[EricH]

Originally Posted by nathanwalters

By having these open conversations and providing suggestions to mitigate problems in future years, we help make future games more enjoyable for everyone involved.



If refs don't want their calls analyzed publicly, perhaps they shouldn't be making said calls in front of thousands of people.

That last statement is out of line. But it's true. That's why I didn't volunteer to ref at CMP, on top of having reffed 4 events already.

Let me put it this way: The only reason I reffed 4 events was because there weren't enough refs, period. And I rather suspect that half of the reason there weren't enough refs is because if they make a call (or no-call) that is the slightest bit controversial, 47 CDers who haven't reffed FRC jump all over it and complain about something that was perfectly clear from the stands (but, if you REALLY think about it, was unclear, or perfectly clear the other way from the refs' point of view). [/hyperbole]

And, the GDC didn't help--no offense to any GDC folks reading this, but if you don't consider referee sightlines when you're designing field elements, you need to. There really isn't an excuse for the sally port opening to block the outerworks refs' view of sally port crossings that they're supposed to be scoring!

A better way to discuss calls is:
Here's the video, here's what the refs called, why would they call that? 7 times out of 10, it's something that you didn't notice. 2 times out of 10, they're using judgement where a rule allows them to. And the remaining time, they might have actually made a mistake (not seeing, wrong rule, something like that). That's something that refs (and teams) can discuss and learn from.