Doubt rule scrapped, SOO eligibility tightened, Captain's challenged to be trialed

[Özil]

ON-FIELD referees will be required to make a decision on a try-scoring situation before referring it to the video referee in one of several significant changes made by the ARL Commission for next season.

A new rule tightening State of Origin eligibility criteria was introduced, while the shoulder charge will no longer be automatically referred to the judiciary panel.

The NRL judiciary code will range from a base of 200 points (two-game suspension) for a grade one charge, increasing to 800 points (eight-game suspension) for a grade five charge.

A captain's challenge system will be trialled in each televised game of the under-20s competition. A second referee will also be introduced for these games.

Read more
SMH

 

[Mr Invisible]

+ Video ref - So ref will say "I think it's a try, but not sure" (nothing different there). Video ref will look and confirm "Yes it's a try", or "No try". How does that differ except that one way or another a decision is made?

+ State of Origin Eligibility Criteria - "QUOTE" From next season, no player will be eligible to play for NSW or Queensland unless he has lived in that state before the age of thirteen, or unless he is the son of an Origin player. That player must also be eligible to play for Australia. "UNQUOTE" Great idea... removes the need for clarification.

+ Captains call - Shouldn't be required if video ref blunders are resolved.

+ Shoulder Charge Ban & Judiciary - Does that mean 2 weeks is MINIMUM suspension period?

 

[Guardog]

Finally, finally some bloody common sense has been thought off in these four elements of our game.

1. Doubt. Tries being awarded when they were not tries. To score one, there should never have been any doubt whatso ever.
2. OOS. No more doubt there either.
3. There should never been points carry over though, do your time and get on with it.
4. Trialing the Captain's Call is a good thing, but to be introduced into the comp without proper evaluation may turn this Call into what we see in Test Cricket today. It should only be used for the "howlers" by Refs, and should only be allowed if the Third Ref agrees. Again proper evaluation must be undertaken.

Otherwise, I'm a happy camper today.

 

[OITENTA-E-NOVE]

what if someone lives in both states before the age of 13?

 

[Papa Emeritus]

Very happy to see the scrapping of "Benefit of the doubt". They should have ALWAYS been No Try.


Also happy to see some more firm rules around SOO selection.

 

[CroydonDog]

There will never be a perfect system re SOO eligibility.

My ideal view is that it is up to the player - if you truly FEEL like a Qlder, then play for them. BUT, we are not in an ideal world, and we just end up with players from outside both states and beyond Australia signing up for one side of another for the cash. If something can be done to restore pride on the NZ, PNG, and various islander countries, this might stop the rot.

 

[Paint.]

what if someone lives in both states before the age of 13?

Allowed to pick. Same if someone is, say, born and raised in QLD, but their Dad played for the Blues (see Mat Rogers), they are eligible for both states.

 

[Guardog]

Allowed to pick. Same if someone is, say, born and raised in QLD, but their Dad played for the Blues (see Mat Rogers), they are eligible for both states.

Perhaps it may revert to where you played your first senior footy ???

 

[Rodzilla]

the benefit of the doubt has essentially been moved to a stronger benefit of the referees original decision

it can still lead to frustration if the referee made the initial decision that looks about 70% likely to be incorrect on the replay but the video referee thinks he needs absolute 95-100% evidence so he doesnt overturn

the worst case scenario is when the referee has no clue what happened and then now has to make a guess and then that gets sent upstairs for the video referee to try to disprove

but its a great move overall, i think they should include the referee making his decision but the only way to include the video referee is VIA the captains challenge

 

[Rodzilla]

Allowed to pick. Same if someone is, say, born and raised in QLD, but their Dad played for the Blues (see Mat Rogers), they are eligible for both states.

does it say how long you have to live there?

i use to spend a few weeks there each summer holidays, so am i eligible to play for qld (it might happen if there is another flood and they need players)

 

[Mr Invisible]

Worrying thing here: arrogance of refs will mean they'll not want to go upstairs and instead go "nup no try and I dont want to go upstairs", or "yep thats a try, not need to check it". What what I understand the video ref has to be called if the ref makes a call but wants to check he is correct. So it's in effect same as it is now, but instead of BOTD, it'll be "Refs call" which will go back to his original call.

SOO: Why not make it the place you played your junior footy (up till Toyota Cup). If you played in both QLD/NSW you can choose. Oh and you have be be aussie born/resident at that time.

 

[The-Game]

Worrying thing here: arrogance of refs will mean they'll not want to go upstairs and instead go "nup no try and I dont want to go upstairs", or "yep thats a try, not need to check it". What what I understand the video ref has to be called if the ref makes a call but wants to check he is correct. So it's in effect same as it is now, but instead of BOTD, it'll be "Refs call" which will go back to his original call.

SOO: Why not make it the place you played your junior footy (up till Toyota Cup). If you played in both QLD/NSW you can choose. Oh and you have be be aussie born/resident at that time.

It' sorta like the cricket, it's just showing the incompetence of the referee's. But having it in place is creating more self doubt on the part of the referee.

SOO: Should be where you were born and bred, though I agree with where you played your first juniour footy, but I don't agree with being able to choose between NSW or QLD, we'll just see more traitors like Inglis.

 

[Book]

It' sorta like the cricket, it's just showing the incompetence of the referee's. But having it in place is creating more self doubt on the part of the referee.

SOO: Should be where you were born and bred, though I agree with where you played your first juniour footy, but I don't agree with being able to choose between NSW or QLD, we'll just see more traitors like Inglis.

Well if your eligibility gets to the point where you would have to choose, then it would be seen as not being a traitor to represent either of the states, because you would have legitimate reason to play for both.

 

[Harby]

Well if your eligibility gets to the point where you would have to choose, then it would be seen as not being a traitor to represent either of the states, because you would have legitimate reason to play for both.

Logic prevails

 

[Rodzilla]

the benefit of the doubt has essentially been moved to a stronger benefit of the referees original decision

it can still lead to frustration if the referee made the initial decision that looks about 70% likely to be incorrect on the replay but the video referee thinks he needs absolute 95-100% evidence so he doesnt overturn

the worst case scenario is when the referee has no clue what happened and then now has to make a guess and then that gets sent upstairs for the video referee to try to disprove

but its a great move overall, i think they should include the referee making his decision but the only way to include the video referee is VIA the captains challenge

actually i change me mind ffs, this is a shit move for reasons i feared at the time

referees sometimes guess the decision and then they cant 100% disprove it so they stay with the decision even if it is 80-90% wrong

 

[The DoggFather]

Eaiser to rort this way.

 

[coach]

actually i change me mind ffs, this is a shit move for reasons i feared at the time

referees sometimes guess the decision and then they cant 100% disprove it so they stay with the decision even if it is 80-90% wrong

100% right rod!!! It's the worst rule ever!!! Ref: ( I did not see a ****ing thing but I'm guna say try!!) if you don't ****ing know don't guess for **** sake!!! Just say I have no ****ing idea what so ever can you check this for a try!!!

 

[blueyedsamurai]

benefit of the doubt had a better success rate

 

[Rodzilla]

it worked against us quite clearly i think against the cowboys or penrith when perrett did very well to hold up a guy in the corner and looked like he had done enough but the referee guessed try so that decision stood

they should make it if it looks like a try give it a try, if it doesnt then dont give it a try

call it benefit of what looks like happened

 

[Rodzilla]

benefit of the doubt had a better success rate

i think they tried to copy the NFL rule, maybe the idea of the rule is ok but loosen it up so you dont need to be 100% sure, just in case of 50/50 keep the referee decision like the old benefit of the doubt thing

this idea that human eyes are better than multiple camera angles and slow motion replays is stupid