Captains Challenge will be trialled in Newcastle v Illawarra plodfest this weekend

[davi]

Sounds good in theory, but they'll find a way to f**k it up.

I can just see it now. A captain's challenge is made on a 50/50 call, video ref sticks with referees decision because of inconclusive evidence and team loses their ability to challenge. Refs then make a f**k up on another try and it can't be challenged despite the fact everyone knows it was a bad call.

Exactly. It's puts it on the responsibility of the players to use the challenge wisely. Rather then to use a challenge out of sour grapes in the hopes of stopping a try.

You see it with Batsman in cricket upset about getting out using up their teams challenge to challenge something that was clearly was the correct decision.

 

[T-Boon]

Has disaster written all over it.

it has typical league fan and commentator whinging written all over it.

 

[thorson1987]

Exactly. It's puts it on the responsibility of the players to use the challenge wisely. Rather then to use a challenge out of sour grapes in the hopes of stopping a try.

You see it with Batsman in cricket upset about getting out using up their teams challenge to challenge something that was clearly was the correct decision.

Otherwise known as doing a "Watson"

 

[Canard]

Is there really that many instances where a video review is not undertaken, when people think it should have been? For mine, no. If anything its the other way.

To me this won't solve anything at all, as it still relies on the Bunker making a subjective decision.

 

[Lambretta]

Yeah there is no doubt that will happen but the captain should also be held accountable for making an incorrect challenge in the first place. Captains really need to be careful with what they challenge otherwise they will be known as the Shane Watson of NRL.

The downside of this is when a Captain challenges something which should be challenged and somehow they award the try incorrectly and you can't challenge anything else

Still, any chance to reduce the number of times video refs over rule on field decisions for innocuous rubbish the better

But I do question the logic of trialling it in a game where both sides struggle to score

 

[T-Boon]

TV commentators just don't have enough good material to get through an 80 minute coverage. They rely on whinging about refereeing decisions to fill at least 10 minutes of air time.
To me this is another indication that the gameplay is too conservative, predictable and boring. Back in the 80s you would often suddenly see a chip kick from within the 20, a barnstorming run, or a scrum won against the feed or a shoulder charge, or a fight or some other slightly random thing.
There are only so many things that commentators can say throughout a '5 and kick' set and there are just too many of those.
The real reason people are whipped into a frenzy about refereeing decisions has its roots in the current boring arse style of play.

 

[Canard]

TV commentators just don't have enough good material to get through an 80 minute coverage. They rely on whinging about refereeing decisions to fill at least 10 minutes of air time.
To me this is another indication that the gameplay is too conservative, predictable and boring. Back in the 80s you would often suddenly see a chip kick from within the 20, a barnstorming run, or a scrum won against the feed or a shoulder charge, or a fight or some other slightly random thing.

Sometimes I think that because only around an 2 games per round were even televised, people have strange recollections of the 80s.

The Doggies and Parra for example were very dour sides in the early 80s and focused heavily on defence to win games.

 

[T-Boon]

Sometimes I think that because only around an 2 games per round were even televised, people have strange recollections of the 80s.

The Doggies and Parra for example were very dour sides in the early 80s and focused heavily on defence to win games.

There was a shite load more going on, remember striking in the play the ball for example.
I mean the game looks a little cleaner these days I suppose. There are certainly a lot less errors. But for me that makes it more boring and more difficult to find things to talk about so lets dwell on that "bad" decision while this set which is going to be exactly like the last one plays out.

 

[Canard]

There was a shite load more going on, remember striking in the play the ball for example.

Each to their own in regards to this, it's purely subjective.

I wonder thoigh if there really was when watching a 80 min game though? Or watching delayed highlights made it feel that way.

Watching the delayed highlights of NFL or the NBA in the 80s made them both seem fast paced and action packed.

Watching live they seem like Test Cricket now.

 

[T-Boon]

Each to their own in regards to this, it's purely subjective.

I wonder thoigh if there really was when watching a 80 min game though? Or watching delayed highlights made it feel that way.

Watching the delayed highlights of NFL or the NBA in the 80s made them both seem fast paced and action packed.

Watching live they seem like Test Cricket now.

Its not really subjective to say there was more going on back then. It would be to say that it was therefore better (which I am saying so that is subjective). If we made a list of the possibilities in a set in the 80s and compared it to '16 it wouldn't be close.

 

[davi]

But I do question the logic of trialling it in a game where both sides struggle to score

Darryl Brohman asked the question on the Footy Show the other night why the NRL were not doing the Captain Challenge trial for the Warriors vs Eels game as well.

 

[Canard]

Its not really subjective to say there was more going on back then. It would be to say that it was therefore better (which I am saying so that is subjective). If we made a list of the possibilities in a set in the 80s and compared it to '16 it wouldn't be close.

It's an interesting topic TBH. Does potential for things to happen mean more excitement factor?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

TV commentators just don't have enough good material to get through an 80 minute coverage. They rely on whinging about refereeing decisions to fill at least 10 minutes of air time.
To me this is another indication that the gameplay is too conservative, predictable and boring. Back in the 80s you would often suddenly see a chip kick from within the 20, a barnstorming run, or a scrum won against the feed or a shoulder charge, or a fight or some other slightly random thing.
There are only so many things that commentators can say throughout a '5 and kick' set and there are just too many of those.
The real reason people are whipped into a frenzy about refereeing decisions has its roots in the current boring arse style of play.

So the game is boring, therefore we need more stoppages and time off as we wait for the video referee to rule on more decisions than they already do?

 

[Perth Red]

41% of try decisions went to video ref this season, be interesting to see for a season if this reduced that and how many howlers it sets up and how rabid the likes of Gould and Alexander get at them.

 

[davi]

Peter Sterling said on the telecast tonight that the NRL was going to trial Captains Challenge in the Warriors vs Eels game, but the clubs didn't want it involved in the game.

 

[Pedge1971]

Definitely good idea trialling it in this game since there will be no negative comments about any mistakes made seeing no one will be watching.

Not to mention this game could end up nil all and not because of good defence....

 

[Pedge1971]

What the f**k is a 'try'?

Ha ha. Dragons and us Knights don't do that try stuff mate.

 

[T-Boon]

So the game is boring, therefore we need more stoppages and time off as we wait for the video referee to rule on more decisions than they already do?

No, I am for the captains challenge. The stoppages don't really worry me its more about trying to get people to stop complaining about refereeing decisions to me.

 

[T-Boon]

It's an interesting topic TBH. Does potential for things to happen mean more excitement factor?

I think most people would agree that it does. There was more play making and a lot less complaining about refereeing.

 

[AJB1102]

Do on field refs know how to call obstruction on the run? I honestly cannot remember the last time an obstruction that led to a try was called on field - they know it is, but they always go to The Bunker. They're not gonna have that luxury with this. I'm not sure if thats a good or bad thing. They'll either miss shitloads which would be bad, or call anything with a hint of obstruction with might not be so bad.

I think its good in theory and love that it makes refs make a call and the use of The Bunker is decreased but I also see it causing a shit storm or two. Imagine a night where a ref got made a fool of 3 times in the 1st half .. and then has a controversial one go in the refs favour early in the 2nd.