Captain's challenge system

[B-Tron 3000]

The game survived 90 years with one ref, two touchies and that was it! Sometime technology isn't a good thing if used stupidly!

I'm quite happy to see one ref, video ref only used in the act of scoring a try and nothing else. TV to cut out showing 15 replays and disecting every decision and lets just get on watching and enjoying the game. We do create a massive rod for our own backs sometimes!

I've said it before but watch the Chooseday night games and how much better they are for not seeing a replay of every mistake and every ref decision and the commentator barely mentioning the decision if they think it was right or not. Commentators need to stop thinking they are opinion columnists!

While we're at it why don't we get rid of interstate and NZ teams and bring back that rule where you have to play for your local team.

Times change mate. The problem isn't technology, the problem is the NRL has failed to use technology successfully.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Like I have already said the problem is the video ref getting things wrong. And you obviously can't challenge their ruling. Would be better idea to implement a panel of two or three video refs that each make their own decision on calls and if it is challenged, it must be for something that hasn't already been ruled on. Say the on field ref says he wants to check onside, after the decision comes back they can't challenge the onside but perhaps something else.

Agreed they must lose interchanges for unsuccessful challenges and the video refs only get say 2 minutes to assess challenges or when called on by the on field ref for tries.

 

[lockyno1]

Worth a trial. Lets be honest here, like all sports, the game needs to evolve. We need to get more people through the gates, Having 10,000 averages is not enough, and if a captains challenge gets more fans, what is the harm. There needs to be strict guidelines.

 

[Quidgybo]

TV to cut out showing 15 replays and disecting every decision and lets just get on watching and enjoying the game.

But in the real world that's never going to happen. In fact it can only get worse as higher camera frame rates, higher definition capture and an ever greater number of angles constantly expose the effect human fallibility has on the officiating of the game. You simply can't put that genie back in the bottle. All you can do is deal with the reality of the technological age we now live in and put in place the best processes and tools for the officals that ensure the game is ultimately presented in the best light (whether that be by ensuring the most technically perfect standard of officiating, or a generally accepted standard of imperfect officiating, or whatever balance will minimise the weekly cycle of controversy and bad publicity)

Leigh

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/tv...nt-of-contention/story-fndujljl-1226451271585

A captain's challenge will be trialled in the Gold Coast-Manly under-20s match at Skilled Park on September 1, with the match to be televised live on Fox Sports.

Neither side is in the running for the finals.

"We did not think a coaches' challenge was viable because of the time that would be taken," NRL referees coach Stuart Raper said yesterday.

"We want to make it as bulletproof as possible so it does not affect the flow of the game. The captains have to realise they must not waste their chance (to challenge the referee's decision).

"They will be allowed only one incorrect challenge per half, but there are no limits if the captain keeps getting it right."

 

[Quidgybo]

'Captains Challenge' to be trialled in NYC

NRL.com Tue, Aug 14, 2012 - 8:17 PM

The ARLC Competition Committee has supported a trial of a Captain’s ‘on-field’ challenge at Toyota Cup level this year.

The Committee which included ARLC General Manager of Football Nathan McGuirk, ARL Commissioner Wayne Pearce, NRL coaches Brian Smith and Ivan Cleary, former coaches Daniel Anderson and John Lang and former Broncos Test Captain Darren Lockyer said the trial should be viewed as an exploratory exercise only at this stage.

“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.

“The biggest difficulties lie in ensuring that flow of the game is maintained.

“The trial we discussed today involves a team having a limit of one ‘incorrect’ challenge in each half (there is no limit on the number of successful challenges).”

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).

Decisions involving discretionary penalties such as forward passes, 10m penalties, scrums and play the ball offences would not be subject to challenge.

Well won't that make things interesting when it comes to re-claiming the loose ball? Depending on whether you want the option of a challenge available or not, you're either going to be desperate to dive on the ball you've just lost to force a scrum (challenge available) or desparate to dive on the loose ball the opposition just lost to ensure play on and no scrum (challenge unavailable). Similar imperatives will dictate whether to prevent a ball going into touch or let it go.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

That wouldn't really work in this context, because the T.V audience needs to be present to witness the result of the challenge.

In the NFL the typical process goes like this - Challenge called, TV goes to commercial, umpire watches all the angles until he is happy he has the one or two that decide it, TV comes back from commercial, umpire announces decision, TV replays the one or two deciding angles, well educated commentators explain to audience why the umpire is correct in his decision.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Like I have already said the problem is the video ref getting things wrong.

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.

The big problem with the video ref in Rugby League as currently defined is the type of decisions he must rule on and the standard of proof. It is completely different to the system that operates relatively (not entirely) controversy free in the NFL. In our game, any scoring play that is line ball goes to the video without a decision being made. And if upon review it is still line ball then we end up in a lottery where all the controversy ends up on the video ref.

But in the NFL, by the time a review goes to the video a decision has already been made by the on field officials. That decision becomes the default position before a frame of video has been looked at. The standard of proof is then that the existing decision can only be over turned if there is "indisputable video evidence". If it's line ball, too close to call, or could be argued either way then by by definition it isn't indisputable. Existing decision stands.

One system puts the video referee at the heart of any controversy, the other mandates that he only has to deal with the obvious mistakes made by the on field officials.

Leigh.

 

[The Engineers Room]

Good point Leigh.

I just feel that more than one set of eyes may make a difference.

 

[Dogs Of War]

I reviewed last nights game using the criteria below.

HOW THE NRL’S PROPOSED CAPTAIN’S CHALLENGE SYSTEM WILL WORK
* Each team will be permitted one incorrect challenge per half
* Areas of challenge are likely to be limited to:
- A loss of possession (knock-on or strip) that leads to a structured restart (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 offside and restart infringements).

In this I found excluding all events that were referred to the video ref already (and we can assume they were challenged automatically).

12 min Pritchard was stripped of the ball in a 3 man tackle and it was ruled knock on. I would have challenged this given the field position and how the Dogs were playing at this point in the game.
29th min Jackson going for a try. The ball was knocked out and backwards by the Tigers. It was ruled knock on. Once again I would have challenged this.

Another note that if the rule was in effect, and lets say the Tigers challenged the two video ref decisions (which the ref called both times held up straight away), they would not have been able to challenge this play. It would have been interesting to see how the ref called this play if he had to make a decision their and then. I think this may have ended differently.

Would love to see similar analysis of other games over this weekend and the coming weeks. It would give a good insight into how such a system would affect the game. Though I wish I did note all the Video ref stoppages, and a commentary if you would have challenged that play or not given you only get one unsuccessful one, and then it's impact on possible challenges after that, and how you think the ref would have called the play knowing the team had no more challenges.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

I reviewed last nights game using the criteria below.

HOW THE NRL?S PROPOSED CAPTAIN?S CHALLENGE SYSTEM WILL WORK
* Each team will be permitted one incorrect challenge per half
* Areas of challenge are likely to be limited to:
- A loss of possession (knock-on or strip) that leads to a structured restart (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 offside and restart infringements).

In this I found excluding all events that were referred to the video ref already (and we can assume they were challenged automatically).

12 min Pritchard was stripped of the ball in a 3 man tackle and it was ruled knock on. I would have challenged this given the field position and how the Dogs were playing at this point in the game.
29th min Jackson going for a try. The ball was knocked out and backwards by the Tigers. It was ruled knock on. Once again I would have challenged this.

Another note that if the rule was in effect, and lets say the Tigers challenged the two video ref decisions (which the ref called both times held up straight away), they would not have been able to challenge this play. It would have been interesting to see how the ref called this play if he had to make a decision their and then. I think this may have ended differently.

Would love to see similar analysis of other games over this weekend and the coming weeks. It would give a good insight into how such a system would affect the game. Though I wish I did note all the Video ref stoppages, and a commentary if you would have challenged that play or not given you only get one unsuccessful one, and then it's impact on possible challenges after that, and how you think the ref would have called the play knowing the team had no more challenges.

This part should be dropped. The video ref shouldn't get involved at all until the Captain has challenged, otherwise you will have on-field referees going to the video ref for mundane calls that are blatantly obvious. The on-field refs should have a responsibility to be in a position to make a decision themselves, and if the captains don't like it, they can challenge.

 

[simmo1]

No point in captain's challenges when the video ref still gets it wrong.

 

[boonboon]

The problems with captains challenge as many have mentioned is that the video refs are already making most of the mistakes this would just give the video ref more chances to get it wrong

 

[Frances the Mute]

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.

Exactly refs have a split second to make a decision not 14 looks like the video ref.

On field ref performances are fine and Harrogans a merkin for keeping on dropping his ref's over a single error and slamming them, he should be supporting them and correcting their flaws internally, not being a big noting f**k every monday morning going for attn.

However video ref's who f**k up should punted ASAP as they have no excuse.

And instead of tinkering with rules every 5 mins lets just make it every 5 years they get a review. Would make for much more consistancy IMO.

 

[Frances the Mute]

So, theoretically a team could have 10 challenges a half if they're all correct?

I do like the one incorrect challenge per half, but not limiting the total number of challenges is ridiculous. It could add half an hour to some games

LOL I just had visions of Brian Smith using all his interchanges in 20 mins would be pretty f'n funny!

 

[nrlnrl]

harder to digest than a week old steak

http://www.nrl.com/captains-challenge-trial-in-toyota-cup/tabid/10874/newsid/69635/default.aspx


Tomorrow’s Toyota Cup match between the Titans and the Sea Eagles at Skilled Park will make history as the first NRL-sanctioned game to officially trial an on-field ‘Captain’s Challenge’.

Fox Sports will telecast the Toyota Cup match live from 3.00pm with kick-off at 3.15pm.

The system is being trialled after consultation with the NRL Competition Committee that includes ARLC General Manager of Football Operations Nathan McGuirk, ARL Commissioner Wayne Pearce, NRL coaches Brian Smith and Ivan Cleary, former coaches Daniel Anderson and John Lang, and former Broncos Test captain Darren Lockyer. NRL Referees Coaches Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper also attended.

The trial is an exploratory exercise only at this stage and is not a precursor to the system being adopted next year.

“It is something that has been used overseas and which has been discussed as an option in our game for many years,” Mr McGuirk said.

“The idea of the trial is to test how such a system could work in our game and identify any future options.

“Referees coach Stuart Raper and a sub-committee including current referees has developed the model with a view to ensuring there is minimal impact on the speed and flow of the game.

“It is important to try new ideas and I think that this is a real opportunity to trial something that has been debated around Rugby League for a number of years.”

The Captain’s Challenge system will restrict the on-field captain to no more than one ‘unsuccessful’ challenge in each half.

Only the captain may make the challenge but each team will nominate an alternate ‘captain’ in case of interchange or injury.

There will be a restriction on those matters that can be challenged and there can be no challenge of a video-refereeing decision.

Decisions that can be subject to a ‘Challenge’ are:

• A Mandatory Penalty;*

• A loss of possession (knock-on, strip) where play is to recommence with a Structured Start;**

• Charge downs where play is to recommence with a Structured Start;

• Which team last played at the ball prior to the ball going into touch or touch in-goal;

• Any decision involving try-scoring situations made by on-field officials which has not previously been referred to the video referee up until the point of the conversion after awarding of the try or the restart of play.

*Mandatory Penalties include:

• Offside: only in relation to Section 14 Offside of The Australian Rugby League Laws of the Game and Notes on the Laws.

• Restart infringements

**Structured start is defined as any scrum, penalty, handover, 20m optional kick, goal line drop out.

Decisions that cannot be challenged include:

• Forward Pass;

• Discretionary penalties (marker, scrums, 10 metre, forward pass, time wasting, play the ball offences (flops, leg pulls, no movement).

Please note these decisions are not an exhaustive list.

In the circumstances of a challenge:

• Each team is to formally nominate two players who can ‘challenge’ a decision and they are to be listed on the team sheet prior to the match;

• The nominated player from the challenging team will indicate to the referee that they intend to challenge the referee’s decision;

• Upon this notification the referee will immediately stop play, signal time out and refer the decision to the video referee;

• If in the determination of the video referee the challenge is successful the match recommences with the referee reversing his original decision and recommencing the match as determined by the video referee;

• The challenging team retains the right to challenge again;

• In the case of an unsuccessful challenge the match will recommence in accordance with the original decision determined in the first instance by the on field officials;

• The challenging team loses it right to further challenge in that half of the match;

• The challenge must be formally made by the nominated player prior to the match being restarted in accordance with the original decision;

• The assessment of a challenged decision that is referred to the video referee must be determined where in their opinion the video evidence is conclusive to reverse the original decision of the referee;

• In the event of the video evidence being inconclusive, the video referee is to direct that the match is to recommence as originally determined by the on field officials;

• If a challenge is successful and there is no formal restart, the game will recommence with a scrum with the loose and feed being given to the side that successfully challenged the original decision;

• If a challenge is unsuccessful and there is no formal restart, the game will recommence with a scrum with the loose and feed being given to the non-challenging side;

• Each team will receive one unsuccessful challenge per half.

The match referee may, at his discretion, call on the Video Referee to rule on the following circumstances:

• Incidents in the final play leading to the scoring of points (i.e. from the previous play the ball);

• Foul play as per the current policy;

• Clarification of 40/20 decisions.

These decisions determined by the Video Referee cannot be challenged by a team.

 

[clarency]

This is not "ensuring there is minimal impact on the speed and flow of the game".

They need to can video ref and use the challenge system in it's place. The game would progress much faster.

Either way I probably won't be watching.

See how it goes.

 

[Tom Shines]

The fact that there is a 25 paragraph explanation of the proposed captain's challenge is evidence enough for me that it's going to be an epic fail.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

If they f**k off the video ref, bring back the in goal ref and introduce this, it would be an improvement on the shit that is currently happening.

The video ref is a blight on the game IMO.

 

[Didgi]

I've been arguing for this sort of thing, but this sounds shit.