Jump to content

Captains Challenge Review.


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not a fan when it was introduced and I would probably get rid today if it were my choice... but I have to admit the best thing about it is referees being able to shut down the complaints from players when decisions are made.

A simple "do you want to challenge" does wonders as a player/captain can't carry on moaning if they are not prepared to challenge. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes 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.

 

One challenge each half would make more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harry Stottle said:

If the challenge is successful then it is retained, is that correct?

Being so, I think referee's would be more vigilant especially if multiple challenges were successful or would the 'bunker' shove in a wild one in assistance to the whistle blower? 

Yes 'arry that's correct!

The challenges got more successful as time went on but the wrong'uns still outnumbered them by about 5-6/1 mainly because they came from wingers and props! And the refs seemed completely unbothered either way.

  • Like 1

" .......means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors."-- Marek Edelman

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams have definitely become more judicious in the use of it, but my concern remains that ref`s are using it to palm the decision making off to the players, the way that some of the refs have become quite arrogant calling out " You can challenge, you can challenge " jars with me, all the onus is on the players, and it`s not their job and they only have 10 seconds. It`s a massive decision especially on a 50/50, when you know you might need it for a crucial decision later on.

It does strike me as being a bit tokenistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

but I have to admit the best thing about it is referees being able to shut down the complaints from players when decisions are made.

As much as we all enjoy seeing players being told to put up or shut up, I think the pendulum has swung to far in the referees favour here.

He stands there challenging the Captain who is left with the decision. Given that every call can affect the outcome of a game, no matter how minor, Captains are left in the unenviable decision of deciding which decisions to challenge. So often it is just wasted. Damned if they do and damned if they don`t.

I think if the NRL introduces these things at least the team challenging should have the time to make more of a considered decision, yet this runs counter to their plans of speeding up the game.

Something is not quite right with the Captains Challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Rocket said:

As much as we all enjoy seeing players being told to put up or shut up, I think the pendulum has swung to far in the referees favour here.

He stands there challenging the Captain who is left with the decision. Given that every call can affect the outcome of a game, no matter how minor, Captains are left in the unenviable decision of deciding which decisions to challenge. So often it is just wasted. Damned if they do and damned if they don`t.

I think if the NRL introduces these things at least the team challenging should have the time to make more of a considered decision, yet this runs counter to their plans of speeding up the game.

Something is not quite right with the Captains Challenge.

I disagree completely.  Even the concept of challenging a decision in the first place undermines the authority of the referee.

It is the referees who are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't in our sport.  They can't win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Teams have definitely become more judicious in the use of it, but my concern remains that ref`s are using it to palm the decision making off to the players, the way that some of the refs have become quite arrogant calling out " You can challenge, you can challenge " jars with me, all the onus is on the players, and it`s not their job and they only have 10 seconds. It`s a massive decision especially on a 50/50, when you know you might need it for a crucial decision later on.

It does strike me as being a bit tokenistic.

If it is to be a proper captains challenge then why can it be only done to challenge a decision the ref has taken by blowing his whistle, every action on the field is scanned by the ref and he makes a conscious decision if it warrents the whistle or not, I know I have said on a few/lot of occasions the ref missed that, so why not let the captains say "I think you missed such and such, I wish to challenge it" still keep the challenge to one attempt unless successful, I am sure it would only be used if confident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like it , but I’m for less technology not more . You can say it gives a correct decision , but it’s one randomly . And I don’t like this nonsensical ‘ you can challenge , you can ... go on I dare you ‘ like it’s a game show . And then we sit around sometimes watching half a dozen replays to see if there’s a steal , or a knock on or some such . I just don’t like that in the midst of play . But they’re you go . They must bring in the giving tries then reviewing it though , that was good for the pace and spectacle of the game 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

Teams have definitely become more judicious in the use of it, but my concern remains that ref`s are using it to palm the decision making off to the players, the way that some of the refs have become quite arrogant calling out " You can challenge, you can challenge " jars with me, all the onus is on the players, and it`s not their job and they only have 10 seconds. It`s a massive decision especially on a 50/50, when you know you might need it for a crucial decision later on.

It does strike me as being a bit tokenistic.

The onus is on the players as the referee has made his decision already and as posted above it’s not for 50/50 calls but for perceived “howlers”.  You are almost going down the road of advocating unlimited challenges which would be farcical
Out of interest what’s the percentage of successful challenges?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   It works really well in N.F.L. and has done for years.Although it is the Coaches challenge and he throws a red  duster down.One challenge each half within 15 seconds would be ok by me.If challenge is correct you retain it for the half .

I can see the merit in this, somebody in the coaches box watching a monitor would be in a much better position to decide whether it was worth challenging, message goes down to challenge, if the players on the field know something the coaches box doesn`t , they can over rule the coaches box decision. I think it`s almost fair, given the importance of not wasting something that may be crucial later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LeeF said:

The onus is on the players as the referee has made his decision already and as posted above it’s not for 50/50 calls but for perceived “howlers”.  You are almost going down the road of advocating unlimited challenges which would be farcical
Out of interest what’s the percentage of successful challenges?

The problem I see Leef is what is the difference between a `howler` and a 50/50 in the context of a game, even a 50/50 can drastically affect the momentum and therefore the outcome of a game, so Captains are under undue pressure whether to call them up or not, are under resourced to make that decision and more often than not make the wrong one.

I suppose a well disciplined team would hold off on the marginal calls and save it for the `Howler`, but that goes back to the point I was making about the effect that all refereeing decisions can have on a game.

There`s a list of each teams success/failure rate in the opening post, have a look it`s interesting. By the way love some of the words used to describe refereeing blunders, Howlers, Clangers.😉

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I was not a fan when it was introduced and I would probably get rid today if it were my choice... but I have to admit the best thing about it is referees being able to shut down the complaints from players when decisions are made.

A simple "do you want to challenge" does wonders as a player/captain can't carry on moaning if they are not prepared to challenge. 

I was going to point this out too Dunbar. At first I thought the refs were being silly, always saying "You can challenge, if you like!" but there is no doubt it curbed an awful lot of whinging and whingers!

  • Like 1

" .......means always being with the oppressed and never the oppressors."-- Marek Edelman

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

The problem I see Leef is what is the difference between a `howler` and a 50/50 in the context of a game, even a 50/50 can drastically affect the momentum and therefore the outcome of a game, so Captains are under undue pressure whether to call them up or not, are under resourced to make that decision and more often than not make the wrong one.

I suppose a well disciplined team would hold off on the marginal calls and save it for the `Howler`, but that goes back to the point I was making about the effect that all refereeing decisions can have on a game.

There`s a list of each teams success/failure rate in the opening post, have a look it`s interesting. By the way love some of the words used to describe refereeing blunders, Howlers, Clangers.😉

 

I wouldn’t and aren’t bothered about the 50/50s and wouldn’t even worry about 30/70s in fact one of sport’s greatest things is the human aspect. Yes errors occur but the number of “howlers” is minimal against all the decisions made. Nobody is ever perfect

The only way to prevent any  “incorrect” decision is to check every decision which is completely impractical so just learn to live with it and move on
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general it`s more logical and in the interests of the game for it to be officiated with an intelligent application of the benefit of the doubt principle, rather than an obsessive, and doomed to cause more problems than it solves, pursuit of 100% accuracy.

In recent years Aussie and Kiwi officials have collectively fallen into an assumption that when the ball goes to ground a knock-on must be called. Only if it travels several metres backwards is there a chance they will play on.

Ironically an advantage of the Captain`s Challenge is that as more of these knock-on calls are challenged, and the video ref and media have to look more closely and ask whether the ball actually went forward, it might make everyone realise that something`s gone wrong. That what is often currently regarded as a knock-on is no such thing. And in time we might get back to an "if in doubt, play on" policy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In general it`s more logical and in the interests of the game for it to be officiated with an intelligent application of the benefit of the doubt principle, rather than an obsessive, and doomed to cause more problems than it solves, pursuit of 100% accuracy.

In recent years Aussie and Kiwi officials have collectively fallen into an assumption that when the ball goes to ground a knock-on must be called. Only if it travels several metres backwards is there a chance they will play on.

Ironically an advantage of the Captain`s Challenge is that as more of these knock-on calls are challenged, and the video ref and media have to look more closely and ask whether the ball actually went forward, it might make everyone realise that something`s gone wrong. That what is often currently regarded as a knock-on is no such thing. And in time we might get back to an "if in doubt, play on" policy.

I agree with this.  The tiniest bobble of the ball or any ball going to ground is called a knock on even when the ball clearly travels backwards.  In some areas of the game we seem obsessed with the idea of perfect execution.

And, yet ironically, in the subsequent scrum we don't bother applying any of the laws of the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same applies to Tennis and Cricket. There are some players who challenge rashly and end up looking foolish, and some who save it for a decision they genuinely believe they can overturn according to the rules.

Thankfully, the former is still more common. :kolobok_biggrin:

There's no obligation to use it at all, but some in the NRL may use it for a breather late in a tiring match. That is a downside, which may be a good reason to get rid of it. But if you do away with the Captain's Challenge, teams will just go back to players suffering from sudden cramp when they're defending their own line with 10 minutes to go.

"Men will be proud to say 'I am a European'. We hope to see a day when men of every country will think as much of being a European as of being from their native land." (Winston Churchill)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

There are some players who challenge rashly and end up looking foolish,

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

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...