Captains Call

[Harry Stottle]

Last year when we were told that VR would be utilised at every game people were very happy with that, but to me and I have said this all season that there is a lack of camera's at the games to properly deliver this function - compare it to the NRL - so if a job is worth doing, do it properly as it is done in the NRL or not at all.

This week at a telvised Leigh fans Q&A with Derek Beaumont he was asked would he have the Captains Call at SL games as they do in the NRL, Absolutely he said, he followed up with it was going to be utilised for this present season but in discussion at the council it was decided not to proceed as there will be insufficient cameras employed at the televised games to use it effectively.

My case rests your honour.

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

Captain's Call is no great loss

[DavidM]

It’s an arbitrary thing . We’ll thoroughly check one incident while everything else is on the ref ( or repeat if you win ) . It’s a bit like a game show with the ref saying ‘ challenge it , challenge if you like ‘ . And as with much to do with the VR some are still opinion , wrong and engender argument among the commentators . Ashley Klein the other day said a strip when no way was it . All of this minute scrutiny and technological interference ever increasing just infects the game imo . Players more and more are playing to the eye in the sky as well 

Edited April 24 by DavidM

[Click]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Last year when we were told that VR would be utilised at every game people were very happy with that, but to me and I have said this all season that there is a lack of camera's at the games to properly deliver this function - compare it to the NRL - so if a job is worth doing, do it properly as it is done in the NRL or not at all.

This week at a telvised Leigh fans Q&A with Derek Beaumont he was asked would he have the Captains Call at SL games as they do in the NRL, Absolutely he said, he followed up with it was going to be utilised for this present season but in discussion at the council it was decided not to proceed as there will be insufficient cameras employed at the televised games to use it effectively.

My case rests your honour.

 

I assume all this "Captains Call" stuff, you are actually talking about the Captains Challenge? 

I don't really understand what your "case" is, you want us to go back to 3 games a week on Sky rather than all games, because they don't have the same amount of cameras as the NRL does?

I think we could still get the captains challenge come in over here, I believe it is a good thing that the NRL does, and it actually seems to take some pressure off the referees IMO. It's harder to do here, as yes, we have less camera angles, so we would most likely get the result of "insufficient evidence to overturn a decision" calls. But there are some clear cut errors that could be helped with it.

[Just Browny]

It does seem odd to say we can have video ref and indeed use the Match Review Panel to hand out bans, but not Captain's Challenge, based on the number or quality of the cameras.

I think we have seen this season that the camera angles we have and quality of image leaves a lot to be desired.

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Click said:

I assume all this "Captains Call" stuff, you are actually talking about the Captains Challenge? 

I don't really understand what your "case" is, you want us to go back to 3 games a week on Sky rather than all games, because they don't have the same amount of cameras as the NRL does?

I think we could still get the captains challenge come in over here, I believe it is a good thing that the NRL does, and it actually seems to take some pressure off the referees IMO. It's harder to do here, as yes, we have less camera angles, so we would most likely get the result of "insufficient evidence to overturn a decision" calls. But there are some clear cut errors that could be helped with it.

Mr Beaumont also said which I did not include is that it is the intention to utiluse the 'Captains Challenge' (thanks for the correction) next season, being so considering it was deemed insufficient camera angles would be available this season, they must be correting it for next season if they proceed.

[graveyard johnny]

I always forward wind through the cc in the NRL- theres enough stoppages in the game already - not for me

Edited April 24 by graveyard johnny

[Dave T]

I agree about the point about some of the cameras not being perfect, but I disagree with the conclusion that your options are perfection or nothing. The vast majority of decisions are able to be reviewed just fine with the current setup, but there are some edge cases where the angles or pic quality are a little challenging, but most things are quite clear. We should continue to strive for better and keep learning, but it would be a backward step to refuse to have VR's with the current setup.

On the Captains Challenge piece, I think it's just a personal preference tbh, I can see why some like it, and why some don't. I think it's a little bit of a fad really. in the same way it is in most other sports that have this approach. I can see why camera angles are challenging on this though, as quite often the challenge is around ball stealing, or fingertips for knock ons etc. and there aren't anywhere near the number and quality of cameras that there are in the NRL coverage.

[Just Browny]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree about the point about some of the cameras not being perfect, but I disagree with the conclusion that your options are perfection or nothing. The vast majority of decisions are able to be reviewed just fine with the current setup, but there are some edge cases where the angles or pic quality are a little challenging, but most things are quite clear. We should continue to strive for better and keep learning, but it would be a backward step to refuse to have VR's with the current setup.

On the Captains Challenge piece, I think it's just a personal preference tbh, I can see why some like it, and why some don't. I think it's a little bit of a fad really. in the same way it is in most other sports that have this approach. I can see why camera angles are challenging on this though, as quite often the challenge is around ball stealing, or fingertips for knock ons etc. and there aren't anywhere near the number and quality of cameras that there are in the NRL coverage.

Agree that we shouldn't throw out the VR just because it's not perfect.

We should try to improve the quality of the tools we give to the VR and throw out the 'on-field call' because this stops the VR considering a decision objectively. Instead, I'd want the VR to tell the ref what he/she thinks the decision should be and their level of confidence (e.g. (a) 100% confident the ball was grounded, (b) ball appears to be grounded, but picture unclear, (c) ball not visible but no evidence it was knocked on) and give the on-field ref the final decision.

On the Captain's Challenge, again I think it is inevitable that occasionally it will be a close-run thing. I marginally prefer it because it gives the referee the chance to tell a team to 'put up or shut up' when they are complaining about a decision.

Edited April 24 by Just Browny

[LeytherRob]

It would be easy enough having a clause within the captains challenge that if there is insufficient coverage such as an incident being off camera or too obscured for the VR to make an assessment, you lose the challenge but keep your review. It's basically the same as an 'umpires call' in cricket DRS reviews.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

It would be easy enough having a clause within the captains challenge that if there is insufficient coverage such as an incident being off camera or too obscured for the VR to make an assessment, you lose the challenge but keep your review. It's basically the same as an 'umpires call' in cricket DRS reviews.

That is how it works.

[JohnM]

I'd support the introduction of  Captains Challenge here.  It seems to work well in NRL games.

[ATLANTISMAN]

100% just make it 1 per team in each half simple.

[phiggins]

Trouble is, some of the video refs currently agonise over decisions, before just stating that there isn't enough evidence to return. Then we also have the VR stoppages because players are staying down after any head contact. Not sure adding more stoppages is the way forward.

I know it won't happen, but I'd much prefer scrapping the video ref full stop. Have the referee officiate on the day, then use the MRP for any necessary action for incidents that have been missed.

[JohnM]

I don't think those are reasons enough not to have it. If VRs are taking too long, then fix that issue.

In any case, it only adds a few stoppages.

Edited April 24 by JohnM

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

Agree that we shouldn't throw out the VR just because it's not perfect.

We should try to improve the quality of the tools we give to the VR and throw out the 'on-field call' because this stops the VR considering a decision objectively. Instead, I'd want the VR to tell the ref what he/she thinks the decision should be and their level of confidence (e.g. (a) 100% confident the ball was grounded, (b) ball appears to be grounded, but picture unclear, (c) ball not visible but no evidence it was knocked on) and give the on-field ref the final decision.

On the Captain's Challenge, again I think it is inevitable that occasionally it will be a close-run thing. I marginally prefer it because it gives the referee the chance to tell a team to 'put up or shut up' when they are complaining about a decision.

Yeah, I don't like the sport in the slightest, but RU does seem to do a better job around the Video Ref processes - in terms of the way the discussion happens and things are communicated as opposed to always getting the right decision which is always subjective. I think their approach does align with your proposal more and I do like it.

I'm 50/50 on Captain's challenge, we did have it in the WC and I don;t think it added anything when seeing it live.

[phiggins]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I don't like the sport in the slightest, but RU does seem to do a better job around the Video Ref processes - in terms of the way the discussion happens and things are communicated as opposed to always getting the right decision which is always subjective. I think their approach does align with your proposal more and I do like it.

I'm 50/50 on Captain's challenge, we did have it in the WC and I don;t think it added anything when seeing it live.

Is it something like the on field ref asks the video ref "any reason to disallow" if he thinks it's a try, or "Is it a try, yes or no" if they were unsighted in RU? Would be much better than what we have. The whole point of VR is to support referees, who can't be expected to see everything, but then we expect them to make a call anyway.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I don't like the sport in the slightest, but RU does seem to do a better job around the Video Ref processes - in terms of the way the discussion happens and things are communicated as opposed to always getting the right decision which is always subjective. I think their approach does align with your proposal more and I do like it.

I'm 50/50 on Captain's challenge, we did have it in the WC and I don;t think it added anything when seeing it live.

I absolutely hate the Union VR process.  It is long winded and committee based with the ref, two touch judges and the VR looking at the same video and trying to come to a conclusion together.  Very painful to watch.

[LeeF]

The Captain’s Challenge was far from a great success in the WC with a number of challenges showing the players up as either trying it on or not knowing the laws of the game.

Also don’t forget the frivolous challenges to get a breather. If you get upset about running the stop clock down or deliberately conceding 6 agains then just wait for the clearly frivolous Captain’s Challenges

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Is it something like the on field ref asks the video ref "any reason to disallow" if he thinks it's a try, or "Is it a try, yes or no" if they were unsighted in RU? Would be much better than what we have. The whole point of VR is to support referees, who can't be expected to see everything, but then we expect them to make a call anyway.

I think it's more the conversational style of the review. It's like they work in partnership and the VR helps the ref make the ultimate call. 

[LeeF]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I absolutely hate the Union VR process.  It is long winded and committee based with the ref, two touch judges and the VR looking at the same video and trying to come to a conclusion together.  Very painful to watch.

I 100% agree. It’s all for show and whilst it may add some drama that’s only because there is so little drama on the field. They also very regularly get decisions incorrect

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I absolutely hate the Union VR process.  It is long winded and committee based with the ref, two touch judges and the VR looking at the same video and trying to come to a conclusion together.  Very painful to watch.

I don't think it's perfect, and in Union they are quite happy to amble round and take a while doing everything, much like the players, but I do find it much better to understand and appreciate rather than our process of the VR often just keep watching the same thing. I do think it's better though now we can hear the VR. 

[LeeF]

48 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Trouble is, some of the video refs currently agonise over decisions, before just stating that there isn't enough evidence to return. Then we also have the VR stoppages because players are staying down after any head contact. Not sure adding more stoppages is the way forward.

I know it won't happen, but I'd much prefer scrapping the video ref full stop. Have the referee officiate on the day, then use the MRP for any necessary action for incidents that have been missed.

They only “agonise” because those decisions are the highly marginal ones which by definition need more viewings from a larger number of angles.

I’d happily get rid of the VR just like you suggest but wait for the first marginal try awarded or not awarded and the game would go into meltdown with some players, coaches & owners doing a “Notts Forest” style rant

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I 100% agree. It’s all for show and whilst it may add some drama that’s only because there is so little drama on the field. They also very regularly get decisions incorrect

I'm not sure that's true. I think the process of keeping the on-field ref involved in the decision is a good one. 

[LeeF]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure that's true. I think the process of keeping the on-field ref involved in the decision is a good one. 

The show bit or the incorrect decisions? Currently the decisions made by the VR in RL are correct in the vast majority of cases especially if you understand the protocols around the process.
 

The introduction by Sky of hearing the VR does assist even if we do have to listen to Ben Thaler clearly having a nice relaxing evening on his sofa with some Pringles and a few cans of Pepsi