[EricH]

Originally Posted by Bryce Clegg

What if we had video review only for playoffs/eliminations and only the referees can call for video review? This wouldn't slow down the competition too much, and the refs would know exactly what happened.

I would make that the Head Referee only, myself--and it's actually easier than you might think to implement, IF you ignore the technological part of the equation. Basically, all the GDC would need to do would be to include video replays in the allowable sources the Head Referee is allowed to consult, for playoffs only, and clarify the "will not review" part of that to only be during qualifications. (The list currently includes GDC members, FIRST personnel, the FTA, and technical staff, per the manual in 5.5.3, just for reference.)

That being said, that's ignoring the technical part--camera placement, clear views, etc. That's been discussed ad nauseum, so I'll just leave the discussion there as solutions exist.

The other half is that by allowing the Head Ref to use it, use is not required. This could lead to variation between events, similar to the classic complaint to the inspectors of "But the Magnolia Regional allowed _______!" Probably some consistent standard would be needed, but I suspect that that would end up in the ref training materials, and thus the teams might not be able to know what it was.

This allows for teams that should have gone to the next level, which could be the District Championship or World Championship. Those championships allow for much more inspiration than just a regional or district event. Also, the public opinion of teams about certain events would become more positive because they know that there was no error that caused them not to advance to the next level.

First question I have is, who determines what teams "should have gone" to the next level? Honestly, I would hope that that's determined by the teams on the field of play--even refs don't like swinging the winner by (debatable) penalty, folks!

Second question stems from major sports. They all use replay, to some extent, so the question now becomes why "bad" calls are still making it through the replay system? Paid refs, one game piece (and however many players), $$$$$ replay system, and calls still get through??? Huh, funny how that happens. How are we sure that no error was made?

Now, there is something that would deal with the public opinion BETTER than instant replay, IMO: Transparency about the call, at least with the affected teams if not the entire event. In the playoffs especially, I would say that if the head referee takes the time to go over why the call was made (or missed) with the teams, it's actually better than a replay--and if there's a score correction that needs to be made, then it needs to be made. The teams might not like the call--at least three of them won't!--but I'd be hopeful that they'd understand why the call was made the way it was made.

Imagine this: there is a finals match like the final Stronghold match we saw this year at an event. The teams are tied, and a referee mistake could allow for a team to advance that maybe shouldn't have.

You'll notice that the only reason for the tie was, in fact, a penalty--and whether that penalty was a good call has been discussed, with the conclusion that there was grounds in the rules for it. Just some food for thought, as that wasn't the only time during the season that a single penalty flipped winner to loser of an elims match. I think I saw that happen two or three times prior to that.


The other part of the problem is that FIRST may just need to do a better job of determining which games need dedicated scorers. 2014 and 2016 didn't have them (at official events--though by the end of 2014 the number of refs had increased to allow some to be scorers). 2015 did. Take a wild guess which games actually needed the scorers? (I'll go on record as saying that having scorers in 2016 really helped at the offseasons I was at, even if they were just recording a referee call.)