"Instant Replay" at NAC A

[catwood1]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, so its worth getting the word out of what happened.

At NAC A in Des Moines, the referee cadre was given unusual instructions by the lead FOC. He effectively said:

"While we do not have instant replay, we can use what we do have. When there is another referee paired with you during pools or DEs sitting behind you watching the bout, don't be afraid to use them as a resource. If you are unsure of a call, you may calmly walk over, and discuss it with the paired referee before making your call."

He said not to use it for right of way calls, as that is solely the judgment of the referee, but for all other things, the 2nd ref could be consulted. I never saw this used for hard calls. I was consulted twice on small procedural questions when I was paired with a sabre ref who was reffing epee.

I wonder if this was a once and done thing, or the direction that domestic refereeing might be moving. Considering that internationally, call making is becoming more group based, is the FOC aiming to prepare American referees for this by allowing them the opportunity to consult a second referee.

Also, I wonder if this would be expanded to include RoW calls in the future. Would it be expanded to let fencers "challenge" a call so that the referee after having made the call would then go and talk to the 2nd referee based on a "challenge" from a fencer.

[noodle]

Q: i don't think that a basic instant replay system would be that expensive to set up. are we trying to make it happen? why not?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, so its worth getting the word out of what happened.

At NAC A in Des Moines, the referee cadre was given unusual instructions by the lead FOC. He effectively said:

"While we do not have instant replay, we can use what we do have. When there is another referee paired with you during pools or DEs sitting behind you watching the bout, don't be afraid to use them as a resource. If you are unsure of a call, you may calmly walk over, and discuss it with the paired referee before making your call."

He said not to use it for right of way calls, as that is solely the judgment of the referee, but for all other things, the 2nd ref could be consulted. I never saw this used for hard calls. I was consulted twice on small procedural questions when I was paired with a sabre ref who was reffing epee.

I wonder if this was a once and done thing, or the direction that domestic refereeing might be moving. Considering that internationally, call making is becoming more group based, is the FOC aiming to prepare American referees for this by allowing them the opportunity to consult a second referee.

Also, I wonder if this would be expanded to include RoW calls in the future. Would it be expanded to let fencers "challenge" a call so that the referee after having made the call would then go and talk to the 2nd referee based on a "challenge" from a fencer.

It could in part be that it was a div II/III NAC and many of the refs are new and learning. The tournaments are as much developmental for the fencers as for the referees, so maybe it was just for the newbies?? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure I like this.

[catwood1]

It could in part be that it was a div II/III NAC and many of the refs are new and learning. The tournaments are as much developmental for the fencers as for the referees, so maybe it was just for the newbies?? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure I like this.

Personally, I would like it if it could be used for RoW, and fencers were allowed to appeal. I think it would be more representative of whats going on internationally. Also, I think that would put the focus on correct calls rather then referees looking good.

I don't think it was meant just for newbies, because there were actually VERY few new refs there. I counted maybe 3 or 4 total over the course of the weekend, at most. It was a pretty good group of refs. Granted, no one really used it for fear of being eaten alive by coaches. I think if it was consistently used every now and again (and coaches knew this), it would be a very good thing.

[bigdawg2121]

Personally, I would like it if it could be used for RoW, and fencers were allowed to appeal. I think it would be more representative of whats going on internationally. Also, I think that would put the focus on correct calls rather then referees looking good.

I don't think it was meant just for newbies, because there were actually VERY few new refs there. I counted maybe 3 or 4 total over the course of the weekend, at most. It was a pretty good group of refs. Granted, no one really used it for fear of being eaten alive by coaches. I think if it was consistently used every now and again (and coaches knew this), it would be a very good thing.

Hmm, from what I gathered anectdotally the refs may not have been new but the tournament was not exactly awash with the cream of the cadre either. I wouldn't be surprised if this were treated as a teaching/learning experience.

Also if we're doing this for RoW calls I'm demanding permanent pairing with my "twin".

[epeemike81]

Personally, I would like it if it could be used for RoW, and fencers were allowed to appeal. I think it would be more representative of whats going on internationally. Also, I think that would put the focus on correct calls rather then referees looking good.

I don't think it was meant just for newbies, because there were actually VERY few new refs there. I counted maybe 3 or 4 total over the course of the weekend, at most. It was a pretty good group of refs. Granted, no one really used it for fear of being eaten alive by coaches. I think if it was consistently used every now and again (and coaches knew this), it would be a very good thing.

It would have a very different connotation than internationally. When a fencer appeals at an international competition, the referee and replay official watch the replay together, the replay makes a recommendation, and the ref the final decision. More often than not, it's the video that changes the referees mind, not the replay official's opinion.

Without video (and thus without new evidence), an appeal with a reversed call becomes the referee deferring to the 2nd official's judgement.

That is VERY different.

Which I would guess is why they said not to do it for RoW. In this limited capacity for simple procedure calls, though, I like it.

-m

[KD5MDK]

It certainly saves lots of time compared to an appeal of a misapplied rule, and gives referees who are unsure of the correct application an encouraged path to find out rather than listening to coaches, fencers and spectators with more or less dubiousity.

Certainly it happens lots of times when a more experienced referee is at the table in the middle between bouts or something and the referee across from them has a question.

[AndrewH]

But that means the second referee has to actually pay attention to the bout, instead of zoning out. That could be a problem.

[catwood1]

But that means the second referee has to actually pay attention to the bout, instead of zoning out. That could be a problem.

Thats true. Which means I think it'd have to be RoW or nothing. Asking refs to pay attention knowing they will never be asked is somewhere between pointless and cruel and unusual punishment waiting for the ONE time it matters...

Its good for questions of what the rule is, but those kinds of questions should have been (and in my experience, usually were) asked before this new rule. Its the matters of fact that become the issue.

[Insipiens]

...
" ... If you are unsure of a call, you may calmly walk over, and discuss it with the paired referee before making your call."

He said not to use it for right of way calls, as that is solely the judgment of the referee, but for all other things, the 2nd ref could be consulted. I never saw this used for hard calls. I was consulted twice on small procedural questions when I was paired with a sabre ref who was reffing epee.
...

Also, I wonder if this would be expanded to include RoW calls in the future. Would it be expanded to let fencers "challenge" a call so that the referee after having made the call would then go and talk to the 2nd referee based on a "challenge" from a fencer.

I think your title is quite misleading. It clearly wasn't "instant replay" as the main use of that as far as I understand it is precisely for ROW calls, and the second referee watches the replay with the ref - so he may not have to watch the live action quite so intently.

This sounds more like a combination of a single "judge" as per t.36 who could comment on, say, covering or leaving the piste and a DT representative to
clarify the application of rules.

t.36. 1. The Referee fulfils his functions with the aid of an apparatus for the
automatic registering of hits; he may also be assisted by two judges
watching for the use of the unarmed hand or arm, substitution of the
valid target, hits scored on the floor at épée, leaving the piste to the
side or the rear or any other offence defined in the Rules (cf. t.120).

I really wouldn't have thought just having two referees to come to a committee decision on ROW would be a good idea without the instant replay; instant replay would give one the opportunity to say, "look he does X there" or "see, she takes an extra step on her preparation" etc.

[oso97]

Q: i don't think that a basic instant replay system would be that expensive to set up. are we trying to make it happen? why not?

Its a more complicated process than you might think at first blush. When I was chair of the Technology Development Task Force, I did an analysis of it at the behest of a couple of members of the FOC. The space and personnel requirements effectively double, and there are significant capital costs that need to be incurred. You can do it on the cheap, but it will be >cheap<. You can do it in less space, but it will provide less utility.

That's not saying its IMPOSSIBLE to implement in the future, but, its a serious, extensive undertaking.

[downunder]

Surely this is just common sense.

It's not a replay, just reminding junior referees that if they are unsure of a rule or an application there is a warm body 5 feet away that has a few more years experience that is happy to help.

[noodle]

Its a more complicated process than you might think at first blush. When I was chair of the Technology Development Task Force, I did an analysis of it at the behest of a couple of members of the FOC. The space and personnel requirements effectively double, and there are significant capital costs that need to be incurred. You can do it on the cheap, but it will be >cheap<. You can do it in less space, but it will provide less utility.

That's not saying its IMPOSSIBLE to implement in the future, but, its a serious, extensive undertaking.

i don't think it would be as difficult as its being made out to be. to scale it up to have replays on all strips at an event, of course not. but finals strip, top 8 strips, i don't think it would really be that difficult. a little costly? perhaps. but i can also think of ways to mitigate that cost. i juggled the numbers around in the past considering what it would take, and i think its quite feasible. the issue that i found to be the biggest stumbling block? the existing contracts with respect to photography/videography at national events.

[catwood1]

Surely this is just common sense.

It's not a replay, just reminding junior referees that if they are unsure of a rule or an application there is a warm body 5 feet away that has a few more years experience that is happy to help.

I didn't understand it to be that way. It didn't seem like a "new ref can ask the old cagey veteran what to do." It seemed more of a "If you don't know quite what happened, theres a second set of eyes there to lend an opinion."

Thats what I took from it anyway.

[Omar Bhutta]

Surely this is just common sense.

It's not a replay, just reminding junior referees that if they are unsure of a rule or an application there is a warm body 5 feet away that has a few more years experience that is happy to help.

I didn't understand it to be that way. It didn't seem like a "new ref can ask the old cagey veteran what to do." It seemed more of a "If you don't know quite what happened, theres a second set of eyes there to lend an opinion."

Thats what I took from it anyway.

I was also there, and my sense was that of DownUnder's. I don't believe the intention was to create a non-video version of Instant Replay. More of, "If you don't know the rule, don't be afraid to ask." That, plus, "Ask for feedback on how you are doing."

[catwood1]

I was also there, and my sense was that of DownUnder's. I don't believe the intention was to create a non-video version of Instant Replay. More of, "If you don't know the rule, don't be afraid to ask." That, plus, "Ask for feedback on how you are doing."

Hmm, interesting that we heard it differently. A few of the people I had talked to read him the same as I did. No wonder there are so many different interpretations in refereeing. We all are given the exact same instructions and hear different things.

Maybe I'm just losing my mind...

[erooMynohtnA]

Don't feel too bad. When I first starting reading your post I thought it was going to be that if someone was taping the bout you could use their camera to review a call.

[catwood1]

Don't feel too bad. When I first starting reading your post I thought it was going to be that if someone was taping the bout you could use their camera to review a call.

Lol. Man, how many times have I heard from angry parent "JUST LOOK AT THIS VIDEO AND YOU'LL SEE HOW WRONG YOU ARE!" "c'mon just look at it!"

...

[AndrewH]

Lol. Man, how many times have I heard from angry parent "JUST LOOK AT THIS VIDEO AND YOU'LL SEE HOW WRONG YOU ARE!" "c'mon just look at it!"

...

If I had a nickel...

I've also seen parents take their camcorder to the BC and demand they reverse the outcome of the bout.

[bigdawg2121]

Oddly, that happened to me this past weekend. I agreed to look at the video, which established how right I was. I'm like 10 or 15 and 0 vs. Video Reviews