Captains challenge

[Number6]

Great article about how NRL is allowing itself to be run into the ground. Channel nine and papers have a lot to answer for but can't control that right now.

But game is worst enemy. Cricket's system while not perfect (suspect Hawkeye is no where as accurate as sold) has usually very accurate umpires with low bias and a clear system that makes players responsible for raising their grievances immediately with umpires rather than coaches whinging after the fact. Bad calls are also transparently adjudicated. Games are not managed. If a player screws up umpires don't stop them. For instance if you stuff up by not having enough players in the circle they call a no ball, the don't stop the team and ask them nicely to change the field.

Time has long come for captain challenge. Don't see any other option to minimise the toxic culture regarding how refereed coupled with the refs clear ineptitude (I appreciate having a bet both ways but both seem true). Remove the video ref except when captain challenges.

Two per half (additive, one additional in extra time) and get review back if correct. Perhaps 3 votes, one for on field and two for video refs who don't know each of others answer (one a former player not associated with either club playing), balance of probabilities decision. If no video evidence stays with on field but team gets review back. 10 seconds for captain to ask for it.

Scope would be interesting question needs to be trialled. Start with only when natural stoppage including questioning penalties. Beyond that could be any question video can help with accurately but could risk overuse (every tackle someone is offside - but I don't necessary see that as a bad thing, players will need to learn to not be offside).

Other aspect is need to stop managing the game as introduces too much bias. The more you do the more you influence the game. Players are meant to be highly paid professionals. If they can't get onside or get off after held call quickly enough is called then blow it. As someone said before in the Broncs game forum the penalties you don't give can be as or more influential as the ones you do. If opposition disagrees you have a challenge. First few rounds might be a penalty explosion but teams will learn surprisingly quickly to stop gaming the system. Will open up game if defences are actually onside and square.

Suspect will bring a lot of fans back who are disillusioned by what at times looks like blatant bias and cheating.

 

[Number6]

No replies. Wondering if because people disagree with idea or have given up on NRL implementing a real change to improve the integrity of the game?

I can't see another way to structurally change a toxic system with video refs and ref criticism while making them accountable. Along with other measures such as remove them from Sydney and make them highly paid professionals with promotion and relegation and a boss that isn't one of the boys.

Any other ideas?

 

[Super Freak]

No replies. Wondering if because people disagree with idea or have given up on NRL implementing a real change to improve the integrity of the game?

Pretty much this.

 

[Morkel]

Yep, no faith in the people running the game.

 

[Nashy]

It has to happen. And it's to a point with the absolutely useless shit bags in the middle, that each captain is going to need around 10 challenges per half.

 

[tommy]

The problem is it's a good idea, so it goes against pretty much everything NRL.

 

[Big Pete]

The problem with Captain's Challenge is that you're still inviting the video referees to make an assessment and they all have different ideas what definitive proof means.

They trialed it during the NYC and I lost track the amount of times where you'd see a strip be interpreted differently. Instead of getting the right result, the game would just stop and fans would be more miffed.

I'm starting to think Gus has a point. Referee mistakes are just apart of the game. Instead of magnifying those issues or inviting different perspectives into the mix, the game should just take a minimalist approach.

 

[Cult]

Lets give this goofy fucker more responsibility.

 

[Nashy]

The problem with Captain's Challenge is that you're still inviting the video referees to make an assessment and they all have different ideas what definitive proof means.

They trialed it during the NYC and I lost track the amount of times where you'd see a strip be interpreted differently. Instead of getting the right result, the game would just stop and fans would be more miffed.

I'm starting to think Gus has a point. Referee mistakes are just apart of the game. Instead of magnifying those issues or inviting different perspectives into the mix, the game should just take a minimalist approach.

What sort of approach? There should be a single approach. When a rule is broken, blow the fucking whistle.

 

[Big Pete]

And if you keep it to three referees instead of adding an alternative referee and state of the art video equipment we'd have a lot less second guessing.

 

[tommy]

Would love to see a captain be able to stop and issue a challenge when the opposition is inside the 10. That inside the 10 shit will be cut out within a week.

 

[gordjw]

If this is the best solution available, we may as well start watching AFL.

This is taking the Bunker Lottery, and applying it to every single decision. You think people are pissed off now with Bunker's weird try/no try rulings, wait until every borderline knock-on is reviewed.

Gould has it right, but yet again it's him railing against the very thing he loves to do. He's one of the chief antagonists in The War on Everything NRL.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

The captains challenge HAS TO happen...

This is why.... 99% of tries players know whether they or the opposition has scored. This would take the blame off of the refs ("the ref should have given that a try, this is ridiculous!" "But Mr Green, your captain didn't challenge it?", or "your captain didn't have a challenge left because he wasted it"). Give the team 1 per game each way (try for/try against) and if they get it over turned then they keep that 1. At the moment we are going to the video ref at least 8-9 times a game to double check obvious tries. Yes they will still get some wrong but it will waste less time. Human error will happen but the video ref is taking away the immediate thrill of tries and is taking away the fatigue factor we all want to see to stop the wrestle and get little men involved with stepping and exciting football.

 

[Sproj]

we may as well start watching AFL.

The NRL don't want to admit it but this is already happening and has been for a while as the professionalism is far more appealing than the boganism ruining...I mean running everything league related.

 

[Porthoz]

And if you keep it to three referees instead of adding an alternative referee and state of the art video equipment we'd have a lot less second guessing.

Yet it works in other (actually professional) codes.

 

[Big Pete]

Yet it works in other (actually professional) codes.

That has far more stoppages than League.

 

[Porthoz]

That has far more stoppages than League.

So what? it would be more prone to make mistakes, if anything.

 

[Big Pete]

So what? it would be more prone to make mistakes, if anything.

The game is always going to make mistakes, whether it's through interpretations or questionable rules. By just accepting that and letting the games flow on there's a trade off there that most fans would be willing to accept.

For the record, I still believe we need to give the bunker more time. Fans have wanted to get rid of it ever since Paul Green chucked a tantrum 4 rounds into the competition, but it's an improvement over the older system. What I don't want to see is them increase their jurisdiction which is what we've seen happen from time to time where referees are being tipped off.

The game isn't like those other codes you're referring to. The NFL has a far more controlled environment with 40 seconds between each play. Not only do the umpires have the luxury to get themselves settled, but play always occurs from the centre so it's much easier to make a ruling and review it if it's wrong. The NRL is a different beast and if it takes you 5 seconds to play the ball, it's considered slow.