Instant Replay

[Gav]

Before I start this discussion I want to make it clear that I am not against Instant Replay as a tool for Ref's. If anything I am for it, however it would be more accurate to say that I consider the jury out (pun intended) till it's tried at the highest level; at critical times.

quote from the news section:

Introducing Instant Replay for Fencing

...

1. The referee will be the only person who can call for an instant replay
2. Assistant referees can help out with calls like covering target and feet off the strip, but they can’t call for instant replay
3. The referee can use a monitor off to the side or the main monitor if it is available (arenas with large monitors for audiences)
4. There is no minimum or maximum number of times instant replay can be used
5. There is no time limit for review (Arthur believes most reviews will take about 10-20 seconds)

In practice, I have yet to see a semi-final or final bout use instant replay and relish the opportunity to see it in action, and have a call overturned. I can only imagine the outburst from a competitor or coach when the first call is changed.

...

1. I agree that it should be the ref' only who should be able to call for a replay.
2. see above
3. I don't really see a problem with this. It may help spectators if replays are played on the big screen (where available) however it may also be better if ref's are allowed to see the replay first - without any crowd pressure.
4. Well this seems obvious.
5. I agree about there being no time limit for review, and so long as it remains under control it shouldn't be a problem. If numerous, long, replays are used in a bout it may hurt view-ability and annoy the fencers.

Regarding the first paragraph. The commentator says:

"I can only imagine the outburst from a competitor or coach when the first call is changed"

This is the bit that worries me. Surely the ref' should call for the replay before making a decision? If he did that then the idea of a replay as a refereeing aid seems less controversial.

What are everyones opinions? Is anyone against their use? I find it hard to get excited about this, it seems a common sense way to go. Replays are already used in other sports and it seems only natural that we should end up using the same technology.

[Alan]

Hum. I thought that the test timings were supposed to remove
all refereing problems
at the same time than all interest in watching foil.

;-)

[Philistine]

{snip}"I can only imagine the outburst from a competitor or coach when the first call is changed"

I think the big outbursts are going to come when the ref refuses to review a touch by instant replay.

What are everyones opinions? Is anyone against their use? I find it hard to get excited about this, it seems a common sense way to go. Replays are already used in other sports and it seems only natural that we should end up using the same technology.

But are there any other sports that use instant replay to determine fundamental actions? I'm really not that familiar with instant replay outside of (american) football and end-of-game basketball.

In particular, are there any sports where the judging of points, as such, uses instant replay--e.g. boxing, judo, wrestling, figure skating, diving, etc.?

I'm not sure how I feel--I just fear it might make things too cumbersome. I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of trial.

Also, what about an idea that a fencer may call for a replay, subject to a red card for being wrong?

--Philistine

[downunder]

In particular, are there any sports where the judging of points, as such, uses instant replay--e.g. boxing, judo, wrestling, figure skating, diving, etc.?

cricket has been using it for years for run outs, stumpings and catches... as well as basic fielding stuff.

its expanding it in trial matches at the moment

[AllisonT]

I agree that refs should be allowed to use instant replay in competition under the conditions described above. Refs are human and following an intricate and rapid fencing phrase can be difficult even for the best officials. I have a lot of respect for some of these refs' calling skills after I see a slo-mo replay!

I don't think you're going to see it used very often as calling for tape might be construed as a weakness at first. Good refs will use it sparingly and bad refs will not use it at all.

The FOC should make some ruling as to where the camera should be placed in order to supply the proper image for a replay. Some fixed camera positions are just not adequate to see the entire action...especially if there is a lot of movement up and down the strip. Perhaps something on a track that follows the fencers?

I predict many a card for coaches screaming for replays. Universal rule of sport number 5: Don't pi**-off the official!

[Gav]

But are there any other sports that use instant replay to determine fundamental actions? I'm really not that familiar with instant replay outside of (american) football and end-of-game basketball.

Actually you got me there ... I know of at least two others; soccer (real football and cricket. Other than those ... I suspect that it is more widespread than you might think; if I turn out to be wrong I'm willing to admit that.

Also, what about an idea that a fencer may call for a replay, subject to a red card for being wrong?

Give the fencer the option and it becomes a tactical opportunity.

A red card may discourage it's use to the extent that it doesn't have an effect or is next to never used, but I am sure that there are some fencers who could come up with situations when it's beneficial to shed a single light in order to get a halt - I can't think of any offhand but there may be.

[Insipiens]

Rugby (both codes) uses replays to check tries have been properly scored.

At Leipzig for the finals they had a screen showing replays after most hits, but not used by the refs (who sometimes had to wait till it was finished before restarting play). With the camera angles (and the fact that the camera was on the opposite side from the ref) it was sometimes more confusing than helpful and you could actually see the action more easily as it happened than on the replay.

That said properly positioned cameras and the chance for the ref to see things in slow motion would make it a useful tool and I think it should be available.

And Gav, your comment re the ref not making a decision till after the replay was exactly my thought.

[AllisonT]

Actually you got me there ... I know of at least two others; soccer (real football and cricket. I suspect that it is more widespread than you might think; if I turn out to be wrong I'm willing to admit that.

Basketball also uses replay - mostly to check if feet are out of bounds or over the 3-pt line for critical plays. This is totally acceptable in sports where there is a lot of real estate and only so much official to watch it all. Now what really kills me in (american) football is the ability to decline the penalty! Never understood that. It's a penalty! You screwed up and now you pay.

A red card may discourage it's use to the extent that it doesn't have an effect or is next to never used, but I am sure that there are some fencers who could come up with situations when it's beneficial to shed a single light in order to get a halt - I can't think of any offhand but there may be.

No player or coach should be able to call for a review. Retying your shoe works just as well as a stall. How many times does Valentina Vezzali fix her hair? About 10 times during a bout without the risk of a card.

[Mr Epee]

It's been too long... but I think that the NHL has an instant replay system for reviewing goals.

[whtouche]

Basketball also uses replay - mostly to check if feet are out of bounds or over the 3-pt line for critical plays. This is totally acceptable in sports where there is a lot of real estate and only so much official to watch it all. Now what really kills me in (american) football is the ability to decline the penalty! Never understood that. It's a penalty! You screwed up and now you pay.

Philistine already mentioned basketball as one of the sports that uses instant replay. Just trying to leave credit where due, tho you bring up a good point about there being alot of action and limited officiating resources. I'm always amazed that refs are able to catch the penalties they do in football.
Speaking of which, what about declining a penalty confuses you? It's not the person committing the penalty that is able to decline it, but the other team. This makes perfect sense. Imagine a play where the team on offense throws for 50 years and a touchdown, but the defending team committs some sort of penalty that would make that play void, restart it, but award the offense team a first down and 10 yards.
They can decline this penalty, because it's better to have scored the touchdown than to start over 10 yards ahead. In this case, the penalty wouldn't really be punishing the team that committed it.

[Insipiens]

Rugby Union has something similar to declining a penalty. When awarded a penalty you have four choices as to what to do:

1. place kick for goal
2. kick from hand for touch
3. tap kick and run
4. scrum

The team will decide depending on field position etc

[Inquartata]

My biggest concern is the extra time it is going to add to bouts and thus tournaments, if it is used as often as will probably be warranted. You think big foil events take a long time now, just wait. ( And wait...and wait... )

[KD5MDK]

Rugby Union has something similar to declining a penalty. When awarded a penalty you have four choices as to what to do:

1. place kick for goal
2. kick from hand for touch
3. tap kick and run
4. scrum

The team will decide depending on field position etc

Actually I would say declining a penalty in gridiron is far more similar to playing advantage in Rugby Union. The theory being that an opponent's offense should not eliminate any momentum or advantage you've already gained.

[mrbiggs]

In practice, I have yet to see a semi-final or final bout use instant replay and relish the opportunity to see it in action, and have a call overturned.

I was under the impression that once a call was made, it could not be overturned. In other words, a ref cannot say "attack, parry, riposte, touch right. Wait, no...touch left." Is this true?

[KD5MDK]

I hope not, as I have often said "Touch right" when I meant "Touch left", and have merely let my mind get reversed, and then corrected it as soon as said.

[Frank Pratt]

I was under the impression that once a call was made, it could not be overturned. In other words, a ref cannot say "attack, parry, riposte, touch right. Wait, no...touch left." Is this true?

I would hope this is not allowed, but if it is, a referee would be crazy to change his mind, ask for a replay, then change his mind again! Being indecisive is the worst thing a referee can do for his credibility.

A agree with Philistine, I think the vast majority of the controversy will come from the fencer/coach/audience who is “scored upon” when the referee makes the call without the benefit of the replay.

Not to thread-jack, but here's an interesting question: which weapon will call for the most replays? I think epee will have the lowest number since there are no right-of-way issues; just touch annulment issues [was the foot off the strip?] and penalty issues [was his the really turned?]. What about foil vs. sabre?

One more question: does anyone know if replays will be used at any NACs or at the U.S. Natioanls?

[edew]

I do not agree that it should be the referee who decides to go to the instant replay. If he uses it, then all other tight calls that don't use the instant replay will be questioned. If he doesn't use it and it's a tight call (and people kinda feel the referee is wrong, which happens), then people will wonder why he didn't use it and why he didn't think to use it. Basically, it'll be lose-lose for the referee.

I think it's better to allow the fencers (not their coaches or representative) to request a challenge, one per 5-touch bout (if there is instant replay in such cases) and once per 3-minute period or 2 for saber (independent of the 8th touch break).

And, I think the reviewer of the instant replay should be a different referee, one who did not see the original action, don't know who requested the review, and will only make a call, not to say, "I agree with the referee's call," or "I disagree with the referee's call." All this new referee can do is call the action as shown in the replay. He may review the replay several times, but only in actual time and not in slo-mo (slo-mo gives actions a perception that is not based on reality, since it's done in slo-mo, and may lead to interpretations that are not consistent with the rules and accepted practice of applying the rules).

[I_luv_saber]

Not to thread-jack, but here's an interesting question: which weapon will call for the most replays? I think epee will have the lowest number since there are no right-of-way issues; just touch annulment issues [was the foot off the strip?] and penalty issues [was his the really turned?]. What about foil vs. sabre?

Hard to say. On the one hand, foil has some pretty intricate bladework... but truthfully, I think saber. Sometime preperations and tempo can be pretty quick and hard to track. Not to mention small.

[Inquartata]

Maybe it's just emblematic of my greater experience with sabre, but I'd say that foil will be most fraught with replays. Sabre is usually one fast exchange and it's over; foil, at least at the upper levels, can be just as fast as sabre, but has more extended exchanges, infighting, and off-targets to confuse the action.

The calls I blow most often in sabre are confusing beats with parries and vice-versa. Unless the camera angle on the replay is different from that of the ref---like from the fencers' perspective---I don't think video will do much to resolve those.

[wflaschka]

Maybe it's just emblematic of my greater experience with sabre, but I'd say that foil will be most fraught with replays.

Replays were available to referees for all the finals of this world championships. Though it was available, and though there were many "tight" calls -- in 7 days the referees never used it. There is a big social pressure amongst referees not to be the first to use the replay, and certainly to not use it a lot. Much time will have to pass before we see replays abused.