General Captain's challenge trial in Toyota Cup

[ToiletDuck]

CAPTAINS will be allowed unlimited challenges to refereeing decisions under an NFL-style system to be trialled before the end of the season – as long as those challenges are proved correct.
The on-field challenge system, which will be indicated by a captain, will be tried for the first time in an under-20s match between Manly and Gold Coast at Skilled Stadium after being approved at a meeting last night of the game’s Rules Advisory Committee.

Under the model, each team will be allowed one incorrect challenge per half but there will be no limit on how many times a captain can contest a ruling by the match officials if he continues to be proven right.
It is expected that the most likely use of the ‘‘challenge’’ system will be to contest rulings on whether the ball has been stripped or simply lost by the player in possession, and for tries not referred to the video referee.
The main areas that captains can challenge a referee’s decision are:

• a loss of possession from a strip or knock-on that leads to a scrum or penalty;
• a decision that led to the ball going into touch or touch-in goal;
• any decision involving a try, no-try or point scoring decisions made by on-field officials that were not previously referred to the video-referee; and,
• a mandatory penalty, such as a member of the team in possession being off side or restart infringements.

Decisions involving discretionary penalties such as forward passes, 10m penalties, scrums and play the ball offences will not be subject to challenge.
The model was devised by a sub-committee chaired by NRL referees boss Stuart Raper and including full-time match officials and referees coaching staff who tabled it at last night’s meeting.

The Rules Advisory 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, agreed to trial the challenge system in the Toyota Cup.
Similar ‘‘challenge’’ systems are in place in NFL, hockey and tennis.

The biggest concern was the effect that on-field challenges would have on the flow of the game.
‘‘The more you look at this the more it becomes important to limit the number of potential interruptions to the game,” Raper said. “The flow of the game is an essential part of rugby league and as much as we want to do everything we can to get the maximum number of decisions correct you have to avoid opening the game up to too many stoppages.

“There are always going to be arguments about actual decisions, particularly at this time of year. This is about looking at the ways that we can reduce those arguments without affecting the game.”

McGuirk said that while the committee believed it was worth experimenting with the concept to test how models may work, there was a strong belief that it would not be possible to implement such a significant change in time for next season’s NRL premiership.

“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,” he said.
“It is a long way from moving to anything further but it does give clubs and fans a chance to see how a system may work.”

Meanwhile, NRL clubs will discuss proposed funding models to secure their long-term survival at a historic meeting with the ARL Commission later this month. The financial viability of clubs dominated a meeting yesterday of representatives from all 16 sides at St George Leagues Club.

Read more at SMH


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be interested to see how it goes in the U20's, though I think we'll see something similar in the NRL long-term. I suppose the main one in that list of possible challenges would be the 'loss of possession from a strip or knock-on' - given how contentious that area.

 

[Numbnutsnz]

I can't see it working. I think more effort needs to be made in improving the referees. Being able to challenge something and send it up stairs to a TMO who time and time again has made the wrong decision this year isn't going to make the game better. If anything it will just slow it down.

Video refs already pipe up and correct an on field call if they see it's wrong and I don't even like that so this is a no from me.

 

[Miket12]

Interesting, hockey used that at the olympics this year except they limited to 1 incorrect challenge per match. Also if the umpire was unsure, they could refer an incident to the video ref without it effecting the team challenges.

 

[Numbnutsnz]

Interesting, hockey used that at the olympics this year except they limited to 1 incorrect challenge per match. Also if the umpire was unsure, they could refer an incident to the video ref without it effecting the team challenges.

This was quite a balls up in the end wasn't it?

The little hockey I watched all the seemed to talk about was the challenges.

 

[smc]

No from me.
As I see it, it can only serve to slow the game down further and add to the general disrespect shown to referees (deserved or not).

I'd like clarification on how a video referee is going to determine if a ball has been stripped or if it was a loose carry and knocked on. Are they just going to say you can carry the ball weakly and any tacklers hand goes near it (be it on purpose to prevent an off load or by accident in making the tackle)and you drop it, it has been forced out by the tackler? If you watch slow mo replays of when Manu drops the ball in a hit up there's often hands on the ball but interested to see if a video ref would be obliged to call them strips.

If the five officials that are already there can't make the right decisions (and often they can't) there is clearly a problem with the officials and introducing appealing their decisions seems to not be addressing where the problem actually lies.
My main problem is with touch judges - they've either blind or don't have the balls to tell a referee they have seen an infringement.

 

[Miket12]

This was quite a balls up in the end wasn't it?

The little hockey I watched all the seemed to talk about was the challenges.

The main difficulty was language problems because the team making the challenge had to make sure the umpire knew what they wanted to be reviewed then the umpire had to explain it correctly to the tv reviewer.

 

[Spence]

I don't know if it'd slow the play down. Play would have already stopped for the change over (assuming knock on, etc), so there wouldn't be much difference in time? Assuming the video ref is only allowed 2-3 looks at it. If unconclusive after that many views, refs decision stands.

I'm for it, although see how it goes in the U20's first.

 

[Numbnutsnz]

I don't know if it'd slow the play down. Play would have already stopped for the change over (assuming knock on, etc), so there wouldn't be much difference in time? Assuming the video ref is only allowed 2-3 looks at it. If unconclusive after that many views, refs decision stands.

I'm for it, although see how it goes in the U20's first.

How would it not slow down? It would take at least 2 minutes per decision I reckon, I imagine both teams would use the one each half they are given which is already about 8 extra minutes and that's only if they are incorrect every time. Chuck in one or two correct decision on top of the incorrect ones and we are looking at about 10-12 minutes a game of looking at video replays.

 

[Spence]

How would it not slow down? It would take at least 2 minutes per decision I reckon, I imagine both teams would use the one each half they are given which is already about 8 extra minutes and that's only if they are incorrect every time. Chuck in one or two correct decision on top of the incorrect ones and we are looking at about 10-12 minutes a game of looking at video replays.

Where do you get that figure from? I assume that the video ref will look at every debatable incident on the fly, and would take 3 replays max to determine the outcome - say 20 seconds for that. I would have thought by the time the captain calls for the review it would be almost instantaneous?

 

[wallacenz]

Where do you get that figure from? I assume that the video ref will look at every debatable incident on the fly, and would take 3 replays max to determine the outcome - say 20 seconds for that. I would have thought by the time the captain calls for the review it would be almost instantaneous?

If its anything like the video review for tries I doubt it.

 

[Numbnutsnz]

Where do you get that figure from? I assume that the video ref will look at every debatable incident on the fly, and would take 3 replays max to determine the outcome - say 20 seconds for that. I would have thought by the time the captain calls for the review it would be almost instantaneous?

Yea, I think that is a dream of all of us but is not the reality.

Captain to tell the ref what he wants checked, ref to relay this to video ref, video ref to look at it and make a call, video ref to tell the on field ref then the ref needs to make the call and I'd say more often than not explain it to the captain. I give it 1.5-2 minutes minimum.

 

[Spence]

Yea, I think that is a dream of all of us but is not the reality.

Captain to tell the ref what he wants checked, ref to relay this to video ref, video ref to look at it and make a call, video ref to tell the on field ref then the ref needs to make the call and I'd say more often than not explain it to the captain. I give it 1.5-2 minutes minimum.

I don't see why it has to be step-by-step like that? As soon as the captain starts walking over to the ref the man upstairs knows exactly what's going to happen - he shouldn't have to wait for the ref to ask.

But yes, I'm sure it would take longer than I guessed, unfortunately. However, I still don't think 90-120 seconds is accurate. All conjecture though, interested to see it work in the juniors. Hey, wait a second, is there even a video ref currently presiding over juniors games? Are they bringing one in just for this? If so, will they also rule on tries?

 

[Numbnutsnz]

I don't see why it has to be step-by-step like that? As soon as the captain starts walking over to the ref the man upstairs knows exactly what's going to happen - he shouldn't have to wait for the ref to ask.

But yes, I'm sure it would take longer than I guessed, unfortunately. However, I still don't think 90-120 seconds is accurate. All conjecture though, interested to see it work in the juniors. Hey, wait a second, is there even a video ref currently presiding over juniors games? Are they bringing one in just for this? If so, will they also rule on tries?

Yea, I guess we have to wait an see.

I don't think there is a video ref for the juniors.They must be bringing one in just for this. The kit is already there, just need someone in the chair a few hours earlier.

 

[fanrrior]

Without knowing how well it will do in real life I think waiting to see how it is adapted in the 20's is the best way to answer.

 

[smc]

Where do you get that figure from? I assume that the video ref will look at every debatable incident on the fly, and would take 3 replays max to determine the outcome - say 20 seconds for that. I would have thought by the time the captain calls for the review it would be almost instantaneous?

Probably the same place you got you 3 replays max from.
What percentage of tries are actually decided on 3 replays or less as it is now?

 

[mt.wellington]

Without knowing how well it will do in real life I think waiting to see how it is adapted in the 20's is the best way to answer.

I just hope they dont half ass it in the U20's. NFL has dozens of cameras directed on the ball. If they only use 2 cameras and then only have those 2 angles to work with then its going to be time consuming and more often than not, inconclusive, so in other words pointless! That would only kill what could be a promising concept before its even had a chance.

It will slow done play and lengthen game time but that to me simply means fresher players who will play harder when play does resume and more revenue for the NRL hopefully meaning we can retain our topline players that often follow the money in other codes or comps (Aussie Rules, Union, Super League...Karmicheal Hunt, Israel Folau, SBW, Finch, Pat Richards...).

I voted NO! Wish I could change...

 

[fanrrior]

I just hope they dont half ass it in the U20's. NFL has dozens of cameras directed on the ball. If they only use 2 cameras and then only have those 2 angles to work with then its going to be time consuming and more often than not, inconclusive, so in other words pointless! That would only kill what could be a promising concept before its even had a chance.

It will slow done play and lengthen game time but that to me simply means fresher players who will play harder when play does resume and more revenue for the NRL hopefully meaning we can retain our topline players that often follow the money in other codes or comps (Aussie Rules, Union, Super League...Karmicheal Hunt, Israel Folau, SBW, Finch, Pat Richards...).

I voted NO! Wish I could change...

So do I (about it might being half-ass). My gut feeling is no, I don't want it. But since it's already decided that it would be tested I suppose at the very least we should see how it goes.

 

[Inruin]

it would be interesting to see how it is used. the cricket ones were introduced to stop the really bad decisions and is mainly used instead to query the marginal ones. how long does a captain have to issue challenge? ball goes dead in goal and instead of getting a quick restart captain has a little conference with his team and then challenges it or worse doesnt challenge it but stops the quick restart. i think the theory behind ideas like this are good but players and teams always find ways to use them in ways they werent meant to. no harm in trialling it. cant wait for the game were the captain challenges a call that is actually quite close and loses challenge then cant challenge a blatant call later on in the game that costs them the match

 

[Spence]

Probably the same place you got you 3 replays max from.
What percentage of tries are actually decided on 3 replays or less as it is now?

I understand your point, but disagree with your analogy. I think there's a difference between determining whether someone's foot is just in the line when scoring a try or seeing if a player stripped the ball or it was dropped cold. I don't know about you but I can generally tell off the first replay - it's pretty obvious. There will definitely be some situations where the camera can't capture the ball properly and might take more looks - but I think that'd be the minority. I guess the difference is, well to me, that when scoring tries there are a lot of dubious calls - obstruction, subtle knock ons, the ball being put down just before/after the foot goes into touch, etc, where as the majority of strip calls are clean cut - but the ref just missed it.

 

[Sebastian]

People just can't seem to see the politics involved. Shame when obviously our team has been shafted so badly in the past. You'd think a golden ticket like this. Would straight away be seen as a answer to fight back against the possible molestation of decisions we've been subject to. Would be totally unanimous. This sort of short sightedness answers some questions about why our club isn't stronger against bias when shown.