Not a fan of Captain's Challenge

[The Daddy]

I think it slows the game down, gives video referee too much control of the game. 

Also, it seems like the video ref is getting decisions wrong. 

I'm not a fan of the video ref adjudicating on tries unless the on field ref has specifically asked him to look at something. 

[phiggins]

They are both examples of things that we have blindly copied off the NRL, regardless of resources used over there.

I don't have much issue with the system of awarding a try and having it checked. I think the time lost with every try being reviewed is more than offset by the time previously lost by the amount of tries going up anyway and time taken to check them.

But captain's challenge does nothing but cause delays, at a time when we're trying to speed the game up and attract new viewers. I'd get rid of that tomorrow. 

[georgeb1]

Teams are now using this to take a breather , get shut , it's being abused plus undermining the ref

[Dunbar]

10 hours ago, The Daddy said:

I think it slows the game down, gives video referee too much control of the game. 

Also, it seems like the video ref is getting decisions wrong. 

I'm not a fan of the video ref adjudicating on tries unless the on field ref has specifically asked him to look at something. 

I think your first and thied points are a little contradictory. 

On the whole, the ref awarding more tries on the ground and being checked in the background, as teams reset and the kicker prepares a conversion, is a more efficient use of time than sending a potential try up for review. Sure, there may be one or two longer decisions but not as many as we have seen previously as referees sent a lot of decisions for review as they were nervous of making mistakes.

[Simon Hall]

I think any unsuccessful captain's challenge should result in a penalty to the other side, that would soon stop all the messing about using them to waste time. Or do away with it completely as it's a daft gimmick and offers nothing to the spectacle.

Speeding the game up to the detriment of players health with the fast ruck speed then basically stopping the game for 5 minutes so we can all wait for a video referee to decide on a ball steal. Ridiculous.

[sam4731]

I would scrap VR for everything completely, apart from having one unsuccessful Captain's Challenge per team INCLUDING for try reviews. See how many teams waste a challenge on a 50/50 knock on/ball steal call when they might need to contest a try that's been given incorrectly later on.

Also scrap inconclusive. The burden should be on the team challenging to be completely sure. If it's inconclusive, it's unsuccessful in my eyes.

[Josef K]

I am not a fan of it, it just has supporters at the games groaning when there is a captain’s challenge. We have survived without it before, all it does is add more stoppages & time. 

[StandOffHalf]

Yeah, it's pretty off-putting to see a try provisionally decided upon and then the wait around to see whether it's going to be reviewed officially.

The SL tech just isn't there, and the SL video refs seem all over the place when it comes to deferring to the on-field call. The Hull No Try in the derby was a good example of a really shoddy and frustrating delay, capped off by what is widely agreed to be the wrong call.

The Captain's Challenge does nothing for me either TBH.

[Dave T]

I dont mind it, although id also be ok with it being scrapped. A really good use of.it was the Hudds try versus Wigan a couple of weeks ago.

But, my main frustration is that the VR decisions appear to be a bit random. A common challenge is around ball stealing, and it really does appear to be a toss of a coin on what the ref will rule.

[JohnM]

Its fine as it is. I think some people are making a mountain out of nothing...not even a molehill.  Given that an unsucessful challenge removes the ability of a further challenge, captains have just ten seconds to be sure of their ground before making a challenge. Not only that, there are situations that cannot be challenged.  Using the CC as a way of getting a breather doesn't seem likely for the same reason...a speculative waste of a challenge.  Add to that, the apparent increase in successful challenges so far this season is manna from heaven for ref bashers and those who think "the game's gone".

1.  Each team is allowed one unsuccessful challenge per game. 

2. Challenges can only be used when the referee blows the whistle to stop play. 

3. Decisions that cannot be challenged include forward passes, discretionary penalties, and time-wasting. 

4. The challenge must be communicated to the referee within ten seconds and before they are ready to restart play. 

Hardly the end of the sport as we know it.

Edited April 8 by JohnM

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, phiggins said:

But captain's challenge does nothing but cause delays, at a time when we're trying to speed the game up and attract new viewers. I'd get rid of that tomorrow. 

Where does the idea that speeding the game up will somehow attract new viewers come from anyway?  It sounds nutty to me.

[Trojan Horse]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Its fine as it is. I think some people are making a mountain out of nothing...not even a molehill.  Given that an unsucessful challenge removes the ability of a further challenge, captains have just ten seconds to be sure of their ground before making a challenge. Not only that, there are situations that cannot be challenged.  Using the CC as a way of getting a breather doesn't seem likely for the same reason...a speculative waste of a challenge.  Add to that, the apparent increase in successful challenges so far this season is manna from heaven for ref bashers and those who think "the game's gone".

1.  Each team is allowed one unsuccessful challenge per game. 

2. Challenges can only be used when the referee blows the whistle to stop play. 

3. Decisions that cannot be challenged include forward passes, discretionary penalties, and time-wasting. 

4. The challenge must be communicated to the referee within ten seconds and before they are ready to restart play. 

Hardly the end of the sport as we know it.

I agree with that. 
 

The actual issue at the root of it is the standard of the officiating that is leading to numerous challenges and a high level of successful challenges. 
 

Take the recent Trinity game a few weeks ago. 3 x wrong calls on the field in a close game. All 3 overturned. Had the challenge not existed and incorrect on field calls stood the momentum would incorrectly have swung. 
 

Now we have had it and it’s highlighted the consistent errors you can’t take it away unless you accept there will be numerous incorrect calls on field that could affect momentum and results. 
 

Though I have no issue with the challenge. I think the game getting faster is putting officials under more pressure with on field positions and more incorrect calls are happening. I think the officials need supporting with a combination of technology, training, or looking at the process. 

[nkpom]

There is a deeper issue here that is highlighted by the above post about the 3 overturned decisions. The reality is referees don't need to take responsibility of decisions, and indeed don't need to be in the right position to make a call because the video will cover it.

Let's be honest here though - it's only a game! When the rules were written they were not meant to be sub-millimetre perfect - "benefit off the doubt" to the attack means if the ref can't see whether the ball is down or not, IT'S A TRY. The stuff I see about VAR in soccer and the "nose offside" example shows this is not a situation unique to us.

Also the need of administrations to show that refereeing is perfect has led to "processes" being put in place that try to determine right and wrongs where they can't exist. NRL is the prime example of this - the whole "inside shoulder, outside shoulder" obstruction rulings for one, and the bunker being able to read player's minds about their intentions.

[Trojan Horse]

57 minutes ago, nkpom said:

There is a deeper issue here that is highlighted by the above post about the 3 overturned decisions. The reality is referees don't need to take responsibility of decisions, and indeed don't need to be in the right position to make a call because the video will cover it.

Let's be honest here though - it's only a game! When the rules were written they were not meant to be sub-millimetre perfect - "benefit off the doubt" to the attack means if the ref can't see whether the ball is down or not, IT'S A TRY. The stuff I see about VAR in soccer and the "nose offside" example shows this is not a situation unique to us.

Also the need of administrations to show that refereeing is perfect has led to "processes" being put in place that try to determine right and wrongs where they can't exist. NRL is the prime example of this - the whole "inside shoulder, outside shoulder" obstruction rulings for one, and the bunker being able to read player's minds about their intentions.

While broadly I do see your point, the video won’t always cover it. Case in point, Pratt dived over the ball line fielding a low kick and it should have been a penalty due him being tackled and a player round his legs in goal but ball being in play. Another player came in and pushed him over. Everyone in the ground saw it was a penalty and he was already held but the official gave a drop out. 
 

Had the challenge not being initiated then play would have continued with Trinity dropping out and no VR intervention. Thus inviting pressure on the line from an incorrect call. 
 

Without the challenge that could have turned into sustained pressure and repeat sets on the line. 
 

I agree we can’t expect perfection as interpretation even for the VR’s can vary and errors are made. But I think we can expect better accuracy and consistency than what we are seeing. 
 

I do not blame refs by the way. I think their job has been increasingly getting harder and the speed of the game and technology has been standing still. The expectations though have risen of what the sport seem to want to achieve. 
 

Signifivant investment maybe needed in technology, training, processes etc if the fans wants to get closer to a more fluid and faster game. 
 

I will say one thing. All tries being reviewed has slowed the game down. Previously if a try was given and scored then it’s kicked and your away. Sometimes important in a close match with minutes to go. 
 

Now, I’ve seen numerous occasion kickers place the ball and to hold while the try is confirmed or reviewed which can zap the intensity out of closing stages. that’s been brought in I think because some try’s were given that on seeing replays after shouldn’t have stood. That again though comes back to incorrect officiating which led to this and the willingness to speed the pace of the game up. 
 

Like the 6 again though, over time this will become normality. 
 

I actually still prefer the hand how it was pre 6 agains and without all the messing about. 
 

I watched a game from 2006 back that was exciting, fast and players relying more on skill and plays than trying to just speed run behind the ruck for 4-5 carries to expose space. It’s a bit robotic at times and the skill to a degree and maverick plays have somewhat been diluted from the game. 

 

 

 

[graveyard johnny]

4 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Where does the idea that speeding the game up will somehow attract new viewers come from anyway?  It sounds nutty to me.

the Benny Hill show was doing pretty poor for viewers until

 

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, Big Picture said:

Where does the idea that speeding the game up will somehow attract new viewers come from anyway?  It sounds nutty to me.

Whether speeding up the game makes the game more appealing to new viewers is a different debate. Personally, I think we've gone a bit too far and lost too much physicality and seeing too much success down the middle. But the game is speeding up, and will always be looking to appeal to new viewers.

I'm not sure how much a new viewer will care for watching referees commentate on replays of a knock / ball steal to a 90s fatboy slim track.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

8 hours ago, Simon Hall said:

I think any unsuccessful captain's challenge should result in a penalty to the other side, that would soon stop all the messing about using them to waste time. Or do away with it completely as it's a daft gimmick and offers nothing to the spectacle.

Speeding the game up to the detriment of players health with the fast ruck speed then basically stopping the game for 5 minutes so we can all wait for a video referee to decide on a ball steal. Ridiculous.

Your suggestion has a sort of precedent in another sport, Simon.  Under IIHF rules (and probably NHL ones too), the captain of an ice hockey team can ask the referees to measure certain dimensions of an opponent's stick (I think in particular the curve of the blade)  As you might imagine, this rule is rarely exercised.  If the referees, having measured the allegedly offending stick find it to be legal, the team of the captain who asked for the measurement must send a player to the penalty box for a minor penalty, and hence play four skaters against five for two minutes or until they concede a goal.

[Dave T]

Isn't there something similar in Uno?

[Tommygilf]

I think a lot of it exposes how many players don't know the rules or how they are interpreted.

Teams seem to use one late on to waste time or slow down the opposition if they need too.

[JT RL]

Scrap VR, except for foul play.

head highs, dangerous play, late shots

thats it

VR can make call at anytime 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

I'm not a fan of Captain's Challenge. It is really slowing the game down by stopping the momentum of play smack in the middle, rather than at a try when play has stopped anyway. Also, teams are abusing it towards the end of games just to get a breather.

A way to reform it would perhaps be to give the video ref a limited amount of time to make a decision, perhaps a minute, and should they not come to a decision the team lose the Challenge.

[Just Browny]

I'd separate two things: 1) the concept of the Captain's challenge, and 2) how it is operating.

On 1) I was a proponent of it because it produces a 'put up or shut up' situation and can eliminate 'the howler' when a referee simply misses something and gets it wrong. But I found it offputting when teams were misusing it and wasting time. I think in general it has improved and we have seen some poor decisions rightly overturned.

On 2) I still think we as a sport are not helping ourselves, with poor quality replays and poor decisions. We see video refs looking at the same angle time and time again, when it turns out better and more conclusive angles are available. And there seem to be some very inconsistent rulings, especially on ball-steals.

I think it will settle down further and I wouldnt get rid, but speed it up and provide better tech to help refs.

[gingerjon]

24 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think it will settle down further and I wouldnt get rid, but speed it up and provide better tech to help refs.

That does mean that, for evening games, the lights need to be better than the Vauxhall Conference. It's not all on the cameras.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

28 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That does mean that, for evening games, the lights need to be better than the Vauxhall Conference. It's not all on the cameras.

Are they the ones I always see driving into Hull on an evening with a rear light out?

[Coggo]

Happy with Captain’s Challenge as it can mitigate ‘shockers’ by the ref who simply may have missed it because he was looking for offside or whatever. 

Also happy with the VR.

My only change would be to adopt the yawnion thing of ‘Is there any reason why I cannot award the try?’, which de facto gives the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team for tries that look like tries but where we can’t be 100% sure due to a bevy of bodies or poor cameramanship or pixel resolution. (That’s the only thing I would borrow from yawnion on or off the field).