The NRL says a captain’s challenge option will be next following next year’s introduction of an NFL-style “bunker” referral system in a bid to improve the standard of video refereeing.
The league’s head of football Todd Greenberg revealed the full details of the ground-breaking Central Command Centre – to be located at Redfern in Sydney – at Rugby League Central on Friday.
The Australian Rugby League Commission-approved implementation will be a first for Australian sport, utilising Hawk-Eye Innovations video review technology and supported by Telstra’s Digital Video Network platform.
“This will be a game changer for rugby league in this country,” Greenberg said.
“It has the potential to halve the time taken to review a decision and deliver more accurate results.”
After an exhaustive trial process, the league will follow the lead of the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB, who all use central command centres in the United States with great success.
Video referees conducted some 750 reviews this year, with an average of four a game, the painstaking processes leaving spectators to sit through some seven hours of waiting – often to get the wrong result anyway.
“We think we can get to lose than 40 seconds every time we review a decision and that’s a marked improvement,” Greenberg said.
“Fans won’t have to sit around and wait for as long as they currently do to get a yes or no decision on a try.
“And clearly we want to get it right, so we want to make sure our accuracy levels improve.
“There should be a zero tolerance to (video refereeing) errors.
“It’s a big part of the evolution of our game to continue to give our match officials all the tools and technology to make sure that they can make great decisions.”
Currently, video referees based in small boxes at the match venues have to make high-pressure decisions with fans banging on their windows.
Video referees are also at the mercy of the broadcasters’ replays.
In the sanctuary of a bunker, officials will have multiple camera angles, touch screen interfaces, zoom functions and split screens at their disposal.
“Our video referees will be using state-of-the-art technology,” Greenberg said.
To improve transparency and hopefully remove frustration among fans, viewers will also see the decision-making unfold before their very eyes.
“We want to make sure they’re part of that process. They can hear it and we want to hold those people who make those decisions accountable,” Greenberg said.
“Referees will still be paid to make on-field decisions. We won’t be micro-managing the game.”
But believing the bunker system can get close to 100 per cent of decisions right, Greenberg said a captain’s challenge system is also in the pipeline beyond 2016.
“Nil mistakes in the video referee box is what we’re aiming for,” he said.
“Video refereeing decisions have a massive impact on the game. This is an investment in the game’s integrity.
“I think it will transform the game.”
The Barry
Roar Guru
It's a valid question Lorry. It's definitely a cultural issue. It also stems from a misalignment between rules, refs, MRC and the judiciary. Spending millions on technology and bunkers doesn't address either cause.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That's a very mature level of debate when someone asks for objective evidence. I've said I'll give it a go. I'm just sceptical that it will make any marked difference to the standard of refereeing. You've already agreed with me that the main factor in incorrect decisions is the human element. Introducing hawkeye and touch screens and a bunker does very little to address the core root of the problem - you still have a human being interpreting the data and pressing the buttons. That's unavoidable so it's a relevant question if the ongoing significant financial investment results in any sort of improvement for decision making or fan experience. And my opinion is no because there will still be enough mistakes and media hammering refs and coaches hammering refs and 50/50 calls that everyone will argue about on Monday that we won't notice a tangible difference. I'm happy to be proven wrong but I need more than "but it's in a bunker" or "the yanks do it" or "better technology" to be swayed. It also only addresses one small part of refereeing. Great - we the correct decision for a try. Meanwhile the refs have ignored a whole set of players being offside, three play the ball infringements and a forward pass from dummy half in the set leading up to the try.
Lorry
Guest
Not having a dig at league here, but why do you think these ref decision issues happen in league but dont seem to happen in union?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
OK then ,it will be an unmitigated disaster.Waste of money.The research they have done already via U20 and a couple of NRL games in house means nought. Mate give it a chance .
The Barry
Roar Guru
That stuff about the Yanks is thrown around but from my understanding they do it the exact opposite in the NFL. The on-field ref goes to a monitor at the side of the field and makes a call themselves. Would split screens or zoom technology or touch screens have helped the refs that made the appalling decision to award the Kane Evans try? Or any of the dozens of blatant errors that were made during the year. This only relates to try decisions. You could argue that try scoring is the area where referees currently perform the best and is least in need of a fix-up. What about the other thousand decisions that the refs stuff up on a weekly basis? I'm not suggesting that anyone expects 100% accuracy. I just don't think there's going to be a marked improvement because a ref sits in a bunker and looks at a split screen. The metric now for whether video refs have got it wrog or right is Tony Archer coming out on a Monday morning and saying things like "the on-field ref awarded try so therefore the video refs were unable to find sufficieny evidence to overturn the decision, so technically it was correct, despite the fact it was an obvious double movement, knock-on, held up, dropped ball, dead-in-goal, shepherd, off-side, obstruction." When I see some objective evidence that hawkeye and touch screens lead to more correct decisions, I'll start to get excited. If you can explain to me how they will lead to better decisions other than just saying "Better Technology" and "The Yanks do it" then I'm all ears.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
I'm disagreeing that's me.Never suggested any system will get 100% accuracy ,all the time. Then why do the Yanks persevere?Better technology than the current system fort a start. A fool with a better tool,is a better fool.Moderation!!! Kidding???
The Barry
Roar Guru
I can't work out if you're arguing or agreeing. We'll see I guess. There's still going to be 50/50 calls that half the punters will swear blue are wrong and refs will still make howlers. I don't think hotspot and spider-cam are going to fix it. Is that worth X million dollars? I'm not sure - doesn't sound that different to what we have to me. "But they're in a bunker!" A fool with a tool is still a fool. If it's not vision supplied by the broadcasters will the people at home have access to it?
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
" Semi professional' .Seeing the numbers of video refs will be reduced dramatically ,they will be a tad more than semi.In fact they will have more eyes viewing an incident in a particular match,than currently exists. The Yanks use it and it apparently works. The NRL researched it first hand as to its effectiveness. There is human element in everything ,even when robots are involved.Just ask the poor St George Bank customers ,who couldn't access ATMs and internet banking the prior weekend. Reminds me of the gimps who stated there will be less paperwork when computers come in.I have as many if not more files kicking around than I ever have,and that's just for private usage.
The Barry
Roar Guru
What makes anyone think that a semi-professional referee will be better at determining which of multiple cameras will have the best angle as opposed to a sports director with many years experience? How is it that having MORE camera angles will result in a quicker turnaround time? At the end of the day lack of technology is the reason we get "incorrect" decisions. As black and white as we'd love the rules to be there's a huge amount of judgement required. Concepts like control, downward pressure, double movement, one on one strip, knock ons, forward passes, etc all require varying amounts of subjective decision making. Until we have a a rugby league robot making the calls there will always be a human element and there will be errors. Most will relate to '50/50' calls but some will be absolute howlers. I don't think there will be any noticeable difference next year to this.
Von Neumann
Roar Guru
well said CC. Someone said above its going to be worse with more camera angles, ect. ha. The bunker will allow them to pick and choose which angles, and watch footage concurrently at any angle they like. This bunker system will improve on the process. And the refs do a pretty good job overall in any case. They have trimmed down the number of video refs required. The improvements are all across the board. This is a great step forward.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Should the bunker improve decisions by min .50% on current bloopers,and the time taken to get to such a decision ditto,then IMHO it will be an unqualified success. At times we are talking inches/cms when it comes to a decision despite it being a simple code . At least the code knows there is a problem,and wants to do something about it. Alternatively circa 2011 we could be umming and aaaghjing about whether to do something.Fence sitting and indecision being the norm with a jointly owned sport.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
If the bunker dilutes the on-field referee's authority then it will be a failure.
Mitcher
Guest
^^^ This Serious parts and jokes all inclusive.
Joel Rigby
Guest
I support the bunker easy, though only if they use it for its name sake, only if people in the bunker are shown footage where their rulings are required, they do not watch the game as a whole, they have no idea of the score, there is no media, information in and out of the bunker bar the footage they must rule on in, and their verdict out, only then can you really call it a bunker. Oh' yea, and a bat phone to the commissioner for real emergencies ...
Lorry
Guest
Its ironic in what is probably the simplest football code in the world that they get it so wrong!
up in the north
Roar Rookie
Have I really sat through 7 hours of the same kfc ad. No wonder I'm getting fat. I can live with the bunker -stupid name- but are they going to tweek when it can and can't be used. ie: at the moment it's only permitted in the play leading up to a try. That's a flaw. Will it be used for ruck infringements? Forward passes? Markers not standing square , or markers being absent like last weeks game? Just a couple of queries off the top of my head.
B-Unit
Guest
I like that part about seeing. I've always wanted there to be cameras and microphones in the box so we see and hear how they come to those decisions . The on field referees are on camera and mic'd up and we hear pretty much everything they say. The video referees should have always been under the same kind of scrutiny. At least if they screw it up, we'll see how they came to the stupid decision and we won't have to wait until Tuesday for a 'please explain' session from Tony Archer...
Big Willy
Guest
If you the yanks are doing it there must be significant value in it - there are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in their elite level professional sports. Learn from the best. My biggest gripe with the refs is their overly polite attitude towards some of the captains who use their profile to pressure for favourable treatment. At least most of the players and fans are beginning to understand that you win some and lose some of the 50/50 calls.
Wayne Bennett
Guest
Yes,the stock standard comment"giving things a go"The NRL have no foresight and it's not the arena to " give things a go".Nothing is changing except that all decisions will come from the one place.They are saying there will be more camera angles but more cameras mean more shots to look at which negates Greenbergs claim decisions will be quicker.And unless there is cameras on every player,ref and the ball,how will it be any different to cameras they have now?It still comes back to the rules that they have to enforce.Foresight is not on any of the NRL's regimes
E-Meter
Guest
Ha good call. Don't step out of line coaches or you will be summoned to the bunker. Trouble.