[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The "right" way to solve the problem is in game design. While I respect and understand the many constraints the GDC are under in the game design process (and thus this whole paragraph is easier said than done), there are certainly changes to the game rules that would make refereeing more fair. Removing tasks that are scored subjectively by humans in real time is the #1 change that can be made. Assists in 2014 and crossings in 2016 are two perfect examples. To some extent these get better if the human scoring is dedicated solely to the task and focused on a small area of the field, but in both years this task was spread out over several positions and could happen at the same time in multiple areas. Other areas of rules ambiguity could be tightened up and made either more objective or removed entirely. There is a tendency for the GDC to "patch" holes in the game design with specific and excessively subjective rules to cover for a variety of convoluted situations, and that leads to a lot of these problems.

Great idea in theory. In practice, I see this as only a partial solution. One cannot assume the field hardware works perfectly. Such as in 2014 with the hot goal indicators not flipping during auto once in a while. The head ref made the call whether or not the flippers worked (and if not, called for a replay of match). That's an automated system with a subjective element; head ref's are only human, and I could see one missing a missed flip (especially if it was only one one side) and the resulting questions after the match from the alliances.

When a field scoring fault is suggested, things become subjective by default. Yes, there are places where game design can reduce the number of subjective calls ref's have to make, but subjective calls, at least by the head ref, are unavoidable.