Captain's challenge system

[Loudstrat]

Agree DKOR. Give your gambling money to charity you lousy merkin.

 

[Danish]

Watched a replay of the 1996 grand final this morning. After completing a short kick off a couple minutes from half time, Ridge dives on the ball and is wrapped up by Brown, but then when he rises to his feet just takes off running and the ref allows it.

Manly score the next tackle and break St George's back, going in 12 points up when it should have been 6, or even potentially less given Dragons should have had a penalty on the 40m line for Ridge playing on.

Now I was only a kid at the time so can't really recall it properly, but I certainly don't remember everyone from the Dragons carrying on like absolute f**kwits after that game, claiming an ARL conspiracy was clearly working against them and accusing the refs of cheating.

The fact that our captains and clubs today are so often whinging children (Lyon, Gallen, Ennis, f**king THURSTON) shouldn't force people to change the rules to suit their tantrums

 

[adamkungl]

So this doesn't replace the video ref calls?

 

[Stagger Lee]

What is important is getting the decision right. If a captains challenge helps to do that I'm all for it.

BUT IT WONT - more than enough evidence to show that more stoppages and more controversy will be the result

Better training for refs and linesmen would help though

 

[Quidgybo]

The fact that our captains and clubs today are so often whinging children (Lyon, Gallen, Ennis, f**king THURSTON) shouldn't force people to change the rules to suit their tantrums

I agree that some of the players don't help. I actually think that under the guise of questioning why a decision was made we let players get away with disputing decisions and implying the ref is not being even handed - ie. cheating. That needs to be cracked down on - ask the question, hear the answer, get on with the game. If you want to have a debate, take it up with Anderson mid week, not in the middle of the field while a million viewers and spectators are kept waiting.

But unfortunately it's not just the whinging players. It's the world that has moved on. Better technology - high def, super slow mo, more cameras. Multichannels and the 24 hours news cycle - allowing endless opportunity to replay, debate and dissect decisions. Social media and the celebrity expert with their collective megaphones. The game shouldn't change its rules just to suit player tantrums but the rules still do need to evolve to cope with a changing world.

Leigh.

 

[eozsmiles]

First thing that will happen is that they will all realise that this does nothing in the case of a 50/50 call, and they will make up the majority of decisions reviewed.

And the 90 second rule....did I read that somewhere? How do they make sure the coaches etc aren't watching tv and get to see the replay? First thing that happens on a close decision is channel 9 or fox replay it. Can't have everyone watch 2-3 replays before deciding to appeal.

 

[Quidgybo]

First thing that will happen is that they will all realise that this does nothing in the case of a 50/50 call, and they will make up the majority of decisions reviewed.

Given there's already a decision that's been made on the field, they don't need to make up anything. If it's 50/50 then the existing decision should stand, exactly as it would in the absence of the video ref or challenge. The video should be there to catch the obvious mistakes and the howlers, not to decide the lineball decisions. That's been the big advance with the video ref this season. The only time the video refs have got themselves into trouble is when they've not adhered to that principle (the hand in touch controversy excepted) and instead tried to divine a decision from inconclusive evidence like in the old system. They just don't need to make those calls anymore.

Leigh.

 

[Parra]

We don't have 50 stoppages every quarter however, to make this a practical solution.

Its like years ago when the Yanks were inventing there sports they realised they would need stoppages for ad breaks and designed the games as such.

What I am suggesting results in less stoppages.

Now we have a ref see an infringement and he blows a whistle to stop the play.

I am suggesting that instead, the ref throws a flag and the play continues. The penalty is then either applied or declined depending on the result of the play.

Now it is just an instant stop.

 

[Canard]

What I am suggesting results in less stoppages.

Now we have a ref see an infringement and he blows a whistle to stop the play.

I am suggesting that instead, the ref throws a flag and the play continues. The penalty is then either applied or declined depending on the result of the play.

Now it is just an instant stop.

That's far to a fundamental change to the way the game works.

I understand your love of American Football, and I like it also, but that would be adopting American football wholly.

The whole "flags down" works because of the stoppages in American football. When would you propose that a flag be reviewed? There has to be natural stoppage to make this work.

And unlike NFL, referees have to run, often sprint to keep up with the play, can you imagine having to do this and reach from your pocket a flag and throw it. (Its a lot easier when you are just standing there like in the NFL)

 

[lockyno1]

Thank goodness, should have been in years ago. I would limit it to non-try scoring plays though. We have the VR for tries anyway. Should be 2 incorrect challenges per half though, and challenges re-set in Golden Point

 

[Frustrated Fan]

So we alienate idiots who gamble. Win win. f*ck off to some other sport that is corrupt due to the influence of gambling then.

Yeah right and the clubs should stop accepting sponsorship money from the betting agencies who are advertising to attract the punters. Us punters can all go and help other sports benefit from a rapidly growing sports betting industry, while rugby league sticks its head in the sand wishing their game was still like it was 20 years ago.

 

[Frustrated Fan]

I have no sympathy for the punter. Refereeing is just another variable that you should take into account before placing a bet with your hard earned. This has been the case since sports and gambling came together. The only difference now is that the ability to further scrutinise decisions has made it easier to highlight the bad ones. Just because we couldn't identify them 15 years ago, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Player skill has improved remarkably. Refereeing hasn?t. Technology is providing the ability to scrutinize, which could work in favor of helping the referees get it right and improve the game.
15 years ago the sports betting industry was in its infancy and hardly anyone punted on rugby league. These days millions of dollars are wagered on the game by way of computers and hand held devices. Many people have vested interest in the results of every game. I represent the honest punter attracted/encouraged by sponsors to place a bet when I say there needs to be more integrity in the refereeing. If the NRL can not provide integrity, stop accepting the sponsorship dollar from the betting agencies. This game needs to move with the times.

 

[Dogs Of War]

That's far to a fundamental change to the way the game works.

I understand your love of American Football, and I like it also, but that would be adopting American football wholly.

The whole "flags down" works because of the stoppages in American football. When would you propose that a flag be reviewed? There has to be natural stoppage to make this work.

And unlike NFL, referees have to run, often sprint to keep up with the play, can you imagine having to do this and reach from your pocket a flag and throw it. (Its a lot easier when you are just standing there like in the NFL)

Its more like the advantage rule in Union. Just how do you apply the advantage properly? Is it 10 metre gain sufficient to nullify the penalty? 2-3 tackles? Really opening up a can of worms.

I think the refs do a good job with advantage as it currently stands.

 

[Quidgybo]

What I am suggesting results in less stoppages.

Now we have a ref see an infringement and he blows a whistle to stop the play.

I am suggesting that instead, the ref throws a flag and the play continues. The penalty is then either applied or declined depending on the result of the play.

Now it is just an instant stop.

Well no it doesn't, we already have an advantage rule which is pretty much the same thing. If the result of the play is more advantageous to the attack than stopping for a scrum or penalty, then the ref effectively declines the stoppage on behalf of the team. If less advantageous he goes back. By the ref making the decision on the run, there's no need for a stoppage just to ask the team if the penalty is accepted or declined.

The reason throwing physical flags wouldn't work in Rugby League is that play has to stop at some point to decide whether the penalty is accepted or declined and go back and actually pick the flag up. If play goes on for two or three sets of six after the flag is thrown, can the flag still be accepted and what does the ref throw after he's run out of flags? Unlike NFL officials, he's not wearing a hat!

American Football has a mandatory stoppage after every play, Rugby League plays on. Fundamental difference.

Leigh.

 

[Loudstrat]

Yeah right and the clubs should stop accepting sponsorship money from the betting agencies who are advertising to attract the punters. Us punters can all go and help other sports benefit from a rapidly growing sports betting industry, while rugby league sticks its head in the sand wishing their game was still like it was 20 years ago.

F*ck off you dopey merkin. You dont gamble to help save Rugby League from oblivion. You gamble because you are a f*ckwit.

If your soul concern is your hip pocket - not fairness, integrity of the game etc, then you aint a RL fan. Simple.

I would be happy if all gambling associated with the game was banned. For one thing, any allegations of match fixing would be gone.

 

[Meth]

This year, there's been a concerted effort to place more of the responsibility in the hands of the onfield referees. The decisions that they've made have informed the video referee, rather than vice versa. In theory, this is perhaps the way that it should be. In practice though, the refereeing has been as bad this season (overall) as I can remember. These blokes make Manson, Hartley, Ward, McCullum and even Harrigan look fantastic.

We have two referees, touch judges, video referees with a seemingly expanding job description- perhaps this is a case of 'too many cooks in the kitchen'. It's all so clumsy. I know this won't happen, and I know it's been said before, but perhaps we'd be better to scrap the video ref all together. There'll be clangers- but the video ref is not successfully ridding the game of clangers any way- and it's more embarrassing that these blokes just can't seem to get it right with all of the time and technology at their disposal.

 

[betcats]

F*ck off you dopey merkin. You dont gamble to help save Rugby League from oblivion. You gamble because you are a f*ckwit.

If your soul concern is your hip pocket - not fairness, integrity of the game etc, then you aint a RL fan. Simple.

I would be happy if all gambling associated with the game was banned. For one thing, any allegations of match fixing would be gone.

So all punters are f**kwits? lol nice one Loudy.

You know Parra just signed an upgraded sponsorship deal with a betting agency, if punters are f**kwits betting agencies must be the devil, which makes Parra what?

 

[Feej]

if punters are f**kwits betting agencies must be the devil, which makes Parra what?

[youtube]29khjYTOLC8[/youtube]

 

[Parra]

Well no it doesn't, we already have an advantage rule which is pretty much the same thing. If the result of the play is more advantageous to the attack than stopping for a scrum or penalty, then the ref effectively declines the stoppage on behalf of the team. If less advantageous he goes back. By the ref making the decision on the run, there's no need for a stoppage just to ask the team if the penalty is accepted or declined.

The reason throwing physical flags wouldn't work in Rugby League is that play has to stop at some point to decide whether the penalty is accepted or declined and go back and actually pick the flag up. If play goes on for two or three sets of six after the flag is thrown, can the flag still be accepted and what does the ref throw after he's run out of flags? Unlike NFL officials, he's not wearing a hat!

American Football has a mandatory stoppage after every play, Rugby League plays on. Fundamental difference.

Leigh.

League stops at every play. How many times do we hear 'surrender' or see any attempt at a quick tap/play-on to be called back for a formal stop/start. The play-forward was removed from the game years ago. I agree that the advantage rule is even better than a flag being thrown. The advantage rule could be better applied. But this thread is about reviewing rulings. It is hard to review an advantage, but easy to review a penalty.

 

[Canard]

League stops at every play. How many times do we hear 'surrender' or see any attempt at a quick tap/play-on to be called back for a formal stop/start. The play-forward was removed from the game years ago. I agree that the advantage rule is even better than a flag being thrown. The advantage rule could be better applied. But this thread is about reviewing rulings. It is hard to review an advantage, but easy to review a penalty.

Not for the length of time the NFL does. Can you imagine having a stoppage "mid set"
to review decision.

Jesus, allow a forward pass call it the NFL and be done with it.