Quote:
Originally Posted by DjScribbles
During elims in particular, what if the final ruling wasn't given by the head ref alone, but the team/alliance the foul was against? In a regular competition, this would be ridiculous, but in FIRST it isn't just about the win.
The team climbing while the pyramid got bumped (or whatever pretend scenario you want to choose) is probably the best person to ask whether or not the bump was consequential; and if they think the call is unfair as well (or possibly think the penalty should be less severe), then why not give them the opportunity to be gracious about it.
(For qualifiers, I think the proposed system would be too cumbersome and should not be employed)
One major implication of this is that it diverts a good portion of the malice that is normally reserved for the ref making the call to the team that stood behind the call, and put the deciding team in a potentially tough spot. There are plenty of teams that would always take the win, and there would be some cases where a team feels obligated to surrender the win even if they feel the penalty was legitimate; but the teams that step up and surrender the match when the penalty doesn't fit the foul would really make such a system awesome.
Thoughts?
|
Although your idea is quite radical as you say, I believe that you do make a very valid point. In every competition where there is a team of people making decisions that can sway the outcome, those people always seem to get grief.
A lot of this has to do with the natural human behavior of denying responsibility for actions that may have had a negative outcome.
I think in the elimination rounds, it would not be a bad idea to necessarily ask an alliance if the other team actually screwed them up like you say, but the majority of the time the alliances would probably say yes, because a ref would only ask this sort of question if the call would change the outcome of who won the match. If the call would not change who won the match then the over all score would not matter, so time would not need to be wasted on asking this sort of question.
Another issue that I could see with this sort of system is that many people on the drive teams are pumped full of adrenalin. They usually do not have full control of their brains, emotions, or actions. If the students were given the chance to talk to the refs about calls as you suggest, I could see a lot of bad stuff happening.
For example, the students could go crazy if the ref decided to keep a call or take it away after speaking to them. There might be even more bad mojo put towards the refs for not agree or listening to the students.
I believe that you are on a good track, thinking of ways that the system could be improved. I am interested to see what others have to say about your idea.
Overall I think that this is an interesting idea with many pros and cons to it. It would be interesting to some how test this out.
In FTC and FLL the students had to check off the final score for the match and could ask why certain penalties were administered or not. I think that signing off on a match like this would be a more feasible solution, especially since it could be happening while the next match was being set up, not delaying the competition.
What do you think of using a system like that? Where both sides had to approve the final score of a match?