Time to introduce NFL style challenge system
Roar Pro 
Carolina Panthers defensive end Thomas Keiser (98) chases Detroit Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford. AP Photo/The Detroit News, Daniel Mears
Related coverage
On the eve of the league’s new reported $1.25 billion television deal, I think the time is upon us for drastic changes to improve the quality of refereeing across the competition.
On a weekly basis, it appears there are a number of critical missed calls that have the potential to completely change the outcome of a game, and alter the remainder of a team’s season.
Every round, it seems that players’ on-field performances are being overshadowed in post-match press conferences by coaches complaining about crucial calls that didn’t go their way.
I think the ARLC needs to step in and make some drastic changes at the end of the year to improve the quality of the officiating for season 2013.
I understand that being a top grade official is no walk in the park. They are only human and are bound to make incorrect calls at times, but I think that something can be done to reduce how frequently they occur.
I believe the need for a challenge system, like the one used in the NFL, where coaches have the power to challenge a play they believe was incorrectly called, needs to be implemented during the off-season to help cut down on officiating errors.
If you’re concerned that this will only take away from the speed of the game, this can be managed by reducing the amount of stoppages and unnecessary trips upstairs throughout the match.
The way I would like to see it work would be that the men in pink would make all the decisions as they do now, but they would not have any direct contact with the man upstairs unless a play was being challenged. The video referee also wouldn’t be able to instruct the on field officials about anything they have missed like a forward pass or late hit.
I would replace the current system with one that would see each team receiving two ‘full challenges’ per game, which enables them to review a try they believe has been incorrectly called. I would put a 90 second time limit in place, and if the video referee can’t definitively rule a try or no try, the call on the field stands, cutting video referee decisions that take up to three or four minutes right out of the game.
Currently referees are too frightened to make a call that could cost a side the game. They would rather just send it upstairs than have their name smeared across the back page the next day.
As for decisions made during play, I would allow each team to have two ‘30 second challenges’ each half, which in the case of a lost ball, forward pass or penalty, a captain can call for a play to be reviewed if they believe the decision was incorrect.
This should stop players staying down injured trying to claim a penalty for a high shot, with the video referees unable to tip off the man on the ground if the on field officials fail to see anything.
Most importantly it should stop players and coaches complaining post-game about dud decisions that altered the result of the game. This new system will put the control in the hands of the coaches, and if they choose to waste their review opportunities early, they only have themselves to blame.
On the eve of the new possible $1.25 billion television deal that the NRL is trying to negotiate, I see this as an added way of the league being able to make more revenue by showing ads in between challenges.
Yes, I hate ads during football just as much as the next fan, but if it secures a better deal for the game, then I’m all for it.
Maybe instead of the NRL wasting the All-Star game with testing pointless rule changes like the power play and the 20/50 kicks that will never make their way into first grade, the league should have been trialling concepts like this that actually have the potential to improve the game.
Although some supporters of the game may question the idea, I believe it will take the pressure off referees, reduce the amount of whining by coaches and players post-match, and has the ability to bolster the new television rights package the NRL is currently trying to put together.
What do you think Roarers? Does concept have any merit or would you rather the NRL stick with the current system?
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- ARLC, NRL, Rugby League
June 15th 2012 @ 1:00am
Johnno said | June 15th 2012 @ 1:00am | Report comment
tv companies would initially love it , more advertising but fans would desert the sport in droves, and that would then mean less ads and money for the sport
June 15th 2012 @ 8:08am
Nathan Beuman said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Honestly, the way channel 9 broadcasts Sunday afternoon football is a joke. They stretch a game that lasts 80 minutes out to 120 minutes, not to mention its already on an hour delay. It can’t really get any worse then that. I refuse to watch the 3pm game on Channel 9 unless Manly is playing because of the fact they fit so many ads in-between breaks.
If fitting in even one add in-between reviews gave the NRL that much more revenue that they would be able to put more LIVE football on free-to-air then I think it had to be done.
June 15th 2012 @ 1:55am
Von Neumann (PBB) said | June 15th 2012 @ 1:55am | Report comment
BRAVO!
(depends how they use it, Johnno. I do not think anyone will dessert the sport because of it. I just think they need to gauge peoples/players/coaches/fans reactions/thoughts).
Honestly, this has been spoken about before and I don’t know why they have not done anything about it!!
Its much needed, for the reasons you say; and I only think that nothings been done, because they never wanted it to seem like the refs were doing a bad job or that people would see it as the refs having failed.
I think we all need to acknowledge, as a sport, that sometimes decisions can be awry.
To announce it, I think they just need to state that its tough being a ref, and while every effort is made, often there are contentious calls not everyone is happy with; its bound to happen in such a fast paced sport. To that effect, they will introduce a challenge system, and the players can have a closer look at certain calls, and the call in question can be examined.
___
I think however, while in favor of it, they need to be careful. IN NFL its such a slow paced game. In RL one could base a negative tactic around such a thing. It could ruin the flow of the game.
___
Just looking at it, I would like some things to be addressed.
– I think they need to place limits on when you can use it. Not in the last 10 minutes of any match. To prevent it being used as a tactic to slow the opposition. This would give it a 90% coverage ( maths not correct!?) I think. Thats pretty good.
– They should limit the calls one can use it for. Certainly not grounding the ball, that is already handled well. But things like forward passes and un-seen knock-ons and offsides.
***These are the times when the crowds boo the loudest – is so blatant – but we know the Refs can’t have eyes everywhere at once 100% of the time.
– When there is a punch thrown in back play and its missed, or a player taken out of play
– when there is a situation for interference and the offence feels its been wronged.
___
I think instead of eroding a ref’s perceived competency and ability, it could serve as a means to make everyone happier with the decisions at the end of the day.
I think they need to test it in a competition. They need to see how it works, its shortcomings, and its benefits.
June 15th 2012 @ 8:11am
mushi said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Can’t really do forward passes due to the angle of the camera to the player not being perpendicular
June 15th 2012 @ 8:19am
Nathan Beuman said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
I don’t think it would ever go down the path of looking like an NFL/college football game. Rugby league as a whole is a very fast pace game. The maximum time of stoppages you would have in a game (assuming its 90 seconds for try review) would be 10 minutes anyway. Thats not really that much more then what it is now.
Yes, that concept of no reviews in the last 2 minutes also comes from the NFL in which it can only be reviewed by the officials. I would be happy to cop that, only that it could open the door for Des (pun intended) and other coaches to complain about missed calls in the last 10 minutes.
They could test it out in Under 20′s, but they already don’t have a video referee so that would have to change, but I agree it definitely needs to be tested.
June 15th 2012 @ 6:08am
steve b said | June 15th 2012 @ 6:08am | Report comment
A lot of comments on the roar over the past months have come up with similar systems as this,,including myself..I wouldn’t limit the time for calls sometimes you have to look at it from different angles this does take time ,,so what chuck another add on to make sure they get it right..No real fan will bitch at this because it will be the correct call which is what we are all after..Whatever they eventually come up with will not please everybody but something must be done along these lines sooner rather than later..Good read N.B….
June 15th 2012 @ 8:13am
mushi said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:13am | Report comment
I think you need a time limit otherwise some teams will complain that theirs wasn’t given the same time as another teams.
One team will produce stats to show they get less time taken than everyone else etc and then there will be all this misplaced anger direct at the refs…again…
June 15th 2012 @ 8:22am
Nathan Beuman said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Television stations will want it unlimited so they can fit more ads in, but I think you really have to put a limit on it. Even if it were to go up to 2 minutes. If the video ref can’t say for sure in 2 minutes that it was a try or no try, there is obviously a fair bit of doubt and it should just go down to what was originally called on the field.
Thanks.
June 15th 2012 @ 6:15am
cjones said | June 15th 2012 @ 6:15am | Report comment
As referees are made scapegoats by players, coaches, supporters, tv commentators etc. maybe it’s time for the detractors to take a referees course and officiate in an actual game, then they could see how difficult it really is.
June 15th 2012 @ 6:27am
steve b said | June 15th 2012 @ 6:27am | Report comment
cjones no one is saying its not a hard job mate,,this system would help the refs ,and mate watch a bit closer they need help !!!!
June 15th 2012 @ 10:51am
oikee said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
It is the final process of rugby leagues journey to becoming a true professional run game. The coach or captains call has to come into play, why this has not happened before now is anyones guess.
Myself could not see it happening under Gallop’s rule, but now, i have faith it can happen. If a billion dollar code use’s this process in their game (NFL) it is only obvious that the NRL is slow off the mark, we need to bring this in ASAP. or before the AFL do for once.
Otherwise we get the same old lines, following AFL again, lets be proactive, not reactive.
June 15th 2012 @ 6:47am
cjones said | June 15th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
refs make mistakes so do players which gets highlighted
June 15th 2012 @ 8:28am
mushi said | June 15th 2012 @ 8:28am | Report comment
My two biggest reservations are.
1. The NFL has a natural segue into the challenge with the break between plays and that is the only time you get to use it. This does not exist in rugby league outside of a try where it is already extensively used.
My issue isn’t the speed of the game it is destroying the flow of it.
So Team A is makes a break following event X.
Does Team B get to challenge the ruling on event X straight away effectively ending the break as they will now set their defence. So team B is clearly better off regardless of the challenge outcome.
Does Team B need to wait until they gain possession in which case what happens if this is 5 tackles later? Do we rewind the clock go back to that part of the field and reset the game pretending nothing has happened? What happens if there is a penalty in between. Do we really like idea of making entire passages of play irrelevant? If so why not just have every tackle reviewed on delay and bring the game back all the time?
What happens if Team B gains possession advantageously during the following passage of play can team A then go back and say but for the wrong call on event X this never would have occurred (even though the screw up technically went in their favour)?
2. What is the penalty for using it? Leave it as a free option and it will be abused. Guarantee it lock it in stone.
In the NFL again they had a natural penalty in the form of a time out despite there being no real application for cynical use.
June 15th 2012 @ 9:28am
turbodewd said | June 15th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
mushi,
I suggest to you that the flow of RL at the moment is littered with captains querying every 2nd call by the referees. This is a nuisance and no ref has ever overturned his own call due to such protestations. And video ref stoppages can last for a long time!
The NRL-style video ref would REDUCE stoppages! The refs currently constantly go to the video ref, often when totally not required.
Here’s how it could work in the NRL:
1. Twice per game an NRL team may throw a flag on the field to challenge a try/no-try ruling. That flag throw must happen with, say, 20s of the ruling. (this should be long enuff for a team to view TV and determine if theyve been dudded)
2. The video ref only overturns the original call if its CLEARLY wrong. If its impossible to tell or 50-50 then the original call stands.
3. The video ref is only allowed 30 seconds to view footage, basically some set period.
4. If the 2 video rulings go in your favor you are awarded with a 3rd. This would remove frivolous challenges.
June 15th 2012 @ 9:39am
mushi said | June 15th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
I think you are missing the point – Stoppages aren’t the concern it is when the game is flowing clearly to the advantage of one team.
Lets say you make a break I’ve got three guys back in defence for the next tackles.
You know what I do? I throw my flag to stop the game for review and bam that is the best cover defence in the league. Players currently risk 10 in the bin to achieve less than what that flag just did.
None of your suggestions answer how you avoid that without essentially rewinding large tracts of play.
On the captains interrupting the easy way is just enforce the rule book that says you aren’t actually allowed to treat referees like that. (it is in their first that abusive language is not to be tolerated and you cannot question the referee’s authority).
Start binning people.
June 15th 2012 @ 10:11am
turbodewd said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Dude, re-read what I said. This would only apply to TRY or NO-TRY rulings. General play would be unaffected as is currently the case.
June 15th 2012 @ 10:58am
mushi said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Sorry missed that bit thought you were commenting in here based on the article.
Not sure I agree with introducing less assistance to referees (which is what this does) and I think the article is agaisnt that as well.
June 15th 2012 @ 9:44am
Nathan Beuman said | June 15th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I agree that it should stop captains going up and complaining about something that happened in the play the ball trying to slow down play. If they believe they were given a wrong call, then call for a “30 second challenge”.
If you mean 30 seconds for a knock on or forward pass that is okay, but if you mean just 30 seconds for a try then I don’t think that would be long enough.
I do like being awarded a 3rd if you get the first two overturned.
I would really like to see the coaches verdict of this. I would suggest most of them would be strongly against it for the simple fact it puts more pressure on them and that it gives them less of an excuse to complain post-match.
June 15th 2012 @ 10:57am
oikee said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:57am | Report comment
I agree, thei is nothing wrong with stoppages as long as they are interesting. The other day i mentioned we go to a ad if we have a captains call. During the ad the video ref can look at all the different video angle replays, so the fans dont have to sit through this pile of bullocks.
Then when we come back to the game from the ad breaks, the viseo ref has found the right angle, the right camera, he shows the video to us, (the public) and gives his verdict.
Its dramatic, you see the replay of what and why he made the call, without sitting through 10 replays where you dont learn nothing, you just get angry for watching so many replays.
This is not rocket science, it is simply common sense. We need to have a captains call.
2 a match is enough, if you get it right you keep the 2 calls, if your wrong you lose it, so the next call is sudden death. You lose your second call and no matter what happens you cant have another look.
Right their you add drama. Drama sells.
June 15th 2012 @ 9:20am
Fivehole said | June 15th 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
As long as the keep it the way the NFL has it ie DEFINITIVE proof is required to overturn the call on the field then i much prefer this. It would stop some of the whinging of the coaches. You are never going to stop all the whinging. If you did sites like the roar would only have the code wars to fall back on.
June 15th 2012 @ 10:31am
James said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
can I just say that when ever an NFL article comes up on the roar my beloved panthers are in the picture. makes me sad that it is NFL off season
June 15th 2012 @ 10:40am
Nathan Beuman said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Don’t worry James. The season kicks off in only a couple of months. Will be interesting to see how Cam Newton goes with a full off-season to prepare.
June 15th 2012 @ 10:56am
Puntpal said | June 15th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
Totally agree with the challenge system. The players 90% of the time know what the fair outcome is and you wont get them high-fiving and head nodding to bluff the refs when they know the other team can challenge.
The current system is a joke, with far more stoppages then you would get under a challenge system
its just a matter of time really
June 15th 2012 @ 1:00pm
The Barry said | June 15th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
I’m with Mushi on this one – there is no way to introduce an in-play challenge system without completely interrupting the flow of the game or playing on to the next stoppage and then having to “rewind” chunks of the game.
It’s a good idea in theory but impractical.
Unfortunately with 50-60 metres available every set of 6 and momentum being such a key part of the game now that refs mistakes are crucial. When you take into account the kick for touch and ensuing set then a penalty anywhere on the field puts the attacking team deep into their opponents territory.
Maybe the answer is to take away the kick for touch following a penalty. A set of six these days is probably the equivalent of a kick to touch and a set from 20-30 years ago. There’s no need for the bonus 20-40 metres from the kick except maybe if you’re in your own 20 and get a penalty.