[EricH]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

If the score is 100-45, the losing alliance challenging to get an extra 5 or 10 points is a waste of time (assuming total score is not part of the ranking system). I think requiring the review have an effect outside of just the match is not unreasonable.

I agree on that. Anything from missing one breach ranking point on up is reasonable. If total score is part of the ranking system, that could be re-thought, but I'd suggest any score changes less than X amount (determined by the game and ranking, but let's call it one penalty of TBD type) would be unreviewable if the score differential was greater than 2X.

I disagree on the Finals being an automatic review, primarily because that means a minimum of 3 minutes where any refs involved aren't doing their between-match stuff (traffic control, overall monitoring), and also because if there's something tough in the Finals every ref is going to be in the huddle discussing the calls--we want to get the calls right the first time. What I'd do instead would be to reset challenges (I'm in favor of LIMITED challenges, and I'll explain why in a minute) to full for finals regardless of prior usage.


The reason I prefer limited challenges (probably 1/alliance in playoffs, with a second if the first is successful) is that by the second challenge from the same alliance, if the Head Ref hasn't shuffled the crew, he or she probably needs to. And it may be obvious on the reviews that one ref or another needs to be shuffled to break or another field position if possible. For those that aren't refs, the ref crews tend to find their weak links quickly and strengthen them as needed. If there's two challenges, chances are that there's a ref that needs more strength--or it's possible that the alliance is just trying to game the system.