Captain's Challenge

[Big Pete]

I'm going to make a prediction and say we're happy with the innovation and placing the onus on the player's when they feel hard done by. However, I doubt anyone is actually satisfied with the current system. Personally I find myself more often than not disliking the challenge and find it defeats the purpose the administration is going for - a faster free-flowing game. However I know I'm in the minority and there have been times where it really has improved the game as there's been calls where the referee was basically asked to make a guess.

I'm curious what changes if any would you make? Should there be more captain's challenge? Should forward passes be open to challenges? Should players be allowed to give away deliberate penalties to rule on plays that can't otherwise be challenged?

The first change I'd make is having a dedicated shot clock for the challenge. That way, there's no sliver of inconsistency, the only issue is that by having a 10 second window, it could slow the game down further. However my argument is that it's already happening, but some teams are being allowed even longer to reach a decision.

There needs to be a hand signal for the challenge as well so the referees don't have to waste additional time clarifying whether they wish to challenge or not.

I'd also like to see a higher standard of proof utilised to over-turn a decision. Allow me to use Saturday as an example.



I thought the justification from the bunker was poor since it neglected to mention that Hiku played the ball behind Moylan's foot. Now I can live with the call, but the bunker should have explained that Hiku placed the ball there because Moylan crowded the ruck. The reason for this is to create a consistent guideline other officials are looking to maintain and these should be logged so other officials are aware of current precedents.

 

[pennywisealfie]

More challenges, more things they can challenge (including forward passes), should be able to challenge at any time, not just a stop in play. Getting things right in a game where a lot is wrong is more important than a free flowing game IMO.

 

[tommy]

Yep should be able to challenge the opposition keeping 10.

 

[Nashy]

I don't support it because the NRL are too fucking useless to use it correctly. If we had decent refs, a clear as day black and white set of rules, and the bunker keeping their fucking noses out when there is no challenge, then sure, lets do it.

 

[Wolfie]

Not a fan at all.

 

[BroncsFan]

Needs refining.

They're original stance was that foul play could not be challenged; however if there's the slightest hint of a high shot, like it was in rorters vs us, it gets pulled up.

If they're proposing to challenge then they should have to nominate what they're challenging and that should be all the bunker checks.. they shouldn't be able to say challenge and then the bunker goes over everything.

Even on the weekend storm challenged the drop by Munster, but what they wanted was a penalty for tackled in the air... the bunker ruled that was fine, but gave them a successful challenge because the vid ref decided it was knocked back instead of a knock on (dubious at best). The bunker should've only checked whether it was a tackle in the air instead of giving the storm an eachway bet.

If they went that way it would speed up the game as they're not going through everything with a fine tooth comb.

It would also restrict frivolous challenges, because the captain would have to be specific on what they're challenging, instead of "we're challenging everything"

 

[I bleed Maroon]

I support it, just because it's already proven itself necessary by how many incorrect decisions have been overturned. Of course the media hate it because they want more idiotic shit from the refs to blow up about on the Monday and the challenges have culled the amount of material to work with.

I'll tell you what does need to be fucked off, automatically awarding tries when the ref clearly has no idea if the ball actually got to ground then correcting after the fact. It is beyond stupid watching the goal kicker preparing to kick then suddenly the ref comes marching out like "nah hold up, we gotta inspect this". Just send it up if you don't know FFS. That's why the Bunker is there.

 

[Cult]

Shouldn’t be needed. If the NRL insists on having the bunker chime in against the Broncos they can do it for every game. If the ref makes a shit call and it’s seen by the bunker they should just change the ruling. It shouldn’t need to be challenged

 

[tommy]

Needs refining.

They're original stance was that foul play could not be challenged; however if there's the slightest hint of a high shot, like it was in rorters vs us, it gets pulled up.

If they're proposing to challenge then they should have to nominate what they're challenging and that should be all the bunker checks.. they shouldn't be able to say challenge and then the bunker goes over everything.

Even on the weekend storm challenged the drop by Munster, but what they wanted was a penalty for tackled in the air... the bunker ruled that was fine, but gave them a successful challenge because the vid ref decided it was knocked back instead of a knock on (dubious at best). The bunker should've only checked whether it was a tackle in the air instead of giving the storm an eachway bet.

If they went that way it would speed up the game as they're not going through everything with a fine tooth comb.

It would also restrict frivolous challenges, because the captain would have to be specific on what they're challenging, instead of "we're challenging everything"

They should still be able to challenge multiple instances in the one play I believe.

 

[Nashy]

They should still be able to challenge multiple instances in the one play I believe.

The useless blokes in fluro do, so it's only right the players can. "Yeah just check everything in the leadup mate".

Our officials are so useless.

 

[Xzei]

They couldnt even get the kick off from the cows against the tigers right even with replays that there epitomizes why it is so shit

 

[Morkel]

Extend it so us fans at home can challenge the refs calls.

 

[Big Pete]

I'll tell you what does need to be fucked off, automatically awarding tries when the ref clearly has no idea if the ball actually got to ground then correcting after the fact.

I'm actually 100% fine with the current system. It's just like the NFL where every touchdown is reviewed and the bunker usually arrives to a quick decision on replays.

Referees were always reviewing just about everything and the few times they didn't they were usually raked over the coals because they missed some fraction of a second where the ball came free.

 

[pennywisealfie]

I don't support it because the NRL are too fucking useless to use it correctly. If we had decent refs, a clear as day black and white set of rules, and the bunker keeping their fucking noses out when there is no challenge, then sure, lets do it.

While we disagree about whether it should be used or not, I agree so much about the rest.

Make the rules easier for the refs to interpret. Black and white shit, not this grey area where things are different not just every game but sometimes minute to minute. It's super frustrating.

 

[Mr Fourex]

I'm actually 100% fine with the current system. It's just like the NFL where every touchdown is reviewed and the bunker usually arrives to a quick decision on replays.

I don't watch NFL....does their bunker get it right?
Most of the time would be acceptable..... (even half the time tbh)

...unlike the NRL, who must be reviewing their footage under certain guidelines.

 

[Big Pete]

I don't watch NFL....does their bunker get it right?
Most of the time would be acceptable..... (even half the time tbh)

...unlike the NRL, who must be reviewing their footage under certain guidelines.

Granted I'm not as avid as say pennywisealfie but they usually justify their reviews well. Most of their controversies come from general play where they're extremely inconsistent with ticky tack penalties.

The thing is, you get conditioned not to celebrate too hard until teams look to go for their conversions.

 

[BroncsFan]

They should still be able to challenge multiple instances in the one play I believe.

If they think there are two indescritions in the one play then they'll get it overruled regardless of which one they pick.

Letting them review multiple things will just lead to "I'm challenging everything"

 

[BroncsFan]

I'm actually 100% fine with the current system. It's just like the NFL where every touchdown is reviewed and the bunker usually arrives to a quick decision on replays.

Referees were always reviewing just about everything and the few times they didn't they were usually raked over the coals because they missed some fraction of a second where the ball came free.

In NFL they're generally just reviewing the one thing though.

- Where's it been grounded for first downs, etc.
- Have they caught it and controlled it
- Was it grounded before a fumble, etc.


They're not going back to the start to check
- if there's a false start/offside,
- then checking if there's a holding,
- then checking if the WR gets away cleanly,
- then checking if the QB has been hit late,
- then checking if there's offensive or defensive pass interference, etc.

Before finally checking the catch, grounding, etc.... Only to then overrule the play because the LB was holding the TE too long off the scrimmage... even though neither player had anything to do with the eventual play.

That's what the NRL currently do... the NFL have a thousand umps on the field working in tandem and limit what the coaches can challenge... and then actually enforce what the rules are.

NRL is a set of rules that are enforced sporadically in the name of "managing a game"