Challenge System

Challenge system......for or against

  • For

    Votes: 16 69.6%
  • Against

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • Total voters
    23
Eh, not really a fan of slowing the game down.

Would rather speed it up and remove the kick for touch option off penalties, that way penalties won't have as big an effect.

Just allow refs. to reverse penalties and game on.

Would feel absolutely jipped if we slowed the game down, only for the call to be line ball and for it to stand. Especially if it takes as long as some video ref. calls do.
 
So you're alright with reed being penalized and then the bulldogs scoring a few tackles later to move to only 8 behind just before halftime? What's next, origin 2000 game 1 all over again and you'll be fine with it?

No, I didn't say that did I. I would be in favour of a challenge system limited to 2 wrong calls per game. Only the captain to make the call. No other player can approach the ref with any complaint.

The refs and linesman still call on strips and forward passes. Strips can be referred but not forward passes until they have an accurate system.

You have to severely limit any challenge system to keep the game moving. If you have 2 wrong calls you still have as many correct calls as like.
 
Challenge system is worth a crack. It will slow the game down. Slowing the game down might get us more money in advertising.
 
Yes, but I'd like a challenge to be limited to 1 view of 3 angles of the incident and then the video ref makes a decision. None of this slowing it down to the nth degree 10 times before tossing a coin. Look at the replay once and make a judgment.
 
That's how the game gets more money. Don't you get that?? Ads aren't a major problem if a game is live.

A live game in particular is at risk with advertising......at least in the hands of the Ch9 numpties.

Aside from CH9 and some of their commentators (yes Ray Hadley......I'm looking at you) the main reason most RL supporters prefer watching the game on Fox is because there are less stoppages/advertising/TV ads.
 
Yes they are.

Their ads consists of self promoting their facking shows, during the game. Or they go to an ad & we can miss 3 tackles etc.

The ads aren't the problem channel 9 are.
 
I like the idea of a challenge system but the devil is in the detail.

Maybe 2 challenges per half, a challenge is used regardless of whether the call was right or not.

I reckon a more novel idea is each team allowed an advocate in the video referree's box. Both teams put forward their cased and the video ref considers the evidence.
 
Lets make it a real show and get judge Judy in to hear the evidence.
 
542094_10150984927013707_431277151_copy.jpg
 
Lets make it a real show and get judge Judy in to hear the evidence.

That bitch be frontin

My point is that so often in the call you hear the commentators not even talking about an obvious issue or focussing to heavily on the grounding when there's been a clear knock on... Also, advocates could refer back to precedent calls from previous games.
 
If we did that channel 9 wouldn't even need to put an ad in for Big Brother - they could just play an episode instead.
 
You have to severely limit any challenge system to keep the game moving. If you have 2 wrong calls you still have as many correct calls as like.

which is why it should be limited to once youve challenged 2 calls and were found to be wrong, you cant challenge any more. if youre getting dud call after dud call and you correctly challenge them you should be able to keep challenging.
 

Active Now

  • Skyblues87
  • Morkel
  • beaseagull
  • Big Del
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.