Referee not knowing the rules

[rwkling1]

I hate to come here to complain, but I have heard many points about the referees not knowing the rules and just had my first experience with this at the MSHSL state championship (Minnesota). We were competing in eliminations (I won't state the teams) and one of our alliance partners were blamed of touching another robot that was in the safe zone. They called a technical foul on us, but it should have been only 3 pts, because (if I'm wrong, just say in the comments) if they were loading, that's 20 pts, but if they're just in the safe zone and getting prepared to load, it's 3, I may be wrong. This costed us the match. In the second match, one of their alliance partners was trying to block our full court shooter by extending an 84 inch blocker up, this is totally ok, but they weren't always in their auto zone. Myself and another alliance partner began to tell the ref during the match that he couldn't do that, that it was a technical foul. Right at the end of the match, the ref finally got the point and brought it up to the head ref. After the match was over, we lost by about 8 pts, but they didn't give us the multiple technical fouls they had, because they 'didn't see it.' We ended up getting 3rd in state, but this really frustrates me. I thought that the refs should have known the rules a bit better than what they did. thoughts?

[peirvine]

In the second match, one of their alliance partners was trying to block our full court shooter by extending an 84 inch blocker up, this is totally ok, but they weren't always in their auto zone. Myself and another alliance partner began to tell the ref during the match that he couldn't do that, that it was a technical foul. Right at the end of the match, the ref finally got the point and brought it up to the head ref. After the match was over, we lost by about 8 pts, but they didn't give us the multiple technical fouls they had, because they 'didn't see it.' We ended up getting 3rd in state, but this really frustrates me. I thought that the refs should have known the rules a bit better than what they did. thoughts?
That team, was forced outside of their auto zone. Technically, according to the rules, the team that forced them out of the autozone should be given a technical. The rules also state (and this was brought up at multiple driver's meetings) that if a blocker is pushed out of the zone, by another team, they have to appear to make all possible attempts to get back into the zone to avoid penalties. If at anytime it appears that they are not doing that (ie: picking up frisbees, being fed), then it is a technical. The team in question, in my opinion was trying to get back as they made no attempts to get frisbees or defend otherwise. So really, there was no technical unless that team changed strategies. But overall, I did notice a difference if the "calling of fouls" from Galileo to here.

[rwkling1]

I understand where you are coming from, but as I was on the field I noticed multiple times in which the team wasn't making an attempt at getting back to their auto zone, sometimes they were, but I remember them being at about half court with their blocker up and no one by them. I know it's over and done, but I thought I would bring it up. Thanks for the input

[Jon Stratis]

We all know it's frustrating when you see something the ref doesn't.

They called a technical foul on us, but it should have been only 3 pts, because (if I'm wrong, just say in the comments) if they were loading, that's 20 pts, but if they're just in the safe zone and getting prepared to load, it's 3, I may be wrong.

The rule you're looking for is G30:
Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT

contacting its PYRAMID or
touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.

Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.


So, it doesn't have to be loading at the time, it just has to be "consequential", which is a tough judgement call to make.

I can tell you regarding the refs (As I know all of them)... this wasn't their first show this season. Or even their second. I'm pretty sure they all were at both the Duluth and Minneapolis regionals. Additionally, I know the technical for a blocker being out of the autozone did get called earlier during at least one qualification match (I saw it happen, saw the flag, and shared comments between matches with the refs that that particular foul was the difference in the score between a win and a loss).

Again, it sucks to see something that the refs didn't, or expect a foul to be called when it isn't, but unfortunately that's the nature of the game.

[rwkling1]

Ok, so I was wrong on the loading, my apologies. I wasn't sure about it but that's what I thought the rule was, and I'm not sure whether or not it was intentional or if someone pushed them into them, I was on the other side of the field so I'm not sure. Yes, it is unfortunate, but this is just like a sport and you have to play it by the refs, and sometimes, stuff happens.

[Gregor]

one of our alliance partners were blamed of touching another robot that was in the safe zone. They called a technical foul on us, but it should have been only 3 pts, because (if I'm wrong, just say in the comments) if they were loading, that's 20 pts, but if they're just in the safe zone and getting prepared to load, it's 3


Relavent Rules:

G18-1
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL


G30
Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT

contacting its PYRAMID or
touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.


Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.

How did your partner touch them in the loading zone? Was it purposeful or consequential? If so then the tech foul was correct.

one of their alliance partners was trying to block our full court shooter by extending an 84 inch blocker up, this is totally ok, but they weren't always in their auto zone...After the match was over, we lost by about 8 pts, but they didn't give us the multiple technical fouls they had, because they 'didn't see it.

G22
ROBOT height (as defined in relation to the ROBOT) must be restricted as follows during the MATCH:

If in contact with the carpet in its AUTO ZONE and/or its PYRAMID, ≤ 84 in.
Otherwise, ≤ 60 in.


Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.

If it happens once it is a FOUL. If it happens continuously or repeatedly, then it is a technical foul. If the 84" blocker is pushed out of the autozone by the opposing alliance, they need to make all attempts to get back into the zone (as mentioned in driver's meetings.) If they do, just a regular FOUL will be called.

Myself and another alliance partner began to tell the ref during the match that he couldn't do that, that it was a technical foul.

Don't talk to a ref during the match, they are just a little bit preoccupied, you know, reffing and all. You wouldn't want to talk to them and have them miss a call would you?

Also, I hope you didn't leave the alliance station, because if you did then you should have been red carded. If you didn't leave the alliance station that means you were yelling at the ref, which violates G-18.

G18
All Teams must be civil towards other Teams, competition personnel, and event attendees.

Violation: Potential RED CARD for violations in the ARENA.

[rwkling1]

Actually, I would prefer if someone told me that something was happening. In sports, if something is happening that the ref doesn't see, obviously you wait until the play is over to tell them, but you do tell them. In this case, we knew that they wouldn't change the score unless we told them during the match, so we did our best to have them realize what was going on. And I'm not sure if it was accidental or not, I couldn't see it, it may or may not have been, but we got the foul.

[MrJohnston]

You are also talking about a set of rules about which there has been a lot of difficulty this season. We also have a full court shooter and found that G30, G22 and G18-1 were called differently at every event we attended - and were generally inconsistent at each event (including at Championships). They calls have varied so much, that I have seen something one match be called a technical on the defending bot, then, when the exact situation arises in another, it is a technical against the FCS. I have been somewhat privvy to discussions about this rule amongst referees and have learned that they disagree (yes, even different head referees) as to how several scenarios should be called. From what I can tell, most referees recognize the ambiguity in the rules and, frankly, hate the G18-1 rule. The best bet is to talk to referees before competition and get clarification as much as possible.

Example of ambiguity:
Defender bot puts up 80" blocker. FCS cannot shoot over it. FCS loads hopper and driver to the autoline. Blocker stays in front of FCS, but does not have the power to push back. FCS crosses autoline, pushing blocker across in the process. FCS then shoots from loaded hopper.

G22, says that the blocker cannot be across the autoline - period.
G18-1 says that the FCS cannot have a strategy with the sole purpose of causing a tech.

Now what? The blocker was shoved across teh autoline - maybe it could have avoided it, but it certainly was not intentional and not even under its own power. Does it really deserve a tech? At teh same time, if the blocker were 20" shorter, there would be no issue. Does the attachement of, say, a pool noodle suddenly make a defender robot immune to being shoved out of the way? At teh same time, teh FCS did force the blocker across the line - it employed a strategy that drove the other bot to a foul. However, the rule states that it cannot employ a strategy with the SOLE purpose of drawing the foul - it did go up and shoot. It could not shoot before, as it was being blocked. Are we going to make it illegal for the robot to try to find an open shot?

On Archimedes, this situation was ruled like this: No foul against either side - the defender has the right to defend and the FCS has the right to find an open shot. However, once across teh autoline, the tall bot must immediately return to its autozone, lest it be called for a technical. However, even on Archimedes, we had one match in which the head referee told us that if we (FCS) were to persist in doing that, we'd be charged with a technical - this was resolved after a long discussion.

Other questions: What if, after crossing the auto line, the FCS were to shoot and the blocker, due to its tall (and now illegal) height, were to inadvertently block a disk or two?

In other words, let's be kind to the refs on this - the real issue is an ambiguity in the rules.

[ToddF]

OP, you will have more credibility if you link to videos of the matches you mention. I've learned that students on the field (even our own) often misinterpret what is happening because of their perspective.

In one controversial match of ours, from last year, a mentor from the opposing alliance wrote a very detailed description based on a first hand account from one of his drive team members. The only problem was that the video showed that the account was completely wrong. I've seen things like this happen on CD often enough that I don't believe any claims about too harsh or missed penalties unless those claims are backed up by video.

I myself have had the experience of seeing a ref miss a penalty which I thought was clear as day. Then I go back and review the video and see that the ref was right after all.

[Siri]

I myself have had the experience of seeing a ref miss a penalty which I thought was clear as day. Then I go back and review the video and see that the ref was right after all.This is especially terrible this year. The differences in sight lines between refs and drive teams are incredibly difficult to mitigate. I've watched (and video reviewed) fouls that are clear from the alliance station but just plain impossible to see from the ref stand. In most of them, we'd have needed a perfect storm of a different ref looking into the area from their angle and the close ref being several feet to either direction for the foul to get called.

I've felt this as a ref, too: seeing an interaction that I know can be diagnosed by every coach on both alliances, but I just plain could not see. At the same time, I've been yelled at by teams for what basically amount to optical illusions for them. Every incident type has happened more this year than in any other game whose field I've stepped on. It's painful.

Refs at a level like MSHSL know the rules, they just have to interpret them based on what they see on the field and what they understand them to mean. Particularly with so many "intentional/purposeful/consequentials" this year, it's really hard to say that a call is wrong...or right. Do be careful of accusing anyone of not knowing the rules without having checked them yourself, though.

[pntbll1313]

We were competing in eliminations (I won't state the teams) and one of our alliance partners were blamed of touching another robot that was in the safe zone. They called a technical foul on us, but it should have been only 3 pts, because (if I'm wrong, just say in the comments) if they were loading, that's 20 pts, but if they're just in the safe zone and getting prepared to load, it's 3, I may be wrong.

In the second match, one of their alliance partners was trying to block our full court shooter by extending an 84 inch blocker up, this is totally ok, but they weren't always in their auto zone. Myself and another alliance partner began to tell the ref during the match that he couldn't do that, that it was a technical foul.

For your first point, it is a judgment call by the refs. Anything that is consequential (ie slowing down their loading) is supposed to be called a technical foul. I believe they called this correctly because I bet the contact slowed their getting into position. If the bump did not affect them getting into position in any way, it should only be 3 pts.

Your second point is only slightly more clear cut. It is still somewhat a judgement call. I believe they went over this in the drivers meeting at all 3 Minnesota competitions I’ve been to this year. If the 84” robot was pushed out and tries to get directly back in, there is no foul. If they make any other move to pick up a disk, play defense, play offense, or interfere with other robots it will be called a 20pt technical. I watched a robot get called for 2 of the 20pt technicals in 1 match for driving outside of their auto zone at the MSHL tournament. The refs were definitely aware of this penalty so they either didn’t see it or deemed that they were pushed out and trying to get back in.

I’m sorry you feel your season ended because of referee calls. You guys had a great bot and were good competition!

[rwkling1]

OP, you will have more credibility if you link to videos of the matches you mention. I've learned that students on the field (even our own) often misinterpret what is happening because of their perspective.

In one controversial match of ours, from last year, a mentor from the opposing alliance wrote a very detailed description based on a first hand account from one of his drive team members. The only problem was that the video showed that the account was completely wrong. I've seen things like this happen on CD often enough that I don't believe any claims about too harsh or missed penalties unless those claims are backed up by video.

I myself have had the experience of seeing a ref miss a penalty which I thought was clear as day. Then I go back and review the video and see that the ref was right after all.

I most definitely would have looked at the video before posting, but I could not find one.

[rwkling1]

For your first point, it is a judgment call by the refs. Anything that is consequential (ie slowing down their loading) is supposed to be called a technical foul. I believe they called this correctly because I bet the contact slowed their getting into position. If the bump did not affect them getting into position in any way, it should only be 3 pts.

Your second point is only slightly more clear cut. It is still somewhat a judgement call. I believe they went over this in the drivers meeting at all 3 Minnesota competitions I’ve been to this year. If the 84” robot was pushed out and tries to get directly back in, there is no foul. If they make any other move to pick up a disk, play defense, play offense, or interfere with other robots it will be called a 20pt technical. I watched a robot get called for 2 of the 20pt technicals in 1 match for driving outside of their auto zone at the MSHL tournament. The refs were definitely aware of this penalty so they either didn’t see it or deemed that they were pushed out and trying to get back in.

I’m sorry you feel your season ended because of referee calls. You guys had a great bot and were good competition!

I definitely understand that it is a judgement call, all sports have to deal with refs, and I respect that, and maybe I'm totally wrong, I'm not sure. I wish there was a video of it so I could see it, I was just getting others thoughts and ideas.

[Koko Ed]

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

[rwkling1]

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

As my previous comment states, I said i respect that we have to deal with refs, it's okay, I wanted to get others opinions, and for that matter, possibly a video proving me wrong or right.

[runneals]

We all know it's frustrating when you see something the ref doesn't.

I can tell you regarding the refs (As I know all of them)... this wasn't their first show this season. Or even their second. I'm pretty sure they all were at both the Duluth and Minneapolis regionals. Additionally, I know the technical for a blocker being out of the autozone did get called earlier during at least one qualification match (I saw it happen, saw the flag, and shared comments between matches with the refs that that particular foul was the difference in the score between a win and a loss).

Again, it sucks to see something that the refs didn't, or expect a foul to be called when it isn't, but unfortunately that's the nature of the game.

We noticed the refs being *extremely* cautious/lenient at North Star on Friday this year for calling fouls/technicals. We even joked about it during our scouting meeting, up to the point where we were going to have our mentor sit by the field with the rule book on Saturday to be able to show the refs the how it should be ruled, even if that meant helping our opponents. Luckily, they got their game together on Saturday, and made ~95% of the correct calls.

I give refs credit (they are volunteers after all!) for doing their best, but I suggest to all the head refs to have their refs practice during practice matches, before their rulings count. Also I believe that some of the rules this year could have been better clarified to allow refs to make better calls. From experience as a ref at a FLL this past season, there is no way to be completely ready to ref an event. I suggest that FRC makes a video like the one that Scott made for FLL & shows it to the refs. I felt as if that video helped me understand the FLL game a bit better, as an outsider.

[rwkling1]

We noticed the refs being *extremely* cautious/lenient at North Star on Friday this year for calling fouls/technicals. We even joked about it during our scouting meeting, up to the point where we were going to have our mentor sit by the field with the rule book on Saturday to be able to show the refs the how it should be ruled, even if that meant helping our opponents. Luckily, they got their game together on Saturday, and made ~95% of the correct calls.

I give refs credit (they are volunteers after all!) for doing their best, but I suggest to all the head refs to have their refs practice during practice matches, before their rulings count. Also I believe that some of the rules this year could have been better clarified to allow refs to make better calls. From experience as a ref at a FLL this past season, there is no way to be completely ready to ref an event. I suggest that FRC makes a video like the one that Scott made for FLL & shows it to the refs. I felt as if that video helped me understand the FLL game a bit better, as an outsider.

Thank you for the input, and I totally agree. The scoring system and the fouls were quite weird this season. I really appreciate the refs, but sometimes I can't help but be a little frustrated, but that's fine. I'm not blaming our whole season on them, there is definitely things we did wrong.

[WaterClaw]

We were on the alliance that was suffering referee insufficiencies mentioned in the beginning. I also must mention however this was an off season event. Quality was not a necessary factor. People were simply playing the game in a somewhat recognized event.

I do see where my teams' alliance partner would be coming from. This is a bad representation of FIRST and disregards gracious PROFESSIONALISM. But again, this was barely a recognized event and irrelevant as far as actual FIRST endorsed events played.

No one is perfect, and I would just like to thank the refs for their time at our regional. They did their best and we thank them for their work.

Finally, I must somewhat agree that referees need a much larger understanding of the rules. They do a lot already, but as in everything in FIRST, we need to continue to improve.

[Siri]

Finally, I must somewhat agree that referees need a much larger understanding of the rules. They do a lot already, but as in everything in FIRST, we need to continue to improve.That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

[WaterClaw]

That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

However, again, I appreciate how they took time to ref our post season regional regardless if they were volunteers or full time refs. I've seen how hard their job is and I personally wouldn't do it with out a broader understanding of the rules.

And that brings me to my suggestion. As far as improving it goes, I believe it would be a good idea to have referees take a quiz or comprehension test of some sort to establish they have a well rounded understanding of the rules. The test does not necessarily eliminate the refs from refereeing however it forces them to re-evaluate their understanding of the rules.

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.

[Siri]

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.Just so all's clear, Jon Stratis (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1276107#post1276107) indicated that they'd all reffed Duluth and Minneapolis (both), so it's not odd for you not to recognize them.

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.There is indeed a test (nor is it new for this year), and while I won't claim it's rocket science, it is pretty comprehensive. However, for obvious reasons it is devised before the competitions actually start, so it's no surprise that it misses some the subtleties. For those it predicts, it's actually rather rough in assessing them.

In an perfect world, the test would be revised weekly and refs working the next weekend would have to take that. I actually quite like this idea, but given how difficult it is to recruit refs (or other certified volunteers, or volunteers at all for that matter), this is probably logistically prohibitive. A variation might be to take this, say, at the beginning of their Day 0. It could provide a framework around which to discuss the new situations that pop up every week. Of course, this could still require a schedule shift for those that have to come in later, and someone(s) still have to revise it throughout the season.

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.There was an actual training curriculum last year, videos and all. I'm not sure why there wasn't one this year (though I can guess - time required and commitment vs benefit), but it went back to just a test.

That said, FIRST has been very clear for years that they refuse to discuss the...subtleties...of the rules. Just mosey through the annual Q&As, and you'll see a whole lot of "We cannot comment on hypothetical scenarios. Real-time evaluations will be made by Referees given the full context of the occurrence". If they won't do it on the Q&A, I wouldn't expect them to do it in videos. They barely do it at the Championship driver's meeting.

[Jon Stratis]

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

However, again, I appreciate how they took time to ref our post season regional regardless if they were volunteers or full time refs. I've seen how hard their job is and I personally wouldn't do it with out a broader understanding of the rules.

And that brings me to my suggestion. As far as improving it goes, I believe it would be a good idea to have referees take a quiz or comprehension test of some sort to establish they have a well rounded understanding of the rules. The test does not necessarily eliminate the refs from refereeing however it forces them to re-evaluate their understanding of the rules.

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.

To address a few points... Your team was at one of the four Minnesota regionals, so I'm not too surprised you didn't see most of the refs this year. However, I can assure you that they were all longtime FIRST refs, who not only ref our regionals, but also ref most of our offseason events.

There is a test for refs, just as there is one for Robot Inspectors. Additionally, the head refs are included on a conference call every week to talk about what happened the previous week and what they need to watch out for (the inspectors have a similar call). The head refs are then responsible for any on-site training that is required, just as the LRI trains the inspectors.

I also want to note... It is extremely difficult recruiting refs, more so than most other volunteer positions. Imagine you're a ref for football or soccer or baseball. You go in knowing the rules, since you grew up loving the sport. You can ref it for 20 years with only minimal (if that) rule changes. Now you come to FIRST and get recruited to be a. Ref. your very first question is "what are the rules?" Well, when the answer comes back "the rules change every year", you get nervous and drop out. The changing rules in a very high pressure and high profile position like that makes it very difficult to recruit new refs. So, anyone out there (not directed at anyone in particular in this thread) who has a problem with the way the refs work... Step up and volunteer to ref yourself (after you graduate, if your still a student)!

[Jon Stratis]

It looks like the video has been posted:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1276511&postcount=37

To address the first point from the OP, getting a technical for touching a robot in the safe zone... At about 10:25, you can see 2169 push 4656 from one corner of the safe zone to the other as they try to get into position, and a flag being waved by the ref standing right there. If I had to guess, I would say this contact could be considered consequential. At 11:53, you can see 2169 attempting to push their way into the safe zone after having left it, but not quite making it in... the ref nearby was closely watching, and did not wave his flag. Please note we don't see that area the whole match, so I'm just going based on what we do actually see in the video.

For the second point, a robot over 60" tall outside of the autonomous zone, we go to the second match between these alliances (starting at 17:35). Unfortunately, the camera seemed to focus mostly on 2169, and didn't show much of what is being questioned. There were several shots of the red blocker robot with the blocker down (thus the robot was under 60") driving around midfield. There was one shot with the blocker up and the robot around midcourt, but it was very brief, not showing how the robot got into that position, and it did show the robot heading back towards its auto zone (I would say worthy of a foul from what we can see). Near the end, there was a great shot of the blocker being deployed with the robot racing towards midfield and lowering the blocker as it reached the auto line. There simply isn't enough evidence on the video to show that there were "continuous or repeated violations" to earn a technical.

Hope this helps!

[Andrew Schreiber]

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)



That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

"Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)

[Jon Stratis]

54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?


For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best. Through the three events I was LRI for (Lake Superior, North Star, and MSHSL tournament) the refs did ask me to go back and double check a few robots at each event to ensure they were compliant in a certain configuration. I also know that the refs were concerned about a couple of the robots at MSHSL last weekend when they climbed. We had two robots that basically hooked on and fell over horizontal - the refs borrowed my tape measure and sharpie (the LRI vest hold just about everything imaginable) and made marks on the auto line tape so they could tell where 54" from the pyramid was. I know this penalty got called at least once after that!

But, you do bring up a very good point. There are rules like the 54" diameter cylinder that fall into a sort of "gray area" between reffing it on the field and inspecting it in the pits. That said, they are usually created very intentionally. For example, without that rule in this game, it would be possible for a single robot to grab onto the pyramid and expand out to blockade one half of the field (both inside and outside the pyramid). Now, what happens if two robots on the same alliance do this during autonomous mode? Does it count as blockading the field (20-pt technical, but completely prevents the other alliance from scoring discs)? If one of the opposing robots hits them, it's interfering with their climb, giving them a technical plus 30 points. Without the 54" rule, this could be a viable (and boring) strategy for an alliance, depending on the third robot!

[rwkling1]

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)





The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

"Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)


I had no intent in criticizing, just trying to get confirmation whether I was right or wrong. The title is a little harsh, but it's the first thing that came to my mind.

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

[Andrew Schreiber]

For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best.

I know they do. I was kinda wishlisting for rule types to be avoided in the future. I understand why the rules are there. I just hope refs are instructed not to call violations unless they are flagrant (which violates another of my wishlist items). 54.5" ? Who cares. 85"? Yeah, that's a violation.

[Jon Stratis]

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

[rwkling1]

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

[Jon Stratis]

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

The key there being that we can't see it. The camera simply doesn't show the right part of the field the entire time for any of us to be sure there were more violations. I've seen situations before where one or two individuals had themselves convinced "A" happened, but when video became available it was actually "B". Short of memory ("eye witness reports" are the least trusted evidence by police... get 3 people to watch something and interview them afterwards, and you'll end up hearing 4 completely different stories of what happened), we simply can't see that anything other than a 3 point penalty was missed.

[Laaba 80]

It's important to realize the difference between not knowing a rule and making the "wrong" judgement call. In my experience, every time a ref has actually messed up (disabling our tower when our alignment device but not minibot broke the plane before 10 seconds, or not counting our colored discs) we made them aware of the issue and they corrected it. Mistakes happen. Judgement calls on the other hand almost never get changed. It is very hard to make a decision on what you saw that quickly, while knowing that either way someone is going to be unhappy. Ask any sports fan how many times a ref has cost their team a game, and those are professionals.


So, anyone out there (not directed at anyone in particular in this thread) who has a problem with the way the refs work... Step up and volunteer to ref yourself (after you graduate, if your still a student)!

I actually volunteered to ref in Minnesota back in 2011, but was turned down and told I need to be out of college.

[Navid Shafa]

I actually volunteered to ref in Minnesota back in 2011, but was turned down and told I need to be out of college.

I know college-aged ref's were present at several regionals this year, perhaps that was an old rule?

[Alpha Beta]

I know college-aged ref's were present at several regionals this year, perhaps that was an old rule?

Head ref in Kansas City was a college student this year. He graduated high school in 2009 and served as a field ref for the years inbetween. I suppose it has a lot to do with who you know, and how well.