Refereeing and challenges

[matter7172]

I think we can agree the refereeing and challenge reviews during nationals were less than satisfactory.

During one of the challenges, the refs were mic'd up. What was shocking was the conversation between them before they looked at the review. It went something like this:

Ref 1: Before we look, I want to know what you have.
Ref 2: I have no takedown.
Ref 1: That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it.

What kind of process is that? "Let's figure out our story before we talk to the police".

If that conversation/review doesn't underscore the need for independent review in the challenge procedure, I don't know what can.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I think we can agree the refereeing and challenge reviews during nationals were less than satisfactory.

During one of the challenges, the refs were mic'd up. What was shocking was the conversation between them before they looked at the review. It went something like this:

Ref 1: Before we look, I want to know what you have.
Ref 2: I have no takedown.
Ref 1: That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it.

What kind of process is that? "Let's figure out our story before we talk to the police".

If that conversation/review doesn't underscore the need for independent review in the challenge procedure, I don't know what can.

You're missing the context here. The assistant ref can not award a TD during the match, and makes no type of signal to indicate during the match that he agrees with a call. So before they look at the video, the head ref asks the assistant what he saw. The assistant is quite experienced (worked as many matches as head in NCAAs), so the head ref wants his take on the sequence being challenged, before they begin the video review.

The process is that the two refs then watch the video, and look to see if what was called was accurate, or if on video there is clear evidence that the call was incorrect. There were calls overturned in NCAAs. The refs want to get the call correct. They make the best decision they can in real time, and if challenged, or if they elect on their own to review the video, they will overturn it if there is clear evidence that the call made in real time was incorrect.

I doubt that the decisions by independent reviewers in wrestling video reviews would be much different than the decisions made by refs reviewing the video of matches they were calling. Most of the calls are pretty easy to make, both on the mat and in video review. In a tournament like NCAAs, where the talent level is so high, there are always going to be some calls that half a room or refs would call one way, and the other half of the room would call the other way. It doesn't mean that either opinion is wrong; just that some of the situations being evaluated are so nuanced, and so rarely encountered, that they are really tough situations that could legitimately be called either way.

(To expand on this a bit, I've been in a lot of these rooms. A video sequence will be shown, and the presenter will ask how many would have awarded X, and how many would not have awarded X. It's not unusual for a large number to ask for the video to be replayed (which you don't have in real time). After the replay, the vote may be 60/40, 70/30, 50/50, and even 95/5. The presenter will then work through the sequence, showing it in slow motion, and also pointing out various criteria. At times, they'll also ask additional questions. The goal is to get the entire body of refs to, after discussion and reflection, come to the same conclusion, and to also realize where they were making a mistake if they voted the wrong way. It's really, really interesting when in a 95/5 vote, it turns out the 5% are correct. The 50/50 votes usually take a lot of back and forth discussion, clarification, etc. Keep in mind, these videos are usually on the most challenging situations wrestling refs ever face.)

FWIW, the current NCAA rules do not allow for independent video review at tournaments. They do allow leagues to have independent video review for league duals. The B1G used independent video review in 2017-18. I did not check on whether or not they used it in 2018-19.

 

[RoarLions1]

^^ What Tom said. My problem is one of perception. The idea or concept of a man or woman reviewing their own work leads to suspicion. That alone is problematic, even for the most respected of officials. It's not unlike Tom Ryan being on the committee that seeds wrestlers, same with Brian Smith. Conflict of interest it's called, real or perceived.

 

[amattaro]

In all sports, I question whether any perceived "benefit" of replay is more than offset by the interruption of the flow of the contest. Watching wrestlers stand around on the mat for minutes while refs stare at a tiny screen with replays at super slow motion is terrible.

There should be one look, maybe two, at a full speed replay.

 

[lobo lion]

I think we can agree the refereeing and challenge reviews during nationals were less than satisfactory.

During one of the challenges, the refs were mic'd up. What was shocking was the conversation between them before they looked at the review. It went something like this:

Ref 1: Before we look, I want to know what you have.
Ref 2: I have no takedown.
Ref 1: That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it.

What kind of process is that? "Let's figure out our story before we talk to the police".

If that conversation/review doesn't underscore the need for independent review in the challenge procedure, I don't know what can.

That's about as cynical as you can get.

 

[matter7172]

That's about as cynical as you can get.

I don't think so. An easy alternative would be to look at the review before you talked about what you thought, so that you don't "color" your impressions when you do the review.

 

[nitlion6]

^^ What Tom said. My problem is one of perception. The idea or concept of a man or woman reviewing their own work leads to suspicion. That alone is problematic, even for the most respected of officials. It's not unlike Tom Ryan being on the committee that seeds wrestlers, same with Brian Smith. Conflict of interest it's called, real or perceived.

Great points. Not even considering appearances, and limiting the question to the psychology of the self review should be enough to warrant a change.
Some folks are going to be hyper critical of themselves, some very hypersensitive to being wrong and those in the middle.

Put a model of review in place that most certainly looks better, but also probably works better than the current model.

Or if the "review your own work" is the model of use then keep it simple. Accept only the most obvious mistakes are going to be overturned, so limit the review to to two "goes" and both at full speed and get back to the competition.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

I don't think so. An easy alternative would be to look at the review before you talked about what you thought, so that you don't "color" your impressions when you do the review.

again, I think you're missing the context. The two refs are not coloring their impressions of the video. The head ref has already made the call, so his saying, "That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it," is just a perfunctory response. The main purpose of the conversation is for the head ref to learn what, in real time, the assistant ref saw on the mat. They then watch the video to see if, with the benefit of looking at the sequence multiple times, they feel it should be called differently, if not enough evidence is there to change the call, or if they feel the call that was made was correct.

I agree with Roar that the perception is more of the issue. And yet, those that made the call doing the reviews is not all that uncommon. Soccer introduced the Video Assistant Referee for the 2018 World Cup. Basically, there is a team of refs in a booth, reviewing all plays to see if something may have been missed, or something may have been called incorrectly. If they feel a review is warranted, they buzz down to the center ref. The center ref then goes to the console, reviews the video, and decides whether to make a call on something that was missed, change a call that was made, or keep the call that was made. In NCAA volleyball, for coach's challenges, one of the volleyball refs for the match also does the video review. Etc.

 

[jdimes]

again, I think you're missing the context. The two refs are not coloring their impressions of the video. The head ref has already made the call, so his saying, "That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it," is just a perfunctory response. The main purpose of the conversation is for the head ref to learn what, in real time, the assistant ref saw on the mat. They then watch the video to see if, with the benefit of looking at the sequence multiple times, they feel it should be called differently, if not enough evidence is there to change the call, or if they feel the call that was made was correct.

I agree with Roar that the perception is more of the issue. And yet, those that made the call doing the reviews is not all that uncommon. Soccer introduced the Video Assistant Referee for the 2018 World Cup. Basically, there is a team of refs in a booth, reviewing all plays to see if something may have been missed, or something may have been called incorrectly. If they feel a review is warranted, they buzz down to the center ref. The center ref then goes to the console, reviews the video, and decides whether to make a call on something that was missed, change a call that was made, or keep the call that was made. In NCAA volleyball, for coach's challenges, one of the volleyball refs for the match also does the video review. Etc.

Tom, I appreciate your informative response. What are your thoughts why the Hidlay takedown versus Nolf was overturned?

 

[matter7172]

again, I think you're missing the context. The two refs are not coloring their impressions of the video. The head ref has already made the call, so his saying, "That's what I have, too. Ok, let's go look at it," is just a perfunctory response.

Disagree. It's introducing bias into the equation. They are already going to look at the review. Making sure they are on the same page before looking at the review is no bueno.

 

[jack66]

Just as big an issue is the inconsistency with which they issue stall warnings. Even if no point is awarded, a warning itself can change the outcome of a match.

Examples, Fix played the edge the entire final's match without a warning. Yanni didn't initiate a single shot the entire match, yet McKenna gets a warning half way through the 3rd period. Stall rides are often rewarded with a stall on the bottom guy. Then of course there is the Iowa push-out offense they employ ... great theater.

 

[NittanyLion84]

Just as big an issue is the inconsistency with which they issue stall warnings.

Agreed, we frequently hear that they do not want to insert themselves into the match - let the wrestlers decide it on the mat. What they fail to realize is that when they allow stalling to go unpunished, they are inserting themselves, into the final outcome of the match.

 

[STAND with PRIDE]

Suppose the 2 cant agree on a review,does the head ref then have the final say?

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Also, when debating the effectiveness, or the perception, of the ref(s) that made the call doing the video review, over third-party individuals doing the reviews, keep the NCAA rules in mind:

Rule 3 - Conduct of Meets And Tournaments
Section 13. Mat-Side Video Review
Art. 4. Description. Mat-side video review may be used to confirm or reverse any call or non-call made by the official, except a fall. The mat-side video review process operates under the assumption that the ruling on the mat is correct, and only when there is indisputable video evidence that a ruling was incorrect will a call be changed. Absent that evidence, the original ruling stands.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Suppose the 2 cant agree on a review,does the head ref then have the final say?

the rules do not address that situation. I believe that's in part because they are written so that they apply in the three conditions: 1) two refs are reffing the match, 2) only one ref is being used for the match, 3) if a third-party is performing the review

I doubt the scenario you asked about happens too often; like, almost never. While during the review they may start out with different findings, I suspect they work through the criteria, and come to a joint decision.

I'll try to remember to ask a college ref about that, though I may not see any that I know for several months.

 

[Tom McAndrew]

Tom, I appreciate your informative response. What are your thoughts why the Hidlay takedown versus Nolf was overturned?

I haven't had a chance to watch a replay of that. If/when I do, I'll post my thoughts.

 

[Callthestall]

I posted the below comment the night of the finals with so many questionable calls.
It is my idea what could be done on to improve challenges and confirmation calls .
First correction needed, I do think that when possible (cost and camera being viable for the event) they need an independent reviewer. I've said that about the NFL for years. It would speed up process and also eliminate the potential of a bias because the same person that made original call is also determining the challenge.
The second change would help balance the decision being made by involving up to 3 people and would also speed up match.
My idea is as follows;
I think on non clock challenges it would be possible to have the 2nd official on mat to have a scoring device in his hands that he would register points as he sees it. He would hit button in his hands and it would register at table. No different than raising hands for fans and coaches to see from lead official. The coaches and public would not see his scoring unless challenge is thrown. Main official would then have access on what 2nd official had. If they both had it the same, such as a takedown or escape the call would be confirmed. It probably could be done in 30 seconds, hardly any stoppage.
If officials have it different, they would ask for the 3rd party camera official. The camera official would determine the outcome.
This concept would stop coaches from using challenge as lung time on what could be detirmine in less than a minute. It also would incorporate up to 3 people making the call instead of 1"dictator".
Thoughts?

 

[SetonHallPirate]

You're missing the context here. The assistant ref can not award a TD during the match, and makes no type of signal to indicate during the match that he agrees with a call. So before they look at the video, the head ref asks the assistant what he saw. The assistant is quite experienced (worked as many matches as head in NCAAs), so the head ref wants his take on the sequence being challenged, before they begin the video review.

The process is that the two refs then watch the video, and look to see if what was called was accurate, or if on video there is clear evidence that the call was incorrect. There were calls overturned in NCAAs. The refs want to get the call correct. They make the best decision they can in real time, and if challenged, or if they elect on their own to review the video, they will overturn it if there is clear evidence that the call made in real time was incorrect.

I doubt that the decisions by independent reviewers in wrestling video reviews would be much different than the decisions made by refs reviewing the video of matches they were calling. Most of the calls are pretty easy to make, both on the mat and in video review. In a tournament like NCAAs, where the talent level is so high, there are always going to be some calls that half a room or refs would call one way, and the other half of the room would call the other way. It doesn't mean that either opinion is wrong; just that some of the situations being evaluated are so nuanced, and so rarely encountered, that they are really tough situations that could legitimately be called either way.

(To expand on this a bit, I've been in a lot of these rooms. A video sequence will be shown, and the presenter will ask how many would have awarded X, and how many would not have awarded X. It's not unusual for a large number to ask for the video to be replayed (which you don't have in real time). After the replay, the vote may be 60/40, 70/30, 50/50, and even 95/5. The presenter will then work through the sequence, showing it in slow motion, and also pointing out various criteria. At times, they'll also ask additional questions. The goal is to get the entire body of refs to, after discussion and reflection, come to the same conclusion, and to also realize where they were making a mistake if they voted the wrong way. It's really, really interesting when in a 95/5 vote, it turns out the 5% are correct. The 50/50 votes usually take a lot of back and forth discussion, clarification, etc. Keep in mind, these videos are usually on the most challenging situations wrestling refs ever face.)

FWIW, the current NCAA rules do not allow for independent video review at tournaments. They do allow leagues to have independent video review for league duals. The B1G used independent video review in 2017-18. I did not check on whether or not they used it in 2018-19.

Rules definitely allow for independent review in tournaments. Cary Kolat even tweeted that the SoCon used an independent reviewer at their conference tournament.

The B1G did not use independent review in 2018-19. Basically, when they went to independent review in 2017-18, they pulled the second ref off the mat and behind the camera, as they did not want to pay to have two refs plus an independent reviewer. The general opinion was that this affected the quality of officiating in that season, and as such, they went back to two refs (and no independent reviewer) in 2018-19.

 

[matter7172]

If anyone remembers the one referee and two off-mat assistants that was used in at least PA states in the early 1970s, I thought that was infinitely better than the two referee system. I haven't seen any advantage to the two ref system in practice.

 

[Lionfan44]

Tom, I appreciate your informative response. What are your thoughts why the Hidlay takedown versus Nolf was overturned?

I am not Tom nor indeed, not as learned in this area. But, having said that, I think it was overturned because on replay they saw that Nolf was on his feet by the time Hidlay got control of the second leg. But, Nolf never put another supporting member on the mat after that. Therefore, from the rear position, a takedown cannot be called unless a third supporting member touches the mat after control is gained.

 

[RoarLions1]

-- I personally like the idea of replay overall, important to "get the call right"
-- Disagree with reviewing own work (perception is real), need independent review
-- Timeliness of review is important
-- Not a fan of having a second referee
-- Refereeing is hard, those that complain the most should try it (any sport)