Challenging Matches

Competition Rules/Strategy
1

Before I begin this post, I’d like to say that by no means am I trying to call-out any team or say that any wrong has been done. And for that purpose, I will not disclose any team numbers. I merely seek clarification on a rule, and that is all that I ask be discussed.

While volunteering at a regional last week, the competition got VERY intense as usual during eliminations. As expected, many teams stood in the question box to ask about rulings and occasionally challenge them. From what I observed, a rule was broken.

Under the “Tournament” section of the game manual, rule 5.5.3 states: “The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.”

A ruling was challenged via recorded video from a phone, the referee reviewed it, and the ruling was overturned. However, the outcome of the match was not affected with the ruling reversal. Now, as the rule states, the Head Referee has the Ultimate Authority, so does that mean the recorded replays will only be reviewed under the Head Referee’s discretion, or not at all. My question is: What is everybody’s stance on challenging rulings? Specifically, ones that use evidence such as this case.

2

I don’t know how technically feasible it is given the audio/video systems at each event and the amount of time between matches, but generally I support challenging calls with instant replay. I’d rather play 8-9 matches where I know the calls will be made correctly than 11-12 matches where it’s a toss up and nearly impossible to challenge calls that can drastically affect your ranking.
(those numbers are just guesses as to how the amount of time to replay calls might slow competition)

After all, it only takes one close loss to knock you out of the top 8. (I should know, 701 ranked 9th at CVR)

I understand the need to challenge calls and use video evidence, but I’d prefer it be something more reliable than someone’s cell phone recording.

3

While I have no authority to say that a ref’s calls could ever be wrong, even the brightest people make honest mistakes. I think that it’s less of a challenge of authority, and more of a question of accuracy and reliability. The rules should be upheld, and if a rule has obviously been violated, and no penalty been attributed to the ‘perpetrator’, I think challenging is perfectly appropriate.

I believe the intention of 5.5.3 is to say that ‘should a ruling be difficult, or there be no correct answer, the ref’s word is law,’ rather than ‘the ref can choose who to assign penalties on a whim’ or ‘despite human error the ref’s word is more important than what actually occurred.’

I meant no offense to anyone who has been or is a referee, and all of my examples were meant to be hypothetical and unrealistic :smiley:

4

It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the head ref chose to view the video.

The ref would have wanted to see exactly what the student was talking about, and would have wanted to make sure that the call was correct, and video can be helpful in that regard.

The problem is that different camera angles can show different things. As soon as a ref agrees to review one team’s video (and you can bet the video they’ll be offering up is one that supports their opinion!) the ref has to accept any relevant video. Sorting through all that would be a nightmare.

In the end, however, even when the ref makes the wrong call, their decision stands. Check out Diego Maradona’s infamous “Hand of God” goal for one well-known precedent.

Jason

5

If the head referee viewed the video, that appears to have been an error. The text of the rule strongly implies that no discretion is available on this point.

There’s nothing preventing another official from viewing the video and reporting the findings to the head referee. (Of course, given the constraints of the challenge process, you can’t expect to search for such an official yourself.)

6

Let’s take a look at the rule in question.

“The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.”

I’d like to call attention to some things that may be why this happened.

First, though: Head Ref rulings are final. That means that whatever the Head Ref rules is the call, even if the head ref is blatantly wrong (SVR 2008, for those that can remember…). We as competitors trust that the Head Ref knows the rules inside out, forwards, backwards, and sideways.

Now, the rest. There are some subtle grammar hints that make the rule a little less definite than it sounds.

“The Head Referee…may receive input from additional sources, e.g. [group of people].” e.g. is an abbreviation for “for example”. So, the ref can, if he chooses, consult other persons or things, including but not limited to (the meaning of “for example”) a group of people.

“The Head Referee will not review…” “Will not” is not “may not”, or even “can not”, which perhaps should be in there instead, to indicate that the referee is not allowed by FRC HQ to review video. “Will not” means that the referee, though not explicitly forbidden by the Game Manual to review video evidence, will not do so.

But what if the head ref chooses to interpret the “additional sources” from before to include video evidence submitted by a team or other entity?

There’s the rub. If a team video is interpreted as an additional source, by the Head Referee, the Head Referee’s decision is final. (Unless FRC HQ “overrules” later–SVR 2008.)

Now, having said all that, I agree that the Head Referee in question should not have reviewed the video evidence in the first place. FIRST’s intent is no video replays, so the ref should not have considered it. The only exception to this, in my mind, is if the video shows a ref making a very clearly wrong call–clear to any reasonably astute observer, with nothing on either alliance and a solid knowledge of the Manual and its interpretations (say, a head ref from out of the country). Videos like that are very hard to come by, BTW, and usually it’s easier to convince the referee with the Manual.

7

Eric,

I’m not familiar with the story of the ruling at 2008 SVR. What was it and how was it conflicted/resolved?

8

Read here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=718325#post718325

Not nicest situation for any of the teams involved… we’re still friends with the opposing teams though!

9

Benefit of the doubt - are you 100% sure it was a video? I saw what I thought was the exact same thing about to happen when I was at FLR, a student standing in the question box showing their phone to a mentor and ready to debate a call. As I walked closer, I realized the student had the FRC Game Manual application and was reading a rule from it.

As far as reviewing video replay, I think the reason the rule is written as such (and I don’t think they really intended it to be lawyered for will/can/may), is likely because it really isn’t fair to the teams unless the venue is equipped with an instant replay booth. Just because one person caught it on their phone or video camera, doesnt make it fair to the next team that didnt happen to be video taping. So the most fair way to deal with it is to say no video replay.

If FIRST was equipped the way the NFL is, then I would fully support instant replay - I too would prefer calls to be correct, but as it stands, FIRST does not have an instant replay booth, thus it is unfair to review the video IMO.

Not to mention that it might make the competition take a WHOLE lot longer if everyone is running to the question box with video and taking up the head ref’s time. Yes, Ref’s should get the calls right, but the game also needs to proceed in a timely fashion.

10

Eric-

I’m not taking a particular side in this discussion. I feel making the correct call is very important, but as participants we need to have some sort of ‘tolerance’ in our expected rule enforcement. Some things will fall through the cracks, some mountains will be made out of mole hills.

This little sentence doesn’t make any sense to me. The rule you quoted specifically states what a head referee will do (or not do in this case) with video. I find it very difficult for someone to misinterpret the rule as you stated above.

-Brando