Captains Challenge Review.

[Futtocks]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Shane Watson comes to mind , but often the use of reviews seems to resolve around the ‘ I don’t want to be out ‘ philosophy 

It really is good to see the serial whingers and protesters shown up in front of the crowd and broadcast audience for not knowing the rules.

[DavidM]

15 minutes ago, Rioman said:

Now that Cameron Smith has retired will the NRL drop the Refs Challenge rule, whereby the ref could challenge one of Cameron's decisions if they disagreed with it? 

Don’t think he’s retired yet

[LeeF]

18 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

It really is good to see the serial whingers and protesters shown up in front of the crowd and broadcast audience for not knowing the rules.

With Watson it was more a case of him thinking his front pad was his bat

[Father Ted]

I'd like to see the Captain's Challenge. For me it would be two challenges a game, lose and the challenge has gone, win it and it is retained. Ten seconds is about right.

Players would have to be up front and honest with their captain. Any player trying it on and being proved not to have done as he said would lose all credibility. Referees would have to be more certain as if any particular referee was shown to have more decisions successfully challenged then he would find himself in trouble.

I do think the Captain's Challenge could raise standards of decisions making which can benefit the game.  

 

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 hours ago, The Rocket said:

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/11/22/stat-attack-how-each-team-fared-in-first-year-of-captains-challenge/

Was introduced to stop the `clanger` from unduly affecting the results of matches. Not much good if you`ve already used and lost it.

Not sure either whether it has just emboldened referees into blowing the whistle more and then telling the aggrieved Captain 'you can challenge it". I don`t think it was implemented so that the ref could palm decisions off to the Captains, that they aren`t sure of and the Captain wouldn`t be either, especially when they may have been looking elsewhere. And once it`s gone , it`s gone.

10 seconds not enough if teammates need to be consulted ? more challenges needed or maybe get rid of it.

Surely if a player is that confident he is right and the referee is wrong, it shouldn't take much longer than a few seconds to convince their captain.

If they're not sure, they shouldn't be having a long discussion about likelihoods of it being right or wrong. They're not placing chips on a roulette wheel; it's supposed to be a challenge of a decision they're pretty confident shouldn't have gone against them.

Referees get a split second. Players moan about lots of decisions. To say they're "palming off decisions to the players" is fallacious because the decision has already been made! The point of it is to stop players' protesting for the sake of protesting in their tracks AND also give them an avenue to be heard if they actually are feeling aggrieved.

I like it and I've suggested it for years. Would love to see it in the game.

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

In my opinion, it works well as it is. Captains have to think very carefully about what they challenge. I'd like to see it introduced here, too, just so long as we don't go down the slippery slope of allowing more challenges in future seasons.   I share, though, your concern about knock-ons, Dunbar.

For once, I actually agree with you John. Although it does require all SL games being televised with video refs

[The Rocket]

34 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Surely if a player is that confident he is right and the referee is wrong, it shouldn't take much longer than a few seconds to convince their captain.

If they're not sure, they shouldn't be having a long discussion about likelihoods of it being right or wrong. They're not placing chips on a roulette wheel; it's supposed to be a challenge of a decision they're pretty confident shouldn't have gone against them.

Referees get a split second. Players moan about lots of decisions. To say they're "palming off decisions to the players" is fallacious because the decision has already been made! The point of it is to stop players' protesting for the sake of protesting in their tracks AND also give them an avenue to be heard if they actually are feeling aggrieved.

I like it and I've suggested it for years. Would love to see it in the game.

I`m just throwing it out there for debate and pointing out that there are contradictions within it, I`m probably over analysising it. That`s my want.

But one of the points I bought up, if the ref has to make a split second decision as you note, it`s much easier for him to make that call now because he can then put the onus on the Captain to decide whether to challenge it, now for the Captain, he has to make the decision to risk his CC, I`m  just saying we don`t want frivolous calls being made by refs, they should try to be as certain as humanly possible or just wave play on.

By the way I like the Captains Challenge, it introduces an element of considered decision making into the game by the players, the quick huddle, discussion and then decision, I like to see those little huddles and the players discussing back and forth trying to make a quick decision, I would love to hear those discussions. " are you sure was it raked or did you drop it?"  " There was a hand in there but I`m not sure" etc. etc.

[Tommygilf]

36 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

For once, I actually agree with you John. Although it does require all SL games being televised with video refs

I agree too but also see how that is a major hiccup right now. Maybe the new TV deal will make it so? 

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Rioman said:

Now that Cameron Smith has retired will the NRL drop the Refs Challenge rule, whereby the ref could challenge one of Cameron's decisions if they disagreed with it? 

Great moment in this year`s Panthers/Storm regular season game when Ashley klein asked Mr. C. Smith if he wanted to challenge. The previously loquacious Mr. Smith just laughed.

[unapologetic pedant]

This would be my ideal use of the Captain`s Challenge. -

A conscientious coach and team committed to RL integrity, scrupulously play the ball correctly. Every time their opposition seek to gain an advantage by deliberately playing the ball illegally and the ref fails to penalise, they use the Captain`s Challenge.

The video ref will clearly see no attempt to play the ball with the foot. There are then two possible outcomes. Either the challenge will be upheld and retained for use against the next illegal PTB and every one thereafter. Or the video ref will have to openly, explicitly state that the rulebook and the RFL`s PTB guidelines are worthless.

Whichever way it goes it would bring this matter to a head. Currently teams would turn the ball over on most PTBs if challenges were upheld. Something they can`t afford to do. If challenges were rejected, hearing the video ref explain why might finally embarrass the RFL into getting a grip.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I`m just throwing it out there for debate and pointing out that there are contradictions within it, I`m probably over analysising it. That`s my want.

But one of the points I bought up, if the ref has to make a split second decision as you note, it`s much easier for him to make that call now because he can then put the onus on the Captain to decide whether to challenge it, now for the Captain, he has to make the decision to risk his CC, I`m  just saying we don`t want frivolous calls being made by refs, they should try to be as certain as humanly possible or just wave play on.

If by "frivolous calls" you mean intervening because something might have happened, or because they can`t be certain it didn`t happen (forward pass, knock-on, obstruction), I would describe that as perverse logic rather than frivolity. They`re applying the benefit of the doubt the wrong way. And I reckon they do it because media and crowd pressure makes them terrified of missing anything. The default should always be "play on".

Our administrators and officials should do some philosophical reading up on concepts like "proving a negative" or "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

BTW, I think you mean "wont" although it could be a Freudian Slip.