Captain's challenge system

[Parra]

You only need to review the penalties that are applied now. If there is a stoppage mid-set then there is a stoppage now anyway.

 

[Canard]

You only need to review the penalties that are applied now. If there is a stoppage mid-set then there is a stoppage now anyway.

There isn't a stoppage of minutes however.

There is the referee blowing his whistle and a kick for touch.

Your having a lend of yourself if you think this wouldn't be a major change to the flow of the game as it stands now.

NO-ONE would be in favour of a change that added 20 to 30 mins to a game of football.

 

[Parra]

There isn't a stoppage of minutes however.

There is the referee blowing his whistle and a kick for touch.

Your having a lend of yourself if you think this wouldn't be a major change to the flow of the game as it stands now.

NO-ONE would be in favour of a change that added 20 to 30 mins to a game of football.

You only review on a challenge. Not every decision.

3 challenges each. Would hardly notice it with all the unnecessary BS nowadays and the complete crap decisions could be corrected.

 

[aads]

It will just delay the game with challenges for teams wanting a breather - not what we want in the game

but the "Six again" as seen in the indigenous game (instead of a penalty) is a great idea!

ads

 

[Mr Spock!]

Agree. We already have a review system and two referees. I agree with Quidgey - enough is enough. What haened to the sporting ethic of accepting the refs call? FFS the Cows were dudded, sure, but they way they carried on like babies who lost their dummy surely is not deserved of more power.

This years VR system - with the Ref's judgement and the ex player assisting worked fine.


I agree. Its slowly moving from sport to legal.


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.

:thumb

 

[clarency]

Challenging referee calls is a fairly successful concept in a lot of sports but I am sceptical of giving the responsibility to the Captain.

Captains will get fatigue, they can be standing in the wrong spot, they might be subbed, they might be injured, etc etc etc. There are a number of situations where the Captain is not in the best view to actually challenge.

Challenging calls should go to the coach.

Regardless, I think that the majority of complaining about referee mistakes comes mostly from the coverage it gets. Commentary going on and on about how it ruins the game, excessive replays, post match press conferences, news reports "the refs f*cked up" agaaaaain and agaaaaain and agaaaain.

I watched the Soceroos vs Iraq to qualify for the World Cup and there were some missed penalties and other mistakes that we all had the sh*ts over. The response? Nothing. They didn't show replays, they didn't fuss about it in commentary. They kept quiet. Just don't show the errors on replay 5 times a game and watch how public perception will change.

Some people may not like that philosphy ie- ignoring the problem, but frankly it works.

 

[Loudstrat]

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

If it's something that causes you grief if you lose - yes. Throw $5 on pick the margins, sure. Throw an amount that leaves your prosperity at the mercy of a f*cking referee - yeah that's classic f*ckwittery.

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?

Saving some cash for a good cause dopey. Look if you are to stupid to invest, or give to charity, dont come on an internet forum and expect any sympathy. As for dickheads who threaten to dump the game because they gamble to heavily on it - we can do well without that brainless dumb shit f*cktard element.

Maybe you should try AFL.

 

[bobmar28]

There isn't a stoppage of minutes however.

There is the referee blowing his whistle and a kick for touch.

Your having a lend of yourself if you think this wouldn't be a major change to the flow of the game as it stands now.

NO-ONE would be in favour of a change that added 20 to 30 mins to a game of football.

What's the hurry.

 

[Frustrated Fan]

This years VR system - with the Ref's judgement and the ex player assisting worked fine.

You are fair dinkum deluded if thats what you think. It was a complete debarcle.
When the blokes on the field didn’t know what happened, they were obligated to have a guess. Then the bloke in the box had to find sufficient evidence to over-rule that guess. The big problem for me was the interpretation of sufficient evidence. It varied greatly and was sometimes completely wrong. We don’t know what effect the ex player had do we? In principle it sounded like a good idea. You would think the added dialogue for the video ref would help him to get the decisions correct.

 

[Frustrated Fan]

NO-ONE would be in favour of a change that added 20 to 30 mins to a game of football.

During the last television rights negotiations, it came to light that AFL was worth more to the broadcasters due to the fact that thier game provides more room for advertising. Some kind of challenge system would help the game in that regard. It could also replace the frivolous use of the video referee in the current format. Like I said in another thread. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the on field referees are frivolously going to the video ref solely for the purpose of creating exposure for their sponsor.

 

[Canard]

During the last television rights negotiations, it came to light that AFL was worth more to the broadcasters due to the fact that thier game provides more room for advertising. Some kind of challenge system would help the game in that regard. It could also replace the frivolous use of the video referee in the current format. Like I said in another thread. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the on field referees are frivolously going to the video ref solely for the purpose of creating exposure for their sponsor.

That was proven to be a complete myth, invented on LU by an AFL troll.

Borne out by the fact we got the same amount of money for less games per week.

I remember claims that the networks were going to insist on 4 quarters etc which was proven to be bullshit.

As for the last claim, get your hands off it.

 

[Crippler]

Havent seen how it works in under20s

there has to be a break in play? They have till end of set to challenge? has to be done straight away?

 

[Charlie124]

Captain can stop play at any point and challenge the opposing captain to a bubbler-off.

 

[Pedro Morales Magonzales]

Havent seen how it works in under20s

there has to be a break in play? They have till end of set to challenge? has to be done straight away?

[youtube]5ReZWhEiJOc[/youtube]

 

[pHyR3]

[youtube]5ReZWhEiJOc[/youtube]

wow these guys sound like they actually know what theyre talking about.

big contrast from listening to ray hadley and rabs argue over pronunciations for 5minutes...

 

[El Diablo]

interesting that Yawnion is going to use it http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...on-review-system/story-e6frg7o6-1227053152871

Rugby to copy cricket with TV decision review system

The Australian
September 10, 2014 12:00AM

Wayne Smith
Rugby Union Editor
Brisbane

SANZAR is planning to introduce a cricket-style decision review system into Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship in 2016.

Like the rest of the rugby world, SANZAR is locked into the refereeing protocols that will carry through to next year’s World Cup in England. Once that tournament has been played it will be looking to bring in a review system which will help to reduce the number of refereeing howlers that are deciding the outcomes of games, Test matches included.

Irish referee George Clancy’s bewildering decision to give Springboks winger Bryan Habana a yellow card for a high tackle in the 66th minute of Saturday’s Test in Perth has come under fire on both sides of the Indian Ocean and has been seen as contributing to Australia’s dramatic come-from-*behind victory.

That said, Clancy was also the referee in charge at Twickenham last year who failed to overrule the diabolical decision by the touch judge to rule that Quade Cooper’s penalty kick into the corner just after half-time did not go into touch, even though replays clearly showed the England player who caught the ball put his foot on the sideline.

Instead of the Wallabies throwing into an attacking lineout 5m from the tryline, England counter-attacked and scored at the other end. In the context of a 13-20 defeat, it was a pivotal non-decision.

Argentina also were treated cruelly by French referee Pascal Gauzere in their Rugby Championship match against the All Blacks on Saturday when he wrongly disallowed a try to Leonardo Senatore after the Argentinian lock charged down a Ma’a Nonu kick, regathered and scored.

It’s precisely those sorts of bloopers that SANZAR is hoping to take out of the game in 2016 when it introduces a system that will allow each team to challenge decisions they believe the referee has got wrong.

The details are still being worked through but the starting point is that, as in cricket, each team will be allowed a minimum of three challenges but not lose a referral whenever they make a successful review.

Sources have told The Australian that SANZAR still is undecided whether to allow the captain or the coach to make the referral. The preference is for the captain to handle that responsibility but rugby is a different game entirely from cricket where the fielding captain has a clear view of any *incident that might give rise to a challenge.

In rugby, however, the captain of the side on the wrong end of a decision might have had his head buried in a ruck 30m downfield.

But the problem with allowing coaches to make the call is that *invariably they — or their technical assistants — will have instant access to their own replays and in a matter of seconds would be able to review any contentious incident and make a snap assessment of whether a challenge might be *successful.

Under the new DRS system, referees would be required to make a ruling on every try or suspected foul-play incident at which point any side which felt harshly done by would have to decide whether to roll the dice and place one of their referrals at risk.

The concern at present is that referees are hiding behind the television match official, and are referring to him even straightforward calls for fear of being seen to make a mistake.

Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie cautiously welcomed the news of the SANZAR initiative.

“The only thing I’m mindful of is how much dead time there is in a game,” McKenzie said.

“If you challenge the call and get it right you can challenge again and theoretically you could have 20 challenges.

“People want to be entertained, they want to be kept entertained, they don’t want to be sitting there watching replays. I don’t know the solution but it is interesting they at least are having the conversation.”

 

[gUt]

They definitely need more stoppages in that game

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sp...cal-gamesmanship/story-e6frf56c-1227291296641

NRL bosses remain unconvinced about introducing the captain’s challenge with coaches using it for cynical gamesmanship

Paul Malone
The Sunday Mail (Qld)
April 05, 2015 12:00AM

NRL bosses are unconvinced by the captain’s challenge because three seasons of trialling in the under-20s have shown coaches are using it for cynical gamesmanship.

The challenge system may be considered alongside the possible introduction of a centralised video review “bunker’’ initiative, but NRL powerbrokers are unhappy the system is being manipulated.

Captains are demanding reviews on sometimes trivial matters aimed solely at giving defenders a breather when hard-pressed by the attacking opponents.

Broncos captain Justin Hodges last week called for the immediate adoption of the captain’s challenge system, which takes its prompts from an American football system, after two serious refereeing errors in the third round.

Since 2012, captains in the Holden Cup under-20 competition have been able to ask for a video referee review of incidents, with teams allowed one incorrect challenge each half.

Hodges said the system’s results in the Holden Cup proved to him that it would benefit first-grade games by getting more decisions correct.

While captain’s challenges would seem most useful in resolving decisions regarding tries, the challenges have also been used to review 50-50 calls, such as strips.

These can take a lot of separate looks to reach a conclusion about which player is at fault, creating a delay which many spectators of first-grade games would find deeply annoying, judging by gripes over the length of time first-grade video referees can take to make decision on referred tries.

Incidents such as stripping tend to polarise opinion anyway, so the use of the captain’s call would not necessarily reduce the number of complaints about NRL refereeing decisions.

In the most recent round, video referees twice opted against reversing tries awarded to the Broncos by referee Matt Cecchin in the game in Auckland when the video evidence was found to be inconclusive.

From the previous round, NRL referees boss Tony Archer admitted that a Knights try in a two-point win over Gold Coast should not have been awarded due to a knock-on which referee Adam Devcich referred to video referees Gavin Badger and Brett Galea.

Penrith had complaints about a no-try ruling against them in an eight-point loss to the Roosters from the same round.

One way to implement a captain’s challenge could be make the reviews only available on try-related decisions.

The NRL is keen to keep trialling it in the under-20s because senior executives see merit in it, although questions remain about which camera angles would be needed to bring about a more successful set of guidelines.

The NRL’s use of a video review bunker, away from all stadiums, would minimise the home-ground influence factor and also require fewer staff to review decisions at matches, arguably resulting in fewer decisions.

The “bunker’’ has been pioneered in North America by ice hockey and also is used by the NFL.

The NRL last year changed some protocols which encouraged on-field referees to make decisions, including a ruling on referred tried which would only be overturned by video referees when there is clear evidence that the original decision was wrong.

The choice by Devcich in the recent Knights-Titans game to refer a knock-on by Knights prop Corbin Sims to video referees is one which referees had ruled on for decades.