Two Refs

[Non Terminator]

Time to spend an off-season talking about a Four Nations final (thankfully without controversy this time around). What are the thoughts of those regarding the use of two refs?

 

[madunit]

Firstly, what happens records wise? Which score gets recorded for player stats? I know, small bikkies but still a relevant question.

Secondly, and I know the reason why this was pushed through, but I am still quite disappointed with how the decision was made ultimately by one person on this 2 refs idea with no communication between the two captains.

As i said, I understand Willows perspective that it was an idea that had been bandied around in the past and if someone didn't take a punt on it, it would probably never have been tested.

However, it was an idea back in 2009 that didn't garner a great deal of support and not one mention was made about it in 2010 until this series.

Furthermore, if it were to be used, it should have been for the entire comp, not just the final.

Why wasn't it used for the earlier matches of the 4N? because there weren't enough refs. Seems a bit inconsistent for mine.

I believe if the 2 refs idea had've been a topic discussed in any form during 2010, then it would mean it is worthy of being trialled. But I don't think a final in any comp is the ideal time. The early rounds I reckon is best to trial it.

Again, I recognise that if it weren't for Willow this 4N comp may not have started yet, or even kicked off at all, and in all seriousness, I can fully agree now with almost all the decisions he has made for the F7's and recognise in all seriousness and honesty, that without his input, this whole concept most likely would have died in the arse in about 2003.

For so long Willow has been welcoming of a democratic process for everything F7's related, so I was completely suprised with this decision (nothing more, nothing less).

I think there were just a few too many issues/questions that needed to be sorted out before this was trialled and it was a bit risky trying it in the final.

However, that is possibly more of a heat of the moment type comment.

Fortunately, the refs were unanimous, thus avoiding any controversy, meaning we can move forward on how to perfect this issue, and if it is indeed feasible in the future, Willow can personally force feed me the biggest piece of Humble pie ever fed to an idiot before.

So, to take a catchcry from a stupid politician, moving forward:

*Decide how each players final score is calculated (I propose for all 2 ref matches, both refs mark the articles out of 50 and then both scores are added together to give a mark out of 100)

*Have the boss of the refs to post the results everytime. The two officials PM the refs boss their results and comments and the ref boss posts the results. My only issue with this is the lack of transparency I guess (not suggesting anything untoward is going on, but just trying to solve a problem before some other idiot gets the sh*ts with the refs over a result and starts throwing around dopey accusations)

I congrate Willow for having the foresight to give this concept a go, I just hoped it was briefly discussed with the captains before it was announced to settle a simple structure for the system first.

 

[Willow]

I give up.

 

[Titanic]

I reckon one of the problems about this type of debate is that typed text, although admissible as proof of statement, is often open to context and nuances being misconstrued... I am well aware that I have been the author of lots of those in F7's.

The two refs debate may well have timing and consultation issues but if I'm reading 'Units post correctly then he is stating what has transpired but is prepared to call it water under the bridge. And why not?

The only people who could gripe would be the team that lost and as their appointed rep then I can state that we agreed to play under that system (albeit at late notice) and our only gripe is that my score was not high enough (by either of the two gentlemen involved)... lol.

'Unit your first point is extremely valid and before that debate gets hot how about the issue of a marking matrix? Surely, no matter how many marks/referees are allocated/appointed the time has arrived for a more specific series of descriptors to be added to the rules to allow for a higher perception of transparency.

I am not suggesting that there is anything untoward going on but in the interests of protecting the credibility of the game then I feel this would help. The common score range between 80-90 is about as baseless as the old 'out of 10' system that was evidently scrapped.

For the sake of argument, how about in this case, points are averaged and rounded up in the case of any 0.5?

 

[madunit]

You're right Titanic, it is water under the bridge.

As I said, it was disappointing that the decision was made with next to no consultation with anyoneone else, however, that was the only real gripe and I'm definitely keen to talk about refining the 2 refs scheme, moving forward.

The fact we Kiwi's agreed to play under 2 refs shows that we are not opposed to the idea in any way.

The problem when typing up a post with a bit of criticism in it with a lot of praise, is that the criticism is the only thing people will look at.

Its the nature of the beast I guess.

 

[Willow]

it was disappointing that the decision was made with next to no consultation with anyoneone else

That's simply not true. The referees were both available and subsequently the captains were given the option.

Are we supposed to go into a process of debate over every decision? There was not enough time for that. It would never have happened if it went to committee.

What I found disappointing is that someone starting debating it in the match thread of all places, and he wasn't even involved in the game. Fortunately that was quickly moved to the F7s HQ forum before he had a chance to derail the Final itself.

 

[bartman]

I like the idea, but think it should only be used for finals - not the whole comp (or rep comp) through.

As for how it came to be... given that F7s "coordinator" (for want of a better word) disappeared from LU mid-season, I have no beef with how things eventuated re the refereeing, given that we were lucky to even have F7s rep games get off the ground.

Two refs were available, there was no "coordinator" available to have a system in place, each ref had ruled in the same number of 4N games - the obvious way to decide it was to give the two refs system a tilt and see how it went.

Glad to see Unit's looking forwards... a little tip, if you want people to read a post as "balanced", maybe start off with the positives, introduce the criticism, and then finish off with a positive. I got halfway through before I found anything that wasn't criticism...

 

[Azkatro]

That's simply not true. The referees were both available and subsequently the captains were given the option.

Are we supposed to go into a process of debate over every decision? There was not enough time for that. It would never have happened if it went to committee.

What I found disappointing is that someone starting debating it in the match thread of all places, and he wasn't even involved in the game. Fortunately that was quickly moved to the F7s HQ forum before he had a chance to derail the Final itself.

That "someone" was probably in the same boat as several others who had a keen interest in the final, only to discover that the two referees idea had been "announced" in the match thread itself. I put my hand up and apologise unreservedly for posting in the match thread. But mate, you have to understand that I was frustrated that something so major was basically announced in a match thread. A lot of us love the F7's just as much as yourself. We are all very appreciative of the effort you put in, even if we disagree with something. There is no need to take to heart, nobody is intending to have a dig at you personally, myself included. What's done is done, I've had my say and that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Now on the topic of two referees, I'm assuming that we don't have the resources to have that in place for every match. Is it just going to be used for finals? What are the guidelines for split decisions? I think there needs to be clearly defined guidelines on what happens in the event of a split decision. Past history shows that if a result is in contention it will cause frustration for those involved.

My concern, for example, is that the referees come up with different winners. I'm of the view that this should be considered a draw. You can't do a countback or use individual scores when two different referees are involved, because regardless of the fact that we have pretty consistent measures in place for awarding points, you can't avoid the fact that a "top" article might get 95 from one ref and 90 from another. It is way too subjective to be able to refer back to individual scores between different refs to settle a result in my opinion. So then the problem becomes the high potential for a 1-1 split between two adjudicators. Perhaps the solution is to aim for 3 referees in these circumstances, so there is always a 3-0 or 2-1 split? Of course if there is the unlikely possibility of a 1-1 split and 1 awards a tie, we already have the reserve posting rule in place for tiebreakers.

 

[madunit]

That's simply not true. The referees were both available and subsequently the captains were given the option.

Are we supposed to go into a process of debate over every decision? There was not enough time for that. It would never have happened if it went to committee.

Was the demand for such a scheme (2 refs) really that pertinent an issue through this year? It's certainly an idea worth trialling, but there are questions we'd like clarified, which I believe could have been ironed out within a few days of open discussion.

If you had've said "We are going to have 2 refs in the final, lets quickly lay a platform as to how it will all work" I am absolutely certain it would have been widely accepted and sorted out very quickly.

As the posts in this thread, even those critical, aren't arguing about the concept, just the fact it kinda felt like it came from nowhere.

I openly stated that my criticism was more of a 'heat-of-the-moment' type thing and that I'm happy to move forward from here and work on the two refs idea.

I agree with you Willow that it would have to be trialled at some time and someone would have to bite the bullet first and put it in a game. I just wasn't sure that the 4N final was the right time, but that's purely a case of my opinion against yours. We both have pro's and con's for our arguments regarding timing, no-one will be right or wrong.

But now that it's been done, and the result was incident free, we can move forward and refine it and set a guideline as to when and how it will operate in the future.

 

[dubopov]

I volunteer to be a Ref ..

 

[Willow]

Az, The irony is that you were probably thought you were putting the F7s first, but you were actually making things worse. The match thread is nowhere near the right place to start debates. Frustration noted. But I saw it more as someone jumping on the truck after all the hard yakka had been done, and trying to send it into a ditch. Nothing personal, just saw it as decisive and having potential to derail the Final. It's hoped that by moving your protest out of the match thread, you were being done the favour of not allowing your frustration to get the better of the F7s.

Regards to the discussion on the 2 refs. It worked. The result was not compromised in any way. Plus we can now dissect it. We have a precedent to work with and a template to improve upon. It may be decided that one ref is the only practical method, but at least we tried to look for alternatives to improve this area of the game.

In any case, it'll be up to others to take it forward in 2011.

You will be needing someone to take the reins of the F7s. I suggest an open thread for nominations. I'm sure someone will step up to the crease.

Cheers.

 

[Titanic]

I volunteer to be a Ref ..

I volunteered too but was rejected :-( my wife said I looked shyte in pink.

 

[Jesbass]

I volunteered too but was rejected :-( my wife said I looked shyte in pink.

I agree. You look much better in red: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86AJje3ElDc

 

[Titanic]

Can't get youtube in China but can imagine ... and that was before the operation.