[moderated]: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25) [Archive]

Travis Hoffman

27-03-2005, 08:54

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released. At some events, ramming and tipping were being permitted with no penalty, causing damage and much frustration to offensive teams. At others, such as Midwest, refs are nullifying legal defensive strategies as defined by Rule G25 by their application of the overaggressiveness *rule*. I'd love to hear why they are choosing to levy these penalties, but oh yes, they don't bother communicating their reasoning for each penalty to the audience. Pity. More people than I care to remember have expressed similar frustration in these forums and at these events across the continent. The same, tired old excuses of "Oh, they're just volunteers" and "Oh, we don't have the resources to oversee the refs as much as we'd like" is starting to wear thin. FIRST, you have a MAJOR problem with the way you "manage" your referee crews, and if you do not do something about it soon, I fear you are going to see some teams walk away from this program in disgust.

(Virtual shouting alert. All of you who get uptight about such things, grab your virtual Tylenol, use it on your virtual headache, and hush).

Yes, I freely admit it. I am biased. Biased toward fairness. Biased toward balance. Biased toward equality of experience at all events for all teams, both offensive and defensive. Why must we always have to deal with these extremes in judgement from the refereeing crew, extremes which cause students who feel they've just accomplished something amazing to suddenly have their spirits obliterated by a penalty that didn't exist at their last event? THAT IS INEXCUSABLE, AND FIRST YOU ARE DROPPING THE BALL BIG TIME. This is the ONE area of the entire competition you SHOULDN'T leave primarily in the hands of the regional volunteer staffs. I know many of these refs are walk-ons at these events and have had little training. BUT THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE - THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT YOUR REFEREEING SELECTION AND TRAINING PROCESSES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! THAT IS EVIDENCE OF YOUR FAILURE IN THIS AREA! I am tired of everyone asking us to use GP and look past these shortcomings. You exist as a non-profit organization who have dedicated themselves to serving the needs of the people and teams who quite literally buy into your message and choose to participate in this program. Each year, we all look to you to create an exciting game challenge, exercise fairness in judgement, and provide swift guidance and communication when such things are needed. When the central body fails to come through in these areas, the whole community is weakened by it. This is an area where we NEED more leadership from you. It is challenge enough for these mentors to run their own programs and find ways to inspire them in our home towns. We expect the competitions to be a capstone experience for the kids that lets us all celebrate the successes of the build period together, one which takes the kids' breath away and leaves them wanting more. This refereeing inconsistency is severely hurting that experience for many students and their teams, and that is inexcusable.

FIRST, this is a call for help. Please fix what is broken, so that the great FIRST experience we've all come to know and love isn't further eroded away.

************************************************** *******
I originally posted this in the Midwest Webcast thread, but moved it here.

Relevant posts can be found in the Midwest Regional Webcast (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36535&page=4&pp=15) thread, page 4 and beyond:

The video of the match in question can be found here (http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/movies/il/il_sf1m3.wmv).

I feel that that penalty was wrongfully called. Since when are there penalties for playing defense ?! (there was no hitting high, nor ramming at high speeds) This is my opinion though.....I just watched the video of this semifinal match. Thank you to SOAP for providing this great service.

Some excerpts from the announcer....

"Some great defense by the blue alliance."

"Captain Krunch....playing pure defense."

Boy, those blue dudes sure had him fooled. Good thing the refs were there to set the record straight and penalize that *overaggressive* alliance for pouring everything they had into upsetting "the favorites".

I will tell you that the vid of that match didn't reveal all 2:00 of the blue alliance's defensive activity, but from what I saw, they were pushing low. They never rammed. They backed off periodically to avoid the pinning issues. Basically, they played the defensive game the way it was meant to be played. Yet they were denied.

Did anyone actually bother to communicate the SPECIFIC reasoning behind the call to the crowd at the venue? Or was everyone once again left in the dark to fuel the flames of debate here on these forums and beyond?

I'm that much closer to bringing the G25 Freightliner (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=358172&postcount=39) to Atlanta.

Rule generalities such as the "overaggressiveness" penalties permit personal bias and inconsistency to taint both the quality AND equality of the game experience for participants across the board. They pretty much give refs free license to annihilate any explicitly-worded rule in the book at their leisure. IT STINKS. PERIOD.

Congratulations to the winning alliance in that Midwest semifinal, for you played your best and did nothing wrong, but I truly salute you, 107, 79, and 648, for a job well done and, in my opinion, improperly rewarded.

Don Wright

27-03-2005, 09:08

Ironically, that was the loudest cheering I heard all day yesterday over the webcast.

This is disappointing. IMHO, there was nothing wrong with their defence. At all.

FIRST should have 5-10 main "Aggressive" refs that travel to the Regionals each weekend and only they are allowed to call G25. That would limit the inconsistancy, I would hope.

Jeff Waegelin

27-03-2005, 09:46

Speaking as a referee (from the Detroit Regional), G25 is a very difficult call to make, because it is, at its heart, a judgement call. Even when you know the rules extremely well, as I do, it is incredibly difficult to make that call, and to keep it consistent, because every situation you witness is different. What may be crystal clear in one situation is clear as mud in another.

In addition, everyone has a slightly different idea of what counts as G25. Some believe that most contact should be eliminated to encourage offense. Other referees take a laissez faire approach, saying "let the teams play." This is, for the most part, how we called the rule at Detroit. If we thought a team was intentionally ramming or tipping, we would call a 10-pt. penalty, warn them, and tell them the next time was a DQ (we never got to the DQ stage). If, however, the contact appeared to be incidental, legal defense, or the call was very questionable, we would call nothing, and just give the team a warning after the match.

So, as you can see, it's not an easy call to make, and an even harder one to make consistently. Is there room to improve on this? Absolutely. There are ways, I'm sure, like requiring all referees to attend a training seminar at FIRST HQ, but you have to remember: referees are just volunteers. They sign up on the FIRST website like everyone else, and, often, FIRST needs all the volunteers they can get. When you run things that way, a 2-hour training session on Thursday is really the best you can do.

Finally, even if you were able to get all the referees to a weekend training session, and had regular meetings to ensure consistency (both of which are possible for a small number, perhaps, but not every single referee), G25 is, in the end, a judgement call. You can define it extremely well, but it's still up to the men and women on the sidelines to make the final call, and, they're only human.

KenWittlief

27-03-2005, 09:56

I am quite alarmed and frustrated ....

I cant tell anything from watching the video, so lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume a bad call was made by the refs.

Show me a sport where this never happens, where fans never BOOOO the refs, or feel like they have been robbed?

Ok, shall we talk about teaching students about good sportsmanship now, how to go with the punches when you feel like you DID get the short end of the stick?

Shall we talk about mentors setting the example?

Travis Hoffman

27-03-2005, 10:03

Ok, shall we talk about teaching students about good sportsmanship now, how to go with the punches when you feel like you DID get the short end of the stick?

Shall we talk about mentors setting the example?If the measuring stick was the same length from week to week, perhaps that would be an easier task to accomplish....

I'm sure it would be easier for those opposed to my opinion to try and counter with the "You're just whining and bitter" defense, so I'll just cut off that angle right now - it's been a very long time since I can remember my team being directly and majorly affected by a ref's call. Any penalties we've received this year have been well deserved and have been explained to our kids as such. We've been fortunate in that area; many others have unfortunately not. I make these pleas solely in the best interests of all FIRST teams, and specifically for the emotional states of the kids who are affected by such inconsistency.

There's also the popular argument that "well this is how the real world works - it's not always perfect, and it's a good life lesson for the kids". I'd like to think that the bulk of those lessons, both positive and negative, should be learned in the metal shops, warehouses, tiny storage rooms, and dimly lit hallways of high schools throughout the world, as well as in the pits at the competitions. There are times when your team will struggle and there are times when it will achieve great victories. There will be times when unknown and uncontrollable factors will intercede to provide an unexpected outcome for which your team must compensate. Referee inconsistency is both a known AND controllable factor that should NEVER be allowed to create an unexpected outcome on the playing field. It's not a life lesson that should be accepted and learned from; it's a PROBLEM that should be eradicated as quickly as possible, so as not to detract from the TRUE and VALUABLE life lessons these kids learn at these events.

Tom Bottiglieri

27-03-2005, 10:14

Show me a sport where this never happens, where fans never BOOOO the refs, or feel like they have been robbed?
I always thought the great thing about FIRST was that it wasnt a sport.. :rolleyes:
Shall we talk about mentors setting the example?
I think it's great Travis made this post. There has been controversy about this rule going around these boards and elsewhere. Obviously, many people are upset about these inconsistent calls. But what is this in the eyes of FIRST? To me it would just seem like a whole mess of sour high school kids complaining because they didn't win. I love everything the great mentors of FIRST have done for us, and appreciate it immensely; without you guys none of us would even have this opportunity. But at the same time, its the kids who pour their hearts and souls into this.. its their game. While an unbiased, unaffiliated adult may take these "bad" calls with a grain of salt, saying its just a part of the game, a student who has devoted everything they have into this robot is going to take it a little more seriously. And it will be their quest to fix the problem that will result in something good. Maybe this will be a rule change, or better referee training.. but hopefully it will be that no one else has to get their heart broken the way he/she just did.

A perfect example of this is Ted Boucher from team 237. In the 2nd round of finals at the NJ regional, his team clearly won the match, but was forced to replay the match after a communications error, and it cost them the regional. While a bit bitter at first, Ted quickly got over the loss and moved his attention from his pain in losing to trying to make sure that what happened to him never happened to anyone else again, ever. I think this shows true maturity on Ted's part, and I salute both Travis and Ted for their cool handling of the situation, and great understanding of the teenage mindset.

Ryan Dognaux

27-03-2005, 10:26

If the measuring stick was the same length from week to week, perhaps that would be easier to do....

If you hadn't started this thread, I was going to today. I agree 100% with you, the inconsistency shown at the Midwest Regional this weekend is unacceptable. G25 is a shady area and needs to be clearly defined to avoid these types of incidents. Just what is defense, what does it constitute, what is not defense, what is considered aggressive play? These all need to be clearly defined within the rules for all to see, and then need to be upheld to the fullest.

To put it nicely, I was outraged when 79 got the ten point penalty. Krunch played some of the best defense I have seen all season. How is trying to prevent a team from capping by shoving them with your drive and covering the goal with your arm considered aggressive? Krunch was doing what they had to do to stop the scoring machines 71 and 111 - they were executing the only strategy that would work, and they were penalized for playing the game. It's absurd.

Quite frankly, I am so glad we did not compete at Midwest this past weekend.

The drastic change from Purdue in calling the 'breaking the plane' rule was insane. Teams who touched the plexiglass were disabled. At times, entire alliances were disabled. At Purdue, teams who went over the plane of the player station were not disabled even when one of THURST's operators was hit with a tetra!

Another thing, why were refs running across to the player station to hit the E-stop button to disable the robot? Wouldn't asking the scoring table to disable be much faster and make more sense...?

I can honestly say I was angry when I left the Midwest Regional, and our team wasn't even at the competition. I really, really felt for all the teams that got the shaft this weekend - 107, 79, 648. You are handling this better than I would, you are amazing teams.

I will say congrats to 71, 111, and 537, because they really did play very well.

Bharat Nain

27-03-2005, 10:31

Just imagine you walk into your office one day, and your boss called a party because one of the employee's did something great and took the company to a new level. It happens to be your best friend that has being credited with it even though you and everyone knows its you who has put in the work for it. How would you feel?

In the past years, there was not too many bad calls. This year, because the game and its rules, there are a lot. I feel really bad for the teams that go through these bad and inconsistent calls because I know how much it hurts. I don't want to blame the refs because I know some of the rules are confusing and based mainly on human eye judgment. I do want to blame some of the refs because some of them are similar to past years, and the calls were still absolutely non-sense. I can't wait to see how things turn up at the championship event. Every regional has had a different tone and different interpretation of the rules, which makes the game even more confusing for me. All I can hope is the championship will be a better event, with more fair and consistent calls. It's just a game afterall.
Good luck to all teams,
-Bharat

Aidan F. Browne

27-03-2005, 10:41

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released... [ranting contiues]...
Wow. I don't know what to say other than I am disappointed that a FIRST mentor could set such a horrible example for his and other students.

You seem very focused on the impact to the students because of one call. I suggest that it is not the call, but your reaction to the call that creates any negative impact on the students.

Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about. You do not get that it is not about a random ref call here or there. It is about what the students learn and are exposed to over the six week build and during the competitoin. No ref has ever taken away the FIRST experience from a student -- the vast majority of the time they add to it.

I am not passing judgement on this particular incident, but yes, refs sometimes make mistakes -- not just FIRST refs -- all refs. Even the highly trained, highly paid professional refs. I'm not going to justify FIRST's efforts to you other than to say that FIRST does go to considerable effort and expense to ensure that the Head Refs at each event are trained and communicate amoungst one-another throughout the season.

Lastly, if you feel you really need to make a gigantic banner with <G25> printed on it and bring it to Atlanta, I will suggest that maybe you need to reconsider taking the trip. The amount of negativism you would be displaying would be a big negative impact to the students -- much greater than any ref's call.

Aidan

sw293

27-03-2005, 10:44

I want all refs to consider this: A call for intentionally excessive rough play accompanied by a disqualification is an indictment of the team it is called on. When you flag a team for this, you are accusing them of playing dirty, playing contrary to the principles of gracious professionalism. You are pointing a finger at their drivers, saying, "You didn't have enough class to play fair that round." You shouldn't make such a call if you are only 51% convinced the violation was intentional. By making that call, you are dissing a team, so you better be darn sure you are right. Remember that the next time you flag a team for intentionally excessive rough play.

The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.

BlackKnight135

27-03-2005, 10:45

I also do not blame the refs as much as the rule of G25. My team team 135 lost the boilermaker and buckeye regional in the finals because of hitting low and being penalized that cost us to lose. TWICE. The first time losing hammond team 71 in the finals we were just happy to make it that far but at the Buckeye where our robots arm did not work for the finals and the robot we hit had a high CG and tipped we lost the finals because of it. We are done and ready for nationals and hoping that at nationals the refs have some more consistency on the G25. Because we do not care how they inforce it just keep in consistent for all.

Ryan Dognaux

27-03-2005, 10:56

Just for reference, people may watch the match in question on SOAP108, the link is - http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/movies/il/il_sf1m3.wmv

Aidan F. Browne

27-03-2005, 10:56

I want all refs to consider this: A call for intentionally excessive rough play accompanied by a disqualification is an indictment of the team it is called on. When you flag a team for this, you are accusing them of playing dirty, playing contrary to the principles of gracious professionalism.
Whoa! You are way off base here. The refs are not idicting or accusing anyone -- they are doing their job of impartially enforcing the rules.

I want to ask everyone who is posting on this topic to take a deep breath, think back, and ask yourself:

"If all of the people at the regionals you attended were watching every move you made during the 6 week build season and in the pits at the competition, would they find any faults in your decisions or actions?"

Billfred

27-03-2005, 11:11

You seem very focused on the impact to the students because of one call. I suggest that it is not the call, but your reaction to the call that creates any negative impact on the students.
I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest (http://www.battlebotsiq.com). You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better.

So, what's a guy to do? I know that I'll be pestering 1293's drive team to ask the refs at Palmetto for as many details about G25 enforcement as they have, and for information on what caused every single flag we get. (Of course, my dream is to go the distance without getting a flag. :rolleyes:)

Brian Beatty

27-03-2005, 11:11

There are a few points to address:

1)In my opinion, 79's defense was not a penalty. However, it was very aggressive and my vantage point was not as good as the refs.

2)I would prefer no defense. When that was tried in 2001, there was an uproar to bring back the interaction. In 2003, it wasn't battlebots, but it was right up next to it. It was a "game of denial" where offensive bots were completely nullified. This game is an attempt at a compromise.

3)Lighten up on the refs. These people are volunteers doing the best job they can with the game they were dealt trying to keep it as fair as possible. Yes, they were calling it tight(we were disabled twice at this regional), so you have to adjust.

4)As far as defensive penalties, my analogy goes back to my basketball days. Every now and then, it came a time to give a "hard foul". Most of the time, it was called a foul. Every now and then, it was called a "flagrant foul". Sometimes it was deserved, sometimes not. But as a caution to teams that play "hard defense", due to inconsistencies in human judgment, the risk will exist for a penalty under the current system.

5) FIRST is concerned about safety, but have only a 6'-8" wall as a barrier. Put up a 2-3 ft Plexiglas wall on top of the current operator's station. This will stop a whole bunch of disablements and make the game a more exciting game.

In conclusion, it was an unfortunate conclusion to the semifinal. Both alliances played well and were deserving. Let's hope that this experience makes for a better Nationals and a better FIRST.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Al Skierkiewicz

27-03-2005, 11:42

I need to weigh in here as a participant, team member and volunteer at the Midwest Regional. The position of referee is a very hard and subjective position in a competition where there is a rule book the size of a small town yellow pages. What you see from the stands and what you see from a webcast is nothing compared to the vantage point you would have on the floor next to the field. I spent some time behind the field during this regional, some time behind a players station in the stands and some time high up with my team and I can tell you there is a vastly different view of the game from those three positions. The aggressive play rule comes from the discussion on this forum and others following last year's season. It has been discussed at length and the referees trained to know the difference between aggressive defense and aggressive play aimed at damage only. Anyone in this competition for more than a year knows that robots will sustain damage, have parts ripped off, break drive parts etc. When an aggressive robot leaves the field and it is littered with parts, that has crossed the line. During one such match in Chicago, the referees collected a double handful of broken parts from the field.
At the start of this season, I wasn't sure that this would turn into an exciting game, but it has. I didn't think aggressive play would be an issue with a populated field (6 robots and nine goals) but there are robots out there that can and will drive hard enough to inflict serious and fatal damage on another robot. Pushing doesn't create damage but serves just as well in a defensive mode as ramming but there is a significant difference that only those up close may be able to determine.
Now, having been at two regionals back to back, and seeing the same people volunteering at both, I can tell you they are very tired. (I am exhausted) Do you know of any officials that will ref for two full days? Does any official receive the full immersion form of training that our refs do? As each match goes by, they get better and better. By finals on Saturday afternoon I think you have the best staff you can get.
I guess I am trying to say (in a Ken Leung, long post kind of way) that it is too easy to make a judgment call from the stands and be wrong. Making a judgment call on a webcast video should be like pro wrestling, for entertainment purposes only.

I can tell you we have the utmost respect for the teams we played. The finals matches with 107, 79, 648 were some of the toughest I have ever seen and they are the greatest competitors, playing the game well with a wonderful strategy that almost won. I would be happy to be in an alliance with any of them.

Travis Hoffman

27-03-2005, 11:44

The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.
I think we should be careful of using words like "accused" here. If things were perfect, and they aren't, I don't think a ref's opinion of intentional vs. unintentional should ever have to play a role in his/her decision, if the rule clearly defines what is wrong and what isn't, and the governing body of the competition makes it clear that one and only one interpretation of that rule is acceptable. Sometimes, kids make mistakes, and they tip over a robot unintentionally, or they swing their tetras over a player station, accidentally causing a student to be struck. They should be penalized for their mistakes in just the same manner as the team that just went out, locked on to a target, and hit the gas, or drove around like hellions who didn't care where their arms or their tetras swung, and they should accept their mistake and the consequences that resulted from making it. Ideally, the only application of referee judgment would come in deciding which teams to warn/watch/disqualify because of their continued reckless play and which teams to leave alone because they know the kids made a simple mistake.

There is naturally going to be a fair amount of judgment the refs have to make when assessing penalties based upon G25, but it amazes me that the range of interpretations is so very widespread. Sometimes, the aggressor is so obviously over the top that they tip or damage another robot, yet no penalty is called. Other times, the aggressor plays defense according to the strict wording of the rule, yet they are flagged. G25 seems very clear to me, and I simply cannot understand why all these different interpretations of this and other rules have been permitted to be exercised at these events.

I've said this before - refs at any one event tend to be consistent with their rulings and generally call the game true to what is discussed in that event's initial refereeing meetings; it's the inconsistency from event to event that is the true driving force behind this frustration for so many.

What is so different about calling this year's game compared to last year's that is causing so much widespread heartache and disappointment for people? It boggles my mind. Last year's game was so memorable for me because I CANNOT remember one time where the refs and their calls became the focal point of the event - it was all about the great driving and hanging and ball gathering and Human Player accuracy - it was all about the excitement.

It's just so....disappointing to see so many discussions of this nature pop up this season. It's also disheartening to see the actions of these volunteer refs placed squarely in the spotlight of these debates. On the whole, they are not the direct source of all this frustration for teams. They are just trying to do their jobs the best they can based upon the game, rules, and communication FIRST has given them. I continue to be amazed that someone can't simply fix this problem - how hard is it to just communicate?! Perhaps there are forces and roadblocks at work behind the scenes that I will simply never comprehend, but I continue to hold out hope that the dedicated people at FIRST will find a way to make things better. Bharat was right - let's hope the championship is the place where FIRST makes things right, for if such field-to-field inconsistency as we've seen so far is permitted to plague the playing fields at Atlanta, where the separation of the venues is a matter of feet, not hundreds of miles, I shudder to think of the team reactions and repercussions that would result.

meaubry

27-03-2005, 12:21

To all whom post -
It is obvious that this year the interpretation of the rules (G25) has caused a bit of controversy. So I actually expected that issues like this would come up throughout the regional season.
Please keep in mind that it is NOT productive to post negative remarks about setting examples and such - everyone, and I mean everyone, is entitled to their opinion. Let's not forget that mentors are human too and they also have opinions that might not match that of the FIRST leadership - FIRST can handle criticism - let's just be careful in the manner in which we do so.
Now - back to the specifics about this thread.
Calling for an end of inconsistency is asking for the impossible. People are inconsistent, and the interpretation of this rule is inconsistent. As many have pointed out, what one determines as overaggressive someone else may not.
The rule itself allows the ref's to decide from match to match, day to day, regional to regional. Unfortunately, there is no clear line that defines when a team is being "overly aggressive" - nor even just plain "aggressive". Words like ramming, high speed ramming, pushing high, pushing low, pinning, and such don't do justice to the intent behind the action.
That is why the refs are in a bad situation. They must interpret the action, and then the intent. The results are obvious (tipped over robots, parts scattered over the field, broken machines) - so afterwords the equation is not always balanced. Those teams that designed machines so that the intent is hidden by the shape of the machine have no excuses - the drivers and more so the coaches of teams that play defense as part of their strategy must realize that in doing so they are at risk (offensive scoring machines draw less attention in penalty situations - they are more often the victim of overzealous driving)
What can or should be done?
Define what is considered allowable defensive actions. Post them on ever teams table on Thursday. FIRST must make sure everyone that is allowed to call penalties has the same interpretation - use past matches on Thursday when the ref's are trained, to make sure everyone of them is on the same page. I'll call it on the job training using the YMTC method. Also, I'd install the 2nd pair of eyes rule on penalties associated with G25 - two or more ref's need to agree in order for the penalty to stick.
Then, call penalties when those actions take place - starting when the first one is broken and be consistent throughout the tournament.
Sorry about the long post -
Agree or disagree as you'd like - but let's all stay on the high road and not slip back making a bad situation worse.

Mike Aubry

Beth Sweet

27-03-2005, 12:33

Ok, I'm going to try to say this as calmly and clearly as I can.

Referees are on the field to make calls. If there weren't judgment calls to be made, then they wouldn't be out there. By placing them there, we are saying that we will trust their judgement. They are closer than we are, they can see better. Yes, they may make bad calls, but they're human and there will always be calls where they will have to trust what they think they saw. Obviously, the rules cannot outline every possible defensive situation for clarification and must leave much of it up the discretion of the refs.

Now to the comments by those who were not satisfied with the referees consistency. Once again, the refs are only human and human error does have an annoying tendancy to upset us from time to time, especially when it's our team or the team we're rooting for or against. Maybe the refs inconsistency was them trying to make things more fair, trying to follow the rules better and do a better job. I almost guarantee you that the refs are not out there to try to ruin things for your team. They are volunteers, they have your best interest in mind.

In summary: Rules allot for human error. If there weren't judgement calls to be made, there wouldn't be referee's. The ref's out there are just trying to do the best job possible. Let's all try to support each other and if there is a problem, let's try to make sure our emotions don't rule our posts, let's let the facts speak for themselves.

Ryan Dognaux

27-03-2005, 12:35

What can or should be done?
Define what is considered allowable defensive actions. Post them on ever teams table on Thursday. FIRST must make sure everyone that is allowed to call penalties has the same interpretation - use past matches on Thursday when the ref's are trained, to make sure everyone of them is on the same page. I'll call it on the job training using the YMTC method. Also, I'd install the 2nd pair of eyes rule on penalties associated with G25 - two or more ref's need to agree in order for the penalty to stick.
Then, call penalties when those actions take place - starting when the first one is broken and be consistent throughout the tournament.

This is exactly what needs to be done. G25 needs to be elaborated on with specific definitions in an effort to standardize the ref's calls across all regionals, throughout the entire regional. I would not have a problem with the call at the Midwest Regional had it been called prior to Saturday afternoon.

I forgot to do this in my first post - thank you to the referees. Without you guys, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, and that would be a bad thing. Thanks to all who volunteer their time to work these events.

Collin Fultz

27-03-2005, 12:42

I will just say this in defense of a few people:

Refs---it was a hard weekend to call and they did their best. It was frustrating sometimes I know, but in the end they are all just people and people make mistakes. There was some discussion of putting an accelerometer on robots and only when your acceleration (F=ma) and thus your force reached a certain level were you disabled. It was, however, decided that first the scoring system should be fixed so we don't have 30 minute delays and then we'll focus on accelerometers :)

Team 79 --- they did everything they could within the rules and within gracious professionalism to argue the calls during that match. when all was said and done and they knew the call wasn't going to be reversed one mentor said to another "You should go talk to the team and make sure they're ok. Let them know that it isn't the end of the world" or something to that effect in saying "It's a game...let's move on" congrats 79...you know what FIRST is all about

The finals alliance --- you guys put up one heck of a match. let it be known that the beast can be stopped. atlanta should be fun.

Everyone else --- i've never reffed. i've never wanted to ref. it's hard. i suggest (if you're going to complain) that you try it. especially if you're in the midwest...you have a regional within driving distance basically every week and they're always wanting more volunteers.

http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/

Scott358

27-03-2005, 13:29

The issue isn’t with the ref’s, but seems to be within rule G25. As it states in the first sentence of the rule, it is in place to deter "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS". This rule seems to try to judge intent, which makes it a rule that is very difficult to properly enforce. This puts the ref's in a very difficult spot (hence the many calls for a rule change which would allow for more consistent application).

As a mentor for a team that was responsible for the disqualification of a complete alliance during the first match of the Philly finals, we feel horrible for causing the loss of this match to our alliance partners. As a Regional Chairman's Award winning team from the week before, I can assure you that we never, ever had a strategy aimed solely at destroying, damaging, tipping over, or entangling. In this specific instance, we were merely trying to leave the opponents end of the field and they were trying to stop us, and they tipped over when we collided. I strongly feel this is “normal game play” (as quoted in rule G25).

At this point, all we can do as mentors is handle the situation with gracious professionalism, and have the kids understand that humans make calls, some of which you'll agree with, and some you won't, but you've got to move on in a constructive way. Don’t blame the ref’s, but if you feel the rule is wrong, find ways to make a change (like perhaps discussing it within this forum).

As Dean reminded us during the opening on Saturday, we're all very lucky to be among the few who play this game. With that, I would call for a better defined rule that can be more consistently applied (especially since this one has/can have such a huge impact), but either way, we're looking forward to Atlanta!!!

Scott 358
Engineer/Mentor
Festo Hauppauge Robotic Eagles
2005 Philly Finalist
2005 SBPLI Long Island Chairman’s Award
2005 SBPLI Long Island Champions (Thanks to team 527 and 870)

Matt Adams

27-03-2005, 13:59

I'm really glad that Travis took the time to make this post. He made a call for fairness in refereeing. I think that this is something worthy of discussing after some rulings at the Midwest Regional.

What's been said many times is that penalties need to be spelled out more exactly to teams and the audience, especially in the finals. At the Chicago regional, the 10 point penalty, which I assume was a rule G25 violation, was repeatedly called "over-aggressiveness" to the crowd. This is (unintentionally) deceiving.

Let's read rule G25:

Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, a 10-point penalty will be assessed, and the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match.For discretionary penalties, I think that it is fair to require referees (not announcer) to discuss the rule and action that team(s) specifically performed in violation. Especially in the finals, when tensions are high, and especially when it changes the outcome of a match.

In the case of G25, this would mean naming the team that tipped, entangled or damaged their specific opponent.

The announcement would go something along the lines of,

"It was deemed, after discussion by the referees, that there was a rule violation in this match. Team A, was in violation of Rule G25, by performing a strategy aimed solely at tipping over team B. It's alliance is hence penalized 10 points."

The announcement at the Midwest regional was similar to,

"The references have assessed a ten point penalty to the blue alliance for over-aggressiveness."

Given this, I think it's fair to expect some to be hurt, confused, and upset. Hence, in the finals, and in the case of match-altering penalties, I think requiring a bit more specifics from referees to the entire crowd will go a long way by making "discretionary" penalties seem much less so.

Matt

Chris Hibner

27-03-2005, 14:01

What I saw from the Midwest regional (as a participant), the referees did a very good job. I thought the officiating was very consistent.

The referees at Midwest called all fouls by the letter of the rules (except for G25 which is really a judgement call). They disabled robots for breaking the plane whether is was by 1 inch or 1 foot - they made sure the rule was very black and white in its enforcement. I appreciate that. I thought it was called very consistently with no favoritism.

Just to let everyone know, some of the calls could have hurt my alliance. Some did hurt my alliance. However, I thought all of the calls were fair. Even if I don't agree with a call, I can live with a referees decision since they are human and they have a tough job.

I summary: I think they are doing a better job this year than in past years and overall they are doing a good job, especially given the game. And everyone needs to keep one thing in mind: teams that REALLY deserve to win will find ways to overcome a marginal officiating decision. Also, teams that REALLY deserved to win will try not to put themselves in that position.

Swampdude

27-03-2005, 14:02

First I'd say, Krunch played an awesome defense and won that match. Second I think FIRST needs to clarify some of these rules mentioned. I've been a coach at one regional this season and some of these rules are not clear.

1st rule: Breaking the plane. Is it when the base of the tetra goes over the top of the drivers station? If it is, Midwest was ruling incorrectly because those tetra bases looked lower than the top of the walls - thereby not crossing over. If it's a tetra whose tip is above the top of the wall there's going to be a whole lot of disabling.

2nd rule: coaches crossing the starting line after the start. We can do that, right? I'm getting mixed answers on that. At UCF someone said they heard you couldn't, then said they just meant don't cross before the start of the match. If they make the mentors stand 2 feet behind the drivers you can't communicate properly (and I can't choke them either)

3rd: On video in the disputed match here, can someone show me where the aggressiveness is? I saw this as text book legit defense played above the belt. This is how I would train my drivers to defend. Now if it's not legal, why?

Clarification on these and I'm sure a few other things will solve these disputes. It shouldn't be a judgment call. It can be clearly laid out what constitutes penalties/disablements. I can't understand the justification of all the disabling at MAWR. That play looked the same as everywhere else. We're all in very little danger standing behind those walls. If one gets beyond the top and over the wall and poses a risk then that's the time to disable. But if they're close and then pull away - I don't see the point. Especially after the fact. All the disabling happened when teams were out in the field of play and nowhere near harming anyone. Or effective defense that meets the written criteria of acceptable interaction should be given the benefit by default unless proven to have negative impact (my opinion).

Anyhow, I thank the refs for their contributions. I apologize for all of us for the fuss. I know you understand folks point of view. It's not an easy job. You don't get thanked for the right calls, but you definitely hear from us on the disputable ones. Don't take this wrong, you guys are a huge imperative part of FIRST - THANK YOU!

BTW, good job 71, 111, and 537

Kevin Sevcik

27-03-2005, 14:05

Arguments of getting it or not getting it and of disappointing and frustrating teenagers aside, we have to ask ourselves one simple question: What kind of example are these inconsistencies and mid-season rule changes setting for the students that we're trying to inspire?

FIRST is an organization built around the idea of inspiring students to become engineers and make a difference in the world wherever they can. As has been repeatedly stated, it's about changing the culture. What kind of culture are we trying to move towards if the FIRST organization can't train refs to make halfway consistent calls between regionals? What does it tell our students if these bad calls can be shrugged off "because the refs are just volunteers"? I'm purely a volunteer mentor on my team, and I still hold myself accountable for mistakes I make. I'm sure Habitat for Humanity would accept responsibility if one of their houses fell down from poor workmanship. Telling students to shrug off obvious mistakes and oversights made by FIRST as life lessons and such teaches them nothing about responsibility.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud of FIRST for stepping up and accepting responsibility for the other problems they've had this year. They should continue to do so and make every attempt to prevent these problems from occuring in the future.

For instance, G25 was purportedly put in the rules because of overaggressive play last year. Why not make a short video of examples of overaggressiveness from last year? That would give refs a baseline comparison for this year. You could make an addendum from video of pre-ship scrimmages and the first week regionals. With those two videos in hand, refs would have a firm baseline for making these judgement calls, and we would likely see much more consistency.

sw293

27-03-2005, 15:11

Whoa! You are way off base here. The refs are not idicting or accusing anyone -- they are doing their job of impartially enforcing the rules.

You are missing my point. When a ref says that a team intentionally tipped another robot, they are declaring that in their best judgment, the team played so dirty and committed such a serious violation the spirit of gracious professionalism that the alliance doesn't deserve a single point it may have earned in the match. We are not talking about a ten point penalty. This is a call that refs should make only if they are convinced that the play was intentional, not if they think it was probably intentional.

Ryan F.

27-03-2005, 15:57

In my belief, a lot of the problems here just came from this game being too hard to referee, and the referee’s not completely knowing the rules. Too many things were happening at once for the ref's to keep track of, but still some of it could have been preventable. I will admit that I was pretty appalled by the penalty against 79 in the Midwest finals. They were simply pushing another robot away from where they it wanted to go, hardly overaggressive to me. It's like calling a questionable foul in the last seconds of a basketball game. In such a match, you should let the players play. Another issue that came to my attention though was the disabling of robots. During qualification our team was told we would be disabled because we crossed the plane of the field outside of the driver’s station. We were forced to explain the rule to the ref so we weren't disabled, a bad use of the 2 minutes. This just highlighted that issue for me.

Overall though it was a good regional, and despite my few complaints I appreciate those who were willing to be the referee's.

Barnzy107

27-03-2005, 16:18

While I'm somewhat unhappy with the judges call yesterday, I do feel that overall the event came out better than could possibly have been hoped for. I wont lie and say I wasn't dissappointed, and the whole alliance (79, 107, 648) was upset with the judges because they "knew" they had gotten the shaft, which may or may not have been true. But after thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that this was the best way it could have gone. I realized it when team 107 from Holland Christian went out and congradulated the other teams, not saying things like, that stinks, it should have been us. They went and shook hands with team members and mentors alike, congradulating them. This day was right between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. And they as a Christian team, couldn't have come away with anything better. They were able to demonstrate our Christian attitude by graciously accepting their loss, and not being angry at the refs for their judgement call, which may or may not have been in error, it doesn't matter. They got the award for Good Sportsmanship, and on Easter weekend, that's better than winning. That's something that they can take back to their school along with great tales of duking it out with some of the best robots in the nation. So I'd like to salute the alliance of teams 79, 107, and 648 for their great show, along with the second place and first place teams.
Also props to the Brazilians for coming all the way out, and also being able to be happy with where they ended up.

Cory

27-03-2005, 16:22

You can never clarify G25 enough that it will eliminate all subjectivity on the referees part.

And as a result of that, you can never have consitency from regional to regional as to what resulting calls when G25 comes into play will be, unless you send the exact same ref crew to all 30 regionals, which is impossible.

As long as humans are involved, we will have this debate to the end of eternity.

Jaine Perotti

27-03-2005, 17:00

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released.This issue concerns me too. I think it is ok to be concerned by issues such as this. While it isn't ok to obsess over mistakes that have been made, it is acceptable to examine the events of the past in an effort to improve things for the future. Its not fair when teams at different regionals are judged by different standards, and it is perfectly acceptable to try to review these decisions. This is an incredibly subjective argument over an incredibly subjective debate - a debate which has its roots in things that have been controversial within FIRST for a long time. I am going to take a position that is a balance between what seem to be two extreme postions - (1) that FIRST has let down many teams by being unjust in it's inconsistent rulings, and that these inconsistent rulings MUST stop now, before any more teams become disenfranchised of wins that they deserve... and (2) that referees should never be expected to be perfect, and to criticize them for ruling inconsistently is detrimental because it creates an atmosphere of negativity and sets a bad example to students.

But I am going to stop for a minute -Maybe I should print out G25 on a banner the size of a freakin' Freightliner and bring it to each competition I attend? Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about.Before we move on in this discussion, I want to ask one thing of all of you. Please don't insinuate negative things against one another, or let your passion for the issues make you go overboard. If we argue too much with one another, and let things get too out of hand, we will have a much harder time coming to a sound consensus on a solution for this problem. And yes, there is a problem - and we all need to acknowledge that. The fact that a respected mentor within FIRST brought the topic forward to be discussed - and the fact that many people agree with him - means that there is some sort of an issue to be addressed. It does not mean that he is right or wrong in his concerns, but it means that there is a grievance to be resolved - a grievance that we should step forward to and try to redress as a team of concerned individuals. I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest (http://www.battlebotsiq.com/). You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better Thank you Billfred.

It has already been said, but I don't think anyone is setting a bad example to students by asking their fellow FIRSTers to put thier heads together to discuss a problem. A bad example will only be set if they continue to harbor grievances and bad feelings... and leave everyone involved - students, mentors, and parents - with a bad taste in their mouths. Don't let the negativity fester and spread... work constructively for a solution.

...

Back to my opinion -

I believe that in an ideal world, all teams would be judged fairly against the same standards of game play. All teams would be given the same judgement, and all teams would be given just judgement. However, I can't expect things to run as perfectly in the real world. Referees are different from competition to competition, and each referee has their own definition of what "overly-aggressive play" means to them. I agree with what many people have said here already... it is impossible to ask that every team, everywhere experience the same treatment by referees in game play situations. Speaking as a referee (from the Detroit Regional), G25 is a very difficult call to make, because it is, at its heart, a judgement call. Even when you know the rules extremely well, as I do, it is incredibly difficult to make that call, and to keep it consistent, because every situation you witness is different. What may be crystal clear in one situation is clear as mud in another.

In addition, everyone has a slightly different idea of what counts as G25. Some believe that most contact should be eliminated to encourage offense. Other referees take a laissez faire approach, saying "let the teams play."Jeff offers insight which is important for all of us to pay attention to.

As much as it is important to recognize the human-ness of referees, I agree with others in saying that there is room for improvement. While I will never ask that referees have PERFECT judgement, I would like to ask them to try to get as clear of a universal definition for "agressive play" as possible.
So, as you can see, it's not an easy call to make, and an even harder one to make consistently. Is there room to improve on this? Absolutely.So how is it exactly that we can improve on this? The answer to that question is what I would love to see in the responses to this thread following mine. I want people's ideas - and as FIRSTers we should be fairly good at coming up with innovative ideas - not people's frustration ventings (although there is a time and place to vent frustration...lets just not make it here in this thread).

I will throw an idea into this big pot of idea soup -

What if - directly preceding, and during competition season - there were weekly meetings of referees (not sure how the meetings would work, since refs are from all over the country - maybe a chat room could be set up?) to discuss, and set forth, a general philosophy about what calls to make in different situations. For example... the issue about disabling robots that might drop a tetra over the drive station wall... they could discuss that issue, and come to a consensus as to what counts as "presenting significant danger", and what specific actions should be taken to the offending alliance/team. They could also review decisions that had been made earlier in the week(s), and decide whether or not those actions were appropriate and how they should be alternately dealt with in the future. For example... they could watch sections of video of matches in which robots came close to dropping a tetra over the drivers station wall, see how the referees responded, and decide whether or not that was appropriate. If not appropriate, they could discuss what should have been done, and establish what should be done if a similar condition arises in the future. This could almost be a form of what we call "judicial review" - in which laws are examined, and then interpretations of those laws are developed. We need a set version of how rules should be interpreted - and somehow these interpretations need to become common knowledge among referees.

There are probably flaws in the above idea... for example, setting up the meetings... but perhaps others can build off of it or change it to make an even better idea. Whatever happens, I want to see people offer their input constructively - I want us to move towards a solution. You have already heard my speeches about why arguing is bad, and why negativity needs to stop, so I wont repeat them again. See this as an opportunity to flex your brain muscles... see it as you would see the new game challenge in January. Open your minds, and tackle this problem.... like I know all you robotics nerds can!

Thanks for putting up with this long post,

Jaine

Barnzy107

27-03-2005, 17:08

I think that we have to remember that in the end, the competition as a whole was fun, exciting, and that the teams who appear to have gotten the shaft, in the end came out ahead. Team 107 R.O.B.O.T.I.C.S. received the best award that they could have gotten. They came with the goal of witnessing to the people that would be at the Midwest regionals, and with the added remembrance that they were competing for their Christian school on Easter weekend. They received the award for good sportsmanship because after they lost due to a 10 point penalty, they were over congratulating the winning teams. They didn't get mad at the judges and make cat calls at the decision. They showed their Christian colors, and being in an alliance with them, teams 79 and 648 shared in that victory. They made a big statement for Christ Saturday, so while the technicalities get worked out for future competitions, let's remember this weekend and what exactly it is that we're celebrating.

meaubry

27-03-2005, 18:36

opps12

27-03-2005, 18:42

For all the people reading this post thread, if you did not attend the 2005 Midwest this year, it would helpful if you knew the context of this particular match. This was a semi final match #3, with the winner going to the finals. Second the teams playing are 71, 111, 537 vs 648, 79, 107. Third, the 10 point penalty for a G25 infraction was NEVER called throughout the entire competition, except for this instance. This call allowed teams 71, 111, 537 to advance to the finals by the score of 36 to 35 (teams 648, 79, 107 had a score of 45, but the 10 point penalty lowered their score to 35.)

In essence this call became a call which decides which alliance is going to finals, and since g25 is a judgment call, it is like the referees judging which team have the right to move on. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, and therein lies the problem. If a single call can change the course of a match so drastically, there should be no ambiguity as to whether the call should have been made or not. I liken this to a jury convicting a criminal despite the fact that there is doubt that the person did it or not.

In my opinion this is why there is so much discussion on this topic, the call was definitely questionable. I tried to present the case as unbiased as possible, and i hope this helps people decide what went on and what changes should be made for g25 rulings in Atlanta.

AmyPrib

27-03-2005, 18:46

First of all, did I miss the "breaking the plane" rule? I read the updates and rules again, and I haven't seen it. Or maybe it was just something implemented and announced at driver's meetings at events. Maybe I missed it.

From Chicago, here were few cases of inconsistencies I saw:

In one match I watched, a robot blatantly dangled a tetra high over the wall and did not get disabled, but later on, "pure breaking the plane" was a disablement. As Ricky stated, one match our entire alliance was disabled for this. I was about 15ft away from our robot doing it - I'm not even sure if the 1/2" of the endcap passed the thickness of the player station wall for that split second, but we were disabled. The tetra itself was 99% below the wall, as it was tilted downward in the field.. I thought this was a safety issue rule? I just don't agree with that case as being a safety issue. 269 was called for it in the corner area, where there is no wall, or people in the way. That's could be a pretty subjective call to tell if the tetra broke the plane. I feel like the "over the wall" should have been forseen with such a knowingly vertical game, and if it was considered, to create a rule against it at the beginning. But I guess, you just be careful near the wall and don't let anyone push you over the wall.

The aggressive play penalties seemed to get out of hand nearing the end. The calls on 79 have been discussed here, and I too couldn't figure out where the overly aggressive play was. Some were called for running into a robot from 2ft away or less - I hardly consider that ramming at high speed. I suppose if they did it for 2min non-stop, that could be considered overly aggressive, but not in this case. The only defense that appeared legal was pure blocking - forget about trying to bump a robot out of position.

There were some disables for accidental tipping, even though the rules clearly state that that could be part of normal game play. One robot had their arm extended, turned around to go to their auto loadzone, while another robot was sitting behind them and fell over when the other arm whacked into them. The first guy was disabled....
But yet others were tipped with clear intentional interaction, and nothing was called. (not saying the tipping was intentional, but the robot interaction was intentional).
The rules also state that it's legal to block or push on a tetra in possession of another robot.. Seems like there could be a lot of different interpretations of that one in combination of the intentional pushing high and tipping rule. It also says that attaching to a tetra and using it to tip over a robot is illegal. Seems like a robot could be pushing on a tetra, or preventing them from scoring with their arm legally, and get caught up in the tetra and accidentally tip the robot. Who knows how that would be called. One robot was pushed on high and fell over, but the initiator was not penalized because the partner of the tippee was in between. I don't recall that rule either. They were pushed on high, and tipped over. Period. The rules state that you can use and arm or gripper to prevent another from scoring. I'm legally allowed to push on a robot that has a tetra high in the air or to prevent them from scoring, but if it tips, am I penalized? Or is it only called if I push on the robot itself and it tips? I can totally understand why the refs would make inconsistent calls.

Yes, they are volunteers, they do their best, and we appreciate their efforts. But I agree with others that the inconsistency problem should be addressed in some manner, whether it's with the rule writing, ref training of some sort, or game design, or some other manner. I watched one robot get contacted in the HP load zone, and the ref was staring right at it - no penalty, but he also had a look of unsure-ness, as he kinda looked around to see if he was right or wrong. We were also disappointed in the re-play match where "a robot should have been disabled, but was not, therefore we're going to replay it". I guess I'm not sure how that happens.. if someone knew it, then why weren't they disabled at the time? When did they decide that someone should have been disabled, during or after the match? It just seemed that by now, inconsistencies should be minimal.

Overall Midwest was really exciting - right up there with Boilermaker competitiveness. :) I don't harbor any negative feelings regarding these issues, but it's tough for everyone involved to see these things happen and we'll all move on.

Revolverx7

27-03-2005, 18:57

Its not G25 itself I'm mad at, its the inconsistancy to witch it is called; to perplex the situation it is personaly frustrating that the refs called a drives meeting to go over what they would call as G25, and then called the exact opposite. Its these kind of discrepancies that dissapoint my competitive spirit. I can only hope for an elite group of consistant refs to be attending Atlanta this year.

z3ro nightmare

27-03-2005, 19:07

speaking as a student from team 79, of course we were dissapointed on the call, and wish there could be a more definite way to call these, but it comes down to a judgement call. i am extremely proud of the rest of our team and our alliance, and everyone at the competitions.

congrats to our alliance partners 107 on the sportmanship award. but our team is not going to let this bring us down, to us, we see it as we beat the two hghest teams (or almost did) and at nationals we will only do better. we have shown alot of people what krunch is capable of, and hopefully the calls in atl will lean more to a defensive stratagy. congrats to the winning alliance, they were all incredible robots.

see you at nationals

~jim
team 79 VP

Guyute

27-03-2005, 19:36

So far as I have read this thread when most people are talking about the G25 they inquire the tipping of a robot and intentional damage. During that match 71 was not tipped over nor was there any extensive damage(correct me on that if i'm wrong). I agree there was a lot pushing between the two teams but neither one actually fell over. I felt inconsistancy was a big problem. If 'Agressive Defense' was the case why wasn't it applied in the round before? On a smiliar subject I didn't exactly understand that after the second match during the finals why it was announced that 'A robot should have been disabled so we are going to replay the match.' There was no mention of which team commited the foul nor specifically what they did. I've seen at IRI Andy Baker, has gone over to the microphone when the crowd disagreed with the refs and explained himself .

sw293

27-03-2005, 21:03

sw293,
Please be careful when posting about what the ref's are doing when they deciding on a 30 pt penalty. I will give you your opinion about what you think they are thinking - I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, but you are allowed to form your opinion.
The ref's might simply be indicating that the team violated a rule in which 30 pts is the penalty.
I can't read their minds, and I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths.
Intent is a difficult thing to judge, that is why this rule is a tough one on everyone involved. Watching many many matches over the years, I have come to one conclusion - intent is determined by those that are doing, not those that are watching.

We are not talking about a thirty point penalty either. We are talking about disqualification.

The fact that intent is so difficult to judge is exactly why refs should apply this rule only in the most blatant and obvious situations. If there is a question as to what the team might have intended, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the team. The ref should always assume that both teams are observing gracious professionalism, and he should not deviate from that assumption unless he is given clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise gracious professionalism is just a cheap campaign slogan.

Twelve jurors must agree beyond a reasonable doubt for a court of law to determine affirmatively the intent of a criminal. In FIRST, one head ref can decide the intent of a team by using his own discretion. That is why he should be very cautious in making such calls.

Jon K.

27-03-2005, 22:09

I would just like to say, that I personally know some of the refs and Head refs at these events, and most of them have been with the FIRST program for a little bit of times, some this might be their first year with FIRST. Asking refs to make a call is a very difficult position for them to be in, especially when a call would have to be made either against or "for" an old team. I know many of the refs do read the manuals before hand and do have a great grasp on the rules. While I do not know what went on this past weekend, I do know what it is like to be on the receiving end of a penalty that cost a match, and on the receiving end of penalties that almost have cost a match in the finals. If your drive team feels that they have had a call unfairly made against their team, then it is their responsibility to go up to the head ref and ask for a clarification of the call. The Head refs are usually more then willing to explain the call to them if they ask about it. And this shouldn't be an adult going and accusing the refs of poor judgment. This should be a STUDENT MEMBER of your drive team, after calming down of course, simply going up to the Head ref and asking why they received a penalty, and why they feel they did not deserve it, if after receiving clarification they feel otherwise. I know at the Chesapeake regional, RAGE was on the receiving end of a call we were unsure of, and it was a 30 point penalty as well as a 10 pointer, I believe called with G25 as its base. We had won the match, but still had questions as to why the calls had been made, I was the coach for my team and the alliance captain, and I went up after cooling down, and simply went up to Aidan and asked for a clarification even though the outcome would not have been effected, and he was more then willing to give me an explanation, and the ruling was based on a call that neither myself nor the drivers could see. We had backed up into a team that was in the loading zone, and we didn't know they were there. It was a legitimate call and we accepted it. While the adult mentors may get upset at this, being a student and coach, I knew the rules, and I had no issue with the ruling as it was called, and as such I went to my team right after the match and explained the reasoning behind the call, and they then realized it and calmed down.

Basically what I am trying to say is, have a STUDENT go up to the Head ref and ask them about the call, and then have that same student explain the ruling to the team. It usually helps to calm mentors down a bit when they see a student calm about a call.

Also it isn't the responsibility of the Ref to explain their actions, they shouldn't have to. They should have the respect of every one in that venue, because they are the ones who are visibly working the hardest during those 2 days(I say visibly because I know there are people working just as hard all 3 days, but they are more behind the scenes, like the regional directors and all the other volunteer support staff at the events.), and they usually show up on Thursday whenever possible to get a feel for how the game will be played out.

I would just like to give my sincerest gratitude to the referees and thank them for all their hard work and effort that they put forth to make these event what they are.

Scott team 48

27-03-2005, 22:29

I have two things in my head after reading this thread:
First: As a participant in the Buckeye Regional I was pleased for the most part with the reffing that went on, the parts I wasn't pleased on I came to the conclusion that I won't always be pleased and I move on. However, I do feel that if something displeases everybody, or almost everybody, than something should be done. I feel that at the driver meeting, at the beginning of the competition, the ref's should define what they feel aggressive driving is, and they should all define it the same. Our ref's were fair and did give a lot of warnings, there was a team (not pointing out #'s) who the ref's felt was designed solely to tip other robots over, and they gave them a warning that if they tipped a robot over they would be DQ'ed. They told them before they did it, and that team had a chance to correct a potential problem. Good job Ref's.
Second: Anyone who says that Travis is a bad mentor obviously doesn't know Travis. Travis works his tail off for our team day in and day out and we would be lost without him. Saying that Travis is a bad mentor hurts me, and I'm sure it hurts Travis. How many people do you know that will help you debug the program while your in Cleveland and he is in China? Not many, but Travis did last year. Travis is just trying to bring a problem into the light that can be quickly and (hopefully) easily corrected before anyone gets hurt by inconsistent calls made on the field. He didn't start this thread to bash anybody, nor did he do it to criticize the ref's, he did it because he cares about everybody involved in FIRST and he would hate to see bad blood cause the loss of teams. I don't need to talk to Travis to know this because I know Travis, and he doesn't do things to intentionally upset people, he is only trying for the greater good.

If my post has offended anyone, I'm sorry but thats just how I feel.
Travis, I support you 110% and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this.

Steve W

27-03-2005, 23:01

Consistency is all that is being asked for. This must come from the top with clear defined rules. I have ranted on this many times already so I will not continue along that line any longer.

The refs are volunteers. They always try their best. They don't always get the same direction. They don't always come to events with a full understanding of the rules. They have probably the hardest job in FIRST. No ref is really appreciated by both alliances all the time. Every call has 3 sides, mine, yours and theirs. I do not believe that refs pick on any team. We NEED to give them the best support that we can. Now let's see if FIRST can give them the same or more support.

Ricky Q.

28-03-2005, 00:11

My earlier post in this thread was my rant. I deleted it because I do not think my ranting about something that I cannot fix will help anything.

Are there issues? Yes. Will there always be issues? Yes. Impulse responses are not the way to fix these issues.

Until I can think of a miracle way to fix everything, I will keep my ranting to myself.

Amanda Morrison

28-03-2005, 01:02

Were those the right calls? Maybe, maybe not. Are we lucky that no one got seriously hurt? Probably. Should FIRST have realized that much scoring would take place at the wall with robots that have the ability to extend well above the top of the wall? ABSOLUTELY. Whether we have been playing for 4 weeks or not shouldn't matter at all - there needs to be a remidy made for next week or surely the Championship with some sort of ceiling.

Stu is exactly right- there is no rule. I suppose you could call this a gray area, created by FIRST? Another G25-esque rule that is left in the hands of the referees to make a judgment call?

I find it particularly irritating that people are comparing regional to regional when there is obviously no consistency at the regionals. FIRST is not infallible. Nobody is. Why should we assume that they are? Mistakes are always made, no matter whom is making them, and this needs to be realized in every single thread being made about this subject.

Has there never been a gray area created by FIRST? Has a referee never had to make a judgment call on a rule that does not completely cover an incident that might happen? It happens every year. Many people seem to single out regionals for their inconsistency, but I fail to see why this has any relevance. The referee crews were not the same. People are not the same. Every call that a referee makes is a judgment call, on whether or not they think a violation has happened. It happens. Life goes on.

In my first year of FIRST, I didn't understand gracious professionalism. At the last event of that year, a call was made on my team that cost us the win. In a fit, I stormed out of the event and sat on the bus, refusing to recognize those who won. Someone said to me, "The only thing that is making us look like losers is your inappropriate behavior". I'd like to think that gave me a lot better perspective on FIRST.

If the CD community is looking for ways to spend their energy after regionals, thank you threads are a good way to start. Posting on CD, yelling at competitions, and publicly stating that you are unsatisfied with gameplay, referee calls, and events has very little purpose. There is no obligation from FIRST to read what is written on these forums and make a clarification.

For being inspired students and mentors, we sure don't act that way a lot of the time. We're fallible. We get passionate, we act out, we don't think. We run across the field screaming/cursing at the referees and we expect FIRST to have a plentiful supply the next year. Many of the people who are giving knee-jerk reactions here on CD need to have their reflexes checked.

I don't agree with things that happen at events, but I'm also not one to cuss referees, sit in the stands, or complain for too long. It happens. Another FIRST kickoff comes around, we are excited again, gray areas are created.

Life goes on. FIRST goes on. And regardless of the bad calls, unclarified rules, 'bad' kit parts, gray areas, aggressive play, inappropriate behavior, inconsistent referees, and medals-that-should-rightfully-go-to-another-team comments, I come back every year. I hope everyone else posting here does, too.