee chaired by referees coach Stuart Raper and including full time match officials and referees coaching staff has recommended that areas of ‘challenge’ are limited to:
- A loss of possession (knock-on or strip) that leads to a ‘structured’ re-start (scrum or penalty)
- A decision that led to the ball going into ‘touch’ or ‘touch-in goal’
- Any decision involving try, no-try or point scoring decisions made by on-field officials that were not previously referred to the video-referee.
- A mandatory penalty (such as a member of the team in possession being off side and restart infringements).
How the hell is a coach's challenge going to help if they leave the regular video ref process in place? That doesnt solve any of the current video ref problems!!
f**k me these guys do things arse up every time. Just like the addition of the second ref they will f**k up the application of what was a good idea in theory and it will improve nothing. Hanscholo is right, the system is completely broken.
Let me identify my main complaint here:
“The idea of on-field challenges has been discussed for a number of years and this is a chance to test how a system might work,” Mr McGuirk said.
If it has been discussed for a number of years then what the are main reasons for trialling it now? What exactly are you testing?
They have said nothing about why this is needed. If you can't identify the specific areas that you are trying to fix then how can you fix them?
All we are left with from these comments is the feeling that the refs need more chances to get things right.
For me, there are two main reasons why a Challenge system needs to be put in place:
1. When we go to the video ref no-one has any idea which way the call is going to go. This has led to too many controversial calls as well as the introduction of the artificial "benefit of the doubt" call - another knee jerk reaction that makes no sense - and situations where dodgy tries are now being given.
2. The refs have stopped making calls and are relying on the video, which often then shows up to be inconclusive, leading to point 1.
So, if these were the things that the Rugby League is trying to avoid - but we have no idea if they are as they haven't told us a f**king thing - then the logical conclusion would lead to scrapping the "regular" video ref altogether, forcing the on-field ref to make a decision, and then any "coach's or captain's challenge" is only successful when the on-field call is PROVEN incorrect without a shadow of a doubt.
This does a number of things: forces the refs to make a call; eradicates doubt as to what the outcome will be when it goes to the video (it will be the on-field call unless proven otherwise); and means that there will be less complaints because if the video can't prove the ref was wrong then we all have to accept the original call.
All in all, this reduces the pressure on the refs (which is surely part of the problem) and over time they will get better at making correct on-field calls, as they are forced to do it.
On top of that, fans get to celebrate the original call instead of that weird anti-climactic wait. And old-timers that want to go back to the ref making the call also get their way, in a way.
This current idea of giving the coach an option of reviewing if the video hasn't been used does not address the issue of "BOD" or what happens if the video ref doesn't have decent enough evidence. It leaves in all the problems of the current review system and just adds another layer of crap to it.
Please oh please hurry up with the new CEO so they can put a broom through the NRL staff. There are a zillion people who could do a better job at running the game than the current muppets.
