SANZAR proposes challenge system

This week the NZ coach came out and said rugby isn't helping itself with the contentious reffing decisions by having such complicated laws. It's asking too much of a guy out in the middle and two guys with flags on the sidelines to spot everything. Even when you add in a guy in a room with a TV and access to replays, you're still not guaranteed with coming up with the right decision.

So SANZAR are proposing something similar to tennis or cricket where a team captain can have three challenges per game if they feel they are being hard done by. Now normally I'd be in favour of taking out human error but this doesn't seem like a workable solution. As we saw last week, TMO viewings can still fail to sway the ref's final decision. The big difference with what tennis and cricket have is that they use machines or technology to overturn decisions. As far as I know, rugby software hasn't been developed to adjudicate on contested decisions: at the end of the day, it'll still be a human who decides.

Imagine a try is scored. The captain runs over to the ref. Hang on, sir. We'd like to use a challenge. - Oh, really? What specifically? - Well we thought it was a forward pass a few phases back. You know one of those physics ones.

Cue ten minutes of someone poring over tapes. The commentators chipping in with the pointless there's definitely backward movement in the hands. I assume if the ref's decision is being contested a so-called impartial observer such as the TMO is placed with the responsibility to make the final decision and relay it back to the ref.

I don't like the fact that already the ref's authority is undermined by the TMO. The top ranked teams almost all play matches in stadia with big screens. To me the TMO should be a video editor and nothing else. His job is to find the relevant videotapes for the ref and the ref out in the middle still decides. Is there any reason why I can't award the try to me is a leading question. I can't see the ball being grounded but is that a good enough reason? Sometimes this is what I think the thought processes are of the TMO.

If a captain was allowed to make a challenge to a decision like the Vermeulan penalty last weekend, the TMO should just set up the footage and the captain can make his case and if the ref agrees or not, ultimately the decision should still be his.

What do you think?

IMHO It should be Coaches call not captains,only go back one phase(to a ruck or maul,scrum, lineout) or 30 seconds of play & they have to call the exact reason for the call not be vague on an offence. Lost if decision stands, kept if their call correct. Chances are only 2 will be used in case of howler by ref. This will reduce the times the ref calls for a replay. Tmo can still call acts of foul play.

How do coaches in their box communicate what they wish to challenge? My concern would be the coach is too removed from the game to be able to relay back to the ref what the issue is.

But you raise an interesting point. In cricket the captain gets to challenge a play but everyone is focused on that one particular play. Rugby is more complex and if the captain is buried at the bottom of a ruck how can he make the call if he hasn't seen it?

While it's true that in cricket it's the captain (or batsman who's just been given out) who makes the challenge, the captain will usually consult (quickly, they only have about 15 seconds) with the wicketkeeper and bowler before deciding. Certainly for England it's the wicketkeeper who gets the final say usually (according to reports). Similarly the batsman will check with the non-striker usually (unless it's an LBW and he knows he's hit it).

You could imagine something similar (though more complicated) in rugby A player sees something and goes to his captain saying "I was blocked off the ball when I could have made the tackle" or something. I don't mind this idea, provided as people say it's properly implemented. I would restrict it to one failed challenge per half, which you could make to get a penalty or try awarded overturned, and if you're appealing against a try it has to be for a specific incident that might have happened in the 30 seconds before the try was scored.

Obviously people also raise the point that in cricket and tennis they have technology, but in cricket the technology isn't always available (series in SL or WI won't have snicko or hotspot, though they will have hawkeye), so it's a case of the captain only using the challenges if he's 100% sure.

Kia, coaches would be in communication with TMO, who would pass it on that a challenge has been made, would also mean that coaches can tell TMO specific incident in question. Tennis & Cricket have convienient gaps in play where the players can raise a challenge. Rugby sho uld be more free flowing. We all know as players that we see it different to Refs at times & players have enough to do playing the game without reffing as well. As it is most coaches that comment on a refs performance giving the challenge to them means that if they think a Ref got a obvious call wrong they can challenge. If they use their challenges incorrectly it is their fault. Hopefully then the TMO will only be used for obvious infringements rather than interpretations. The Refs on the pitch can get on with Reffing & if they make a mistake( they are human believe it or not) it would then be the coaches fault for not challenging.

There are games though where communication breaks down and the ref can't hear the TMO in his earpiece because of the crowd. I know what you're saying but my fear is that this will slow the game down unnecessarily. I'd rather have the ref jabbering away non-stop on the pitch letting the players know what he's seeing than having that taken away from him and someone else speaking for him that's not in the thick of the action.

From what I am seeing in the Aviva when a ref calls for TMO he gets in a position where he can see the screen, watches the playback ,sometimes calling for a different view, then tells the TMO what he saw & then asks if the TMO saw anything different. So it is still the Ref making the decision. As for noise stopping communication the TMO has effective control of the screen so could put up that a challenge has been made.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
I don't like the fact that already the ref's authority is undermined by the TMO. The top ranked teams almost all play matches in stadia with big screens. To me the TMO should be a video editor and nothing else. His job is to find the relevant videotapes for the ref and the ref out in the middle still decides. Is there any reason why I can't award the try to me is a leading question. I can't see the ball being grounded but is that a good enough reason? Sometimes this is what I think the thought processes are of the TMO.

Exactly.  The ref asks the TMO to have a look at something he hasn't seen in realtime.  Then Everyone - and I mean everyone - sits back and waits for the detective stuff to start.  Everyone (the TMO, the players, the audience at the game, the people watching on TV AND the ref!) sit back and watch the repeated reruns of the event and they all come to their own conclusions - inlcuding the ref, who sees as much as the TMO but because he asked the TMO to decide, usually waits for the TMO decision and more often than not abides by it.

The ref should simply have the power to ask for a few reruns of an event and then make his own decision based on his clearer view.  Some refs do overrule the TMO or make a decision before the TMO has come to one - but I've seen a situation whereby the ref fundamentally changed his view of an event as he waited for the TMO to decide but then went with the alternate view that the TMO presented.  You could actually hear the ref change his mind as he communicated with the TMO but because he had merely asked the TMO to confirm his initial view and the TMO did affirm it, the ref reluctantly went with the reading. I can't remember the distinct incident but it was last year and the video evidence certainly led me to agree with the ref's change of heart as he waited for TMO to decide.  He didn't have the strength of character to contradict his TMO.