It's time for a protest system in rugby like tennis
-
@No-Quarter If each team only get 3 protests there wouldn't be any reviewing of every single try.
-
@Blackheart said in It's time for a protest system in rugby like tennis:
@No-Quarter If each team only get 3 protests there wouldn't be any reviewing of every single try.
If the opposition scored an important try you'd immediately review it just in case the TMO decides to rule on a ruck where someone may have come in slightly from the side, another may have left their feet when technically they weren't meant to. Nearly every ruck has indiscretions that technically you could call up if you go by the letter of the law, but are let go by the ref live as they didn't really impact the play.
I get where you are coming from, but the TMO is more than enough for a dynamic game for rugby.
-
@No-Quarter If each team only get 3 protests there wouldn't be any reviewing of every single try.
How many tries are scored between top nations in test matches?
You have 6 reviews for the match. I suspect that would be close to every try.
-
@booboo Yes Your'e right the Todd card was reviewed...my bad. However Owens stated that he was awarding it because Todd was "off side and was never on side" not because he was blocking the Irish player from scoring against the post. Just looking at again Todd (clearly on side) saw the Irish player barging towards the line so he tried to block him but got moved across and slammed up against the post. If Owens had said to Todd you were blocking the try against the post it would've made better sense but the off side ruling???? An official protest by the AB could have asked the TMO to review the off side ruling. The Beast spear tackle was dangerous and blatant..a red IMO. And out of the many missed head highs if you officially protested just one it could effect the outcome if they were yellowed.
-
@No-Quarter said in It's time for a protest system in rugby like tennis:
Even in cricket, where the rules are completely black and white, we get ridiculous "hopeful" reviews just in case there's some technicality that can get the batsmen off the hook.
Can you imagine that in rugby? You'd review every single try in the hope the TMO decides to rule on one of the countless possible indiscretions at every single ruck.
The TMO is bad enough without allowing the players to have a crack too.
For this to work there would need to be some kind of consequence to a failed review. My view would be that a failed review results in a loss of a sub (so you can only make 7 changes rather than 8). If you have no subs left then no review either.
I've gone backwards and forwards on the idea of a captain's challenge. At the moment I lean towards no. Breaks up the game too much and refs are pretty reliably review anything half way controversial anyway.
What would happen if there was a knock on not called in midfield with a minute left on the clock and the captain calls a review? Does the game stop while it's reviewed? What happens if the no call was right and it's play on? The team in possession gets a free kick? If it waits until the next break in play, what happens if time is up and the call is overturned - do you put time back on the clock? Nevermind about any penalties or points scored in the interim.
I think the idea is fantastic, but trying to make it work in a rugby match is not practical.
-
@Snowy Yeah...Nah... Ireland would have run out of their three try protests and had to live with the other four LOFL
-
@Blackheart Was hardly what you would call a "match" though was it? Actually using the ABs isn't a good measure.
-
There is a quasi team review system in place now. The refs often listen to 'suggestions' from players before they award tries. They'd be mad not to.
Where there's a will there's.....
