[Pault]

I believe what Mr. Merrick is trying to say is 2-fold.

1. Sometimes, the head ref will decide that the situation described in a given Q&A is not exactly the same as the one he is making a decision on. In these cases, he will ignore the Q&A. This might cause teams some frustration, but there is nothing wrong with the head ref doing this. The reason this problem even exists is because the Q&A by nature is situational.

2. There could be a situation where the head ref is going to straight out deny the legitimacy of the Q&A, or refuse to take it into consideration. Mr. Merrick is saying that this can happen, and teams just need to deal with it. And the reasoning behind this is that FIRST needs to draw the line somewhere as to who has the final say in rulings. The game manual and Q&A cannot make decisions at a competition, because they are just words. And the GDC can't make decisions everytime a team at a competition wants them to, because they simply don't have the time and it's not their job. So FIRST has designated the head referee as the supreme judge of all situations at his/her regional.

Now, what I don't like is FIRST's defeatist attitude. Mr. Merrick basically said that if a head ref is making bad decisions, you better hope your not his next victim. Instead, he should be saying "if a head ref makes a decision that you truly believe does not correspond with the rules, please understand that the decision has been made and there is not nothing we can do to reverse that. However, I encourage you to inform us by [insert way to inform them] so that we may properly deal with the issue and make sure it does not happen again." FIRST should actively be trying to ensure that every decision goes exactly as the GDC intended, rather than just accepting bad rulings as a fact of life.

Edit: just wanted to add that this is my interpretation of the blog. I hope that Mr. Merrick himself can provide some clearification.