The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Captain's challenge a must for rugby league

Roar Guru
22nd January, 2012
17

While watching the Australian Open with friends the other night, I asked how good it would be if NRL players could challenge a referee’s decision.

I was shocked to learn only days later that this could be a reality in the near future. Bill Harrigan has stated that he likes the idea and has attended the Open to see first-hand how it all works.

In tennis, when a ball lands close to the line, either player can can challenge the linesman’s call of out or in. The shot in question is recreated and its trajectory calculated by an advanced computer system, and the call is upheld or overturned.

Each player is allowed three incorrect challenges per set, at which time they are no longer allowed to challenge until the following set.

This could work well in the NRL, but only if it was used in the right way. For instance, the main public criticism of the challenge system is that it would slow the game down. This is not necessarily true. Limiting the amount of challenges each team may use (like in tennis) would prevent referees from ‘going upstairs’ every time a call is made, as a captain would have to have enough doubt in the original call.

The challenge system could essentially replace the need to go to the video referee. One of the frustrating parts of the modern game is watching a ref have almost every try scrutinised instead of using his linesmen and his own judgment. Under the challenge system, the referee would have to call it as he sees it and leave it up to the relevant captain to challenge the call.

As previously mentioned, limiting the number of challenges would prevent excessive use. There are two main advantages to using this system to rule on tries. Firstly, we would see the referees backing their own decisions a lot more, which may lead to increased confidence in their authority and secondly, Hawk Eye technology could potentially allow the video referee to finally rule on forward passes.

The disadvantage is that if a referee is repeatedly found to have made an incorrect call, their credibility would come under great scrutiny.

Advertisement

Obviously, however, the biggest test is how to use the system during the passage of play. Clearly there are some penalties where a challenge system is superfluous, for instance, holding a player down too long or coming in late to the tackle. In most cases, however, the controversy is not usually that a penalty has been incorrectly awarded; it is that a penalty should have been awarded, which opens up a whole new bag of questions.

When can a captain challenge? Should it be immediately or when the ball stops moving? How long does the captain have before he misses his opportunity to challenge? Should challenges be limited to instances resulting in tries? All very good questions which the NRL think tank will surely spend time pondering.

What I’m most excited about seeing is the opportunity to use Hawk Eye to rule on forward passes. This technology could prevent all the uncertainty which often taints victories and steals headlines. Gone would be the days of watching post game press conferences where the losing coach slams match officials for their poor performance.

With Hawk Eye proving irrefutably the trajectory of a pass, their complaints would be groundless. If they were unhappy with a decision, they had the opportunity to challenge it.

Hawk Eye and the challenge system would not eliminate all controversy surrounding match decisions (even in the tennis it is still common to see players arguing with the umpire), but regrouping after a call goes against you is something drummed into every junior sportsman in Australia.

What the captains’ challenge allows is the chance for players to have peace of mind in the lightning-paced modern game. It may take a while to work out the kinks but overall I believe this system would be a positive innovation for the game.

Now if they only had technology to prove a football player was taking a dive…

Advertisement
close