Call Inconsistencies Between Regionals

[thefro526]

Has anyone else noticed any inconsistencies between regionals up until now? I thought at kickoff it was said that there was to supposed to be a ref test to ensure that everyone calls the same. Any thoughts on these inconsistencies?

Note: This is not a thread to bash refs, just to discuss different calls at different regionals.

[jgannon]

Yes, some folks have noticed.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65340

[Jimmy Cao]

Well, of course there will be inconsistencies. Refs are people too, remember?

I think they're still doing a great job. Of course they will miss calls every now and then, or they'll interpret rules differently from regional to regional, but give them a break... they're volunteering their time to help us.

In general, I feel that the refs this year are wonderful.

[Danny McC]

Well, of course there will be inconsistencies. Refs are people too, remember?

I think they're still doing a great job. Of course they will miss calls every now and then, or they'll interpret rules differently from regional to regional, but give them a break... they're volunteering their time to help us.

In general, I feel that the refs this year are wonderful.

Yes the Refs are people as well, but I think it should be consistent through out all regionals. I mean there was a test to be a ref right? So why would all the calls not be the same? I have seen people lose matches because penalties were called and others win because penalties were not called. To me this seems kind of unfair in a way. I don't know if its on purpose or not but it shouldn't happen.

[Jimmy Cao]

Yes the Refs are people as well, but I think it should be consistent through out all regionals. I mean there was a test to be a ref right? So why would all the calls not be the same? I have seen people lose matches because penalties were called and others win because penalties were not called. To me this seems kind of unfair in a way. I don't know if its on purpose or not but it shouldn't happen.

I understand where you come from, but it's not that easy to be 100% consistent across the board.

<random digression>

Just noticed that the quote on my page says... "People are human, refs are human. The refs did the best they could do at the time. - Andy Baker"

</random digression>

Anyways, there were calls made that I disagree with, but that will always be the case. If they called it the way that I would agree with, then someone else would be displeased. My interpretation of the rules definitely has some differences when compared to your interpretation. The same applies to the judges. Even if they're trained, they cannot cover every aspect of the game. Some things just need to be called in the moment. It's impossible to have a solid definition for things like high-speed-ramming, herding of multiple balls, and such. Sometimes, the judges just need to do their best and make the call the way they see fit. Since judges at one competition are not the same people as judges at another, there's bound to be this difference... and some teams are bound to get burned by it. Unfortunately, that's part of life.

I think the best think we can do is continue supporting our refs and I have this feeling that in future years the refing inconsistencies will get more and more inconsequential and insignificant as returning refs get more training and new refs get a more rigorous (?) training course.

[Swan217]

Anyways, there were calls made that I disagree with, but that will always be the case. If they called it the way that I would agree with, then someone else would be displeased. My interpretation of the rules definitely has some differences when compared to your interpretation. The same applies to the judges. Even if they're trained, they cannot cover every aspect of the game. Some things just need to be called in the moment. It's impossible to have a solid definition for things like high-speed-ramming, herding of multiple balls, and such. Sometimes, the judges just need to do their best and make the call the way they see fit. Since judges at one competition are not the same people as judges at another, there's bound to be this difference... and some teams are bound to get burned by it. Unfortunately, that's part of life.


If judges were calling penalties at Detroit, then somebody should tell the refs, because it's concerning if they were doing the refs' job instead of Judging teams for awards ;).

Good news for Great Lakes - Most of the refs are veteran referees and half of them will have 3 regionals under their belts this year already. So if you were at Kettering or Detroit, you should hopefully see a LOT of consistancy.

If everyone could reflect on the vast amount official calls differ between games in hockey, or football, or baseball (and even between innings/periods), and then consider that those officials are actually getting paid for it and the game doesn't change from year to year, that'd be greeeeaaaat. Yeah.

[ReaperGoat]

If everyone could reflect on the vast amount official calls differ between games in hockey, or football, or baseball (and even between innings/periods), and then consider that those officials are actually getting paid for it and the game doesn't change from year to year, that'd be greeeeaaaat. Yeah.

now, from my personal experience, in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL/etc. that the calls are pretty much the same in every game, every season. there's no reason for any bias, and there's rigorous ladders to climb to be an official at that level. the most that officiating in sports will stray is in college sports, especially in bowl games, where the officials will be from another conference, and will show bias towards one team or the other.

you can't really draw analogies between the refs for FIRST and for sporting events, because the situation is entirely different. there's no way in first you can call a timeout in the middle of the match to debate every call that's made (like in the NFL with the challenge flag, or in the MLB, or the NBA). we also don't have the time to go back and watch a replay to reverse a decision. like others have said before me, Refs are human. they make mistakes. sure it's really frustrating to have to sit and watch some of the calls that are (or aren't) made, and not be able to do much about it, but there's got to be something we can do to make it better for future seasons.

my $0.02

[bduddy]

now, from my personal experience, in the MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL/etc. that the calls are pretty much the same in every game, every season. there's no reason for any bias, and there's rigorous ladders to climb to be an official at that level. the most that officiating in sports will stray is in college sports, especially in bowl games, where the officials will be from another conference, and will show bias towards one team or the other.

you can't really draw analogies between the refs for FIRST and for sporting events, because the situation is entirely different. there's no way in first you can call a timeout in the middle of the match to debate every call that's made (like in the NFL with the challenge flag, or in the MLB, or the NBA). we also don't have the time to go back and watch a replay to reverse a decision. like others have said before me, Refs are human. they make mistakes. sure it's really frustrating to have to sit and watch some of the calls that are (or aren't) made, and not be able to do much about it, but there's got to be something we can do to make it better for future seasons.

my $0.02Another factor, mentioned by Mark Leon at SVR: In "professional sports", these games have been played for decades or in most cases more than a century, and, essentially, everything has happened. In FIRST, the game has been played at a maximum of 6 weeks, and many refs have probably not seen the game at all before it starts. And then of course there's the whole volunteer factor...

[KarenH]

So far, I've only watched the San Diego Regional, so I haven't noticed inconsistencies between regionals. But here are the inconsistencies that I have noticed:

1) An inconsistency within the regional itself. Friday the refs were vigorously waving flags and dishing out penalties right and left. Since I wasn't extremely familiar with the game, I had a hard time figuring out what was going on at first. Then on Saturday, I was seeing violations all over the place--but the refs weren't calling most of them. Maybe it was just my subjective impression, but I really wondered if the refs were tired or something. I also wondered if maybe they were deliberately using a strategy often employed by teachers starting off a new school year: come down hard at first (Friday), let everyone know you mean business, then when the students come to heel, you can let up a bit (Saturday).

2) Inconsistencies within the game rules. For example, I had a lot of trouble understanding the penalties at first, especially this "breaking the plane" business. I read the game rules, reread them, and asked some knowledgeable people about them. I saw that "CROSSING the line" was clearly and carefully defined and explained in the DEFINITIONS and SCORING sections. I read that the entire robot or trackball had to cross the line in order to score. But people were telling me that a PENALTY would be incurred if the robot went over a line in the wrong direction, even a tiny bit. Someone referred me to G22, which supposedly says this. But no matter how hard I've looked, I've been unable to find any definition whatsoever of "break the plane," or of which plane is meant.

To a consistent way of thinking, one would assume that if a robot must completely cross the line in one direction to score, then the robot must completely cross the line in the wrong direction to receive a penalty. But that this is not the case isn't made clear anywhere in the rules that I could see; everyone but me seemed to know this out of the ether or something. The exception was one of our alliance partners in our first match, who earned us 40 points in penalties, causing us to lose the match, because they, too, did not learn this undefined rule out of the ether. So hundreds of points were lost at San Diego because of an unclear rule.

Another point: while reviewing the rules as I drafted this post, I noticed that there is no "penalties" section in the rulebook. Someone glancing at the Table of Contents for the first time might not even realize that there is a whole slew of penalties buried within the rules. It seems to me that if there's a section on how to score points, there should be a corresponding section on how to lose points. Or maybe the Penalties section should be a subset of the Scoring section. Doing this would make it easier for everyone to understand the penalties, I think.

It has occurred to me that maybe the items in #2 above were explained in a Q&A or Team Update somewhere. But if so, the clarifications were not included in the latest revision of the game rules, which I printed out the week of the regional.

[Cory]

Well, of course there will be inconsistencies. Refs are people too, remember?

I think they're still doing a great job. Of course they will miss calls every now and then, or they'll interpret rules differently from regional to regional, but give them a break... they're volunteering their time to help us.

In general, I feel that the refs this year are wonderful.

I'm sorry, but when teams are paying between $4,000-6,000 to attend an event, the excuse that "referees are just volunteers, give them a break" holds no water.

$6,000 is a lot of money. At the very least, it should guarantee teams that they will receive a consistent gameplay experience from event to event. It may not be about the robots, but it sure isn't inspiring to see poor refereeing altering the way the game is played.

We are the customers of FIRST. It seems to me people forget this. We are paying for a service, and if that service is lacking, we have every right to ask for it to be restored to an acceptable level.

Far too many see FIRST as god's gift to man, and not the teams as a gift to FIRST.

[TubaMorg]

So far, I've only watched the San Diego Regional, so I haven't noticed inconsistencies between regionals. But here are the inconsistencies that I have noticed:

1) An inconsistency within the regional itself. Friday the refs were vigorously waving flags and dishing out penalties right and left. Since I wasn't extremely familiar with the game, I had a hard time figuring out what was going on at first. Then on Saturday, I was seeing violations all over the place--but the refs weren't calling most of them. Maybe it was just my subjective impression, but I really wondered if the refs were tired or something. I also wondered if maybe they were deliberately using a strategy often employed by teachers starting off a new school year: come down hard at first (Friday), let everyone know you mean business, then when the students come to heel, you can let up a bit (Saturday).

2) Inconsistencies within the game rules. For example, I had a lot of trouble understanding the penalties at first, especially this "breaking the plane" business. I read the game rules, reread them, and asked some knowledgeable people about them. I saw that "CROSSING the line" was clearly and carefully defined and explained in the DEFINITIONS and SCORING sections. I read that the entire robot or trackball had to cross the line in order to score. But people were telling me that a PENALTY would be incurred if the robot went over a line in the wrong direction, even a tiny bit. Someone referred me to G22, which supposedly says this. But no matter how hard I've looked, I've been unable to find any definition whatsoever of "break the plane," or of which plane is meant.

To a consistent way of thinking, one would assume that if a robot must completely cross the line in one direction to score, then the robot must completely cross the line in the wrong direction to receive a penalty. But that this is not the case isn't made clear anywhere in the rules that I could see; everyone but me seemed to know this out of the ether or something. The exception was one of our alliance partners in our first match, who earned us 40 points in penalties, causing us to lose the match, because they, too, did not learn this undefined rule out of the ether. So hundreds of points were lost at San Diego because of an unclear rule.

Another point: while reviewing the rules as I drafted this post, I noticed that there is no "penalties" section in the rulebook. Someone glancing at the Table of Contents for the first time might not even realize that there is a whole slew of penalties buried within the rules. It seems to me that if there's a section on how to score points, there should be a corresponding section on how to lose points. Or maybe the Penalties section should be a subset of the Scoring section. Doing this would make it easier for everyone to understand the penalties, I think.


From Section 7, Rev. G of the manual dated February 28:

<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise
direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be
assigned for each infraction.

PENALTY: A 10-point decrement in the ALLIANCE score assigned when a deserving violation of
the game rules has been identified by a REFEREE.

I am not exactly sure where the confusion lies if you have read this....

[Vikesrock]

So far, I've only watched the San Diego Regional, so I haven't noticed inconsistencies between regionals. But here are the inconsistencies that I have noticed:

1) An inconsistency within the regional itself. Friday the refs were vigorously waving flags and dishing out penalties right and left. Since I wasn't extremely familiar with the game, I had a hard time figuring out what was going on at first. Then on Saturday, I was seeing violations all over the place--but the refs weren't calling most of them. Maybe it was just my subjective impression, but I really wondered if the refs were tired or something. I also wondered if maybe they were deliberately using a strategy often employed by teachers starting off a new school year: come down hard at first (Friday), let everyone know you mean business, then when the students come to heel, you can let up a bit (Saturday).

2) Inconsistencies within the game rules. For example, I had a lot of trouble understanding the penalties at first, especially this "breaking the plane" business. I read the game rules, reread them, and asked some knowledgeable people about them. I saw that "CROSSING the line" was clearly and carefully defined and explained in the DEFINITIONS and SCORING sections. I read that the entire robot or trackball had to cross the line in order to score. But people were telling me that a PENALTY would be incurred if the robot went over a line in the wrong direction, even a tiny bit. Someone referred me to G22, which supposedly says this. But no matter how hard I've looked, I've been unable to find any definition whatsoever of "break the plane," or of which plane is meant.

To a consistent way of thinking, one would assume that if a robot must completely cross the line in one direction to score, then the robot must completely cross the line in the wrong direction to receive a penalty. But that this is not the case isn't made clear anywhere in the rules that I could see; everyone but me seemed to know this out of the ether or something. The exception was one of our alliance partners in our first match, who earned us 40 points in penalties, causing us to lose the match, because they, too, did not learn this undefined rule out of the ether. So hundreds of points were lost at San Diego because of an unclear rule.

Another point: while reviewing the rules as I drafted this post, I noticed that there is no "penalties" section in the rulebook. Someone glancing at the Table of Contents for the first time might not even realize that there is a whole slew of penalties buried within the rules. It seems to me that if there's a section on how to score points, there should be a corresponding section on how to lose points. Or maybe the Penalties section should be a subset of the Scoring section. Doing this would make it easier for everyone to understand the penalties, I think.

It has occurred to me that maybe the items in #2 above were explained in a Q&A or Team Update somewhere. But if so, the clarifications were not included in the latest revision of the game rules, which I printed out the week of the regional.

"Breaking the plane" is a common phrase that has a generally accepted meaning. If any team was unclear on the definition or interpretation of this rule they could have asked via the Q&A or at the driver's meeting at their event. When discussing "breaking the plane" of a line it is commonly meant that the plane is the plane through the line, perpendicular to the surface the line is on (in this case a vertical plane from the line). Breaking this plane involves crossing though it (no matter how little).

The phrase breaking the plane is used in many sports including basketball (free throw rules), tennis and volleyball (net rules) and football (goaline rules).

[Alan Anderson]

But no matter how hard I've looked, I've been unable to find any definition whatsoever of "break the plane," or of which plane is meant.

You'll find that definition in in section 7.2 DEFINITIONS. It speaks of "the plane defined by a line (i.e. LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE) when it is projected vertically upwards."

[Kev]

one thing I'm interested in finding out is whether or not other referees were counting blatant rams from other robots that caused another robot to cross a line backwards as breaking the plane rather than a ram.

[dlavery]

one thing I'm interested in finding out is whether or not other referees were counting blatant rams from other robots that caused another robot to cross a line backwards as breaking the plane rather than a ram.

See Rule <G23>.

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm mostly concerned about the call(s) that ended the Silicon Valley Regional. The refs didn't score a blue bonus ball because it was supported by a red robot. The rules clearly state that balls score if partially supported by the overpass and not touching a same colored robot. It's just about the most basic rule possible, and the concept is the same year in and year out. Any scoring item don't score for a team at the end of the match if touched by that same colored team. I think the main concern isn't the consistency of interpretation at this point so much as calling the rules appropriately.

[waialua359]

I thought we were the only team that felt this way about this whole weekend.
I too dont believe in the "volunteer excuse." No one is pointing out that they are ungrateful of volunteers. When you volunteer for something, there is a certain amount of responsibilities that you must uphold in meeting a task or criteria. In this case, its understanding the rules. We have the right to "graciously" question things that we know/feel may be incorrect.

Example #1: Both us and our teammate were crossing the second lane divider during hybrid. The other team moved 3 feet in front of their starting position, then stopped (I wont assume that they were trying to block). How is it that we get 1 penalty each for hitting the robot during hybrid mode? It wasnt even hard and no damages took place. Due to the contact, both us and our teammate actually had our ball grabbing manipulators malfunction, deeming us unable to hurdle.

Example #2: I saw a robot trying to hurdle and accidentally place the ball on the overpass instead. Their teammate comes around and knocks the ball down. No points were awarded. I asked the referee on the "left" how come it wasn't a hurdle since I was standing in the queue area waiting for our match. "He" told me that they didnt pick up the ball to hurdle it. ???? Last time I checked, that was a hurdle.

Example #3: We were assessed a penalty after a match because one of our alliance partner's coach was standing next to us instead, but "within the area for drivers and coaches" during hybrid period. He said we all had to stand behind our respective teams. Since when?? If so, how come it was never called all of the other times I saw it.

Example #4: I saw an alliance receive 40 points in penalties. 30 of them was because the entire alliance went to the controls a few seconds before the bell rang after hybrid mode. I dont get it. The whole day had teams consistently moving to their operator controls just ever so slightly before tele-op period.

Heres the problem: These referees (who are trying their best) who have just the slightest inconsistencies in how they call penalties has a HUGE impact in the W-L column of the respective matches. I have never seen a game where penalties consistently affect whether teams win or lose.

[Cory]

Heres the problem: These referees (who are trying their best) who have just the slightest inconsistencies in how they call penalties has a HUGE impact in the W-L column of the respective matches. I have never seen a game where penalties consistently affect whether teams win or lose.

Glenn,

I agree. Saying that the refs are trying their best is a total cop-out. If someone flat out don't have a solid grasp of the rules, then their best just doesn't cut it, and something has to be done.

[ReaperGoat]

I agree. Saying that the refs are trying their best is a total cop-out. If someone flat out don't have a solid grasp of the rules, then their best just doesn't cut it, and something has to be done.

I know that all the referees had to take an online training course for two days. Isn't it at all possible that there could be tests and refreshers for the refs leading up to the competitions? I know that a lot of teams do rules tests for the students (and mentors in some cases) to make sure they know the rules inside and out. Who's to say that's out of the question for making sure the officials are prepared?

[Danny McC]

Well, myself and Dustin(thefro) were talking and we were just throwing around the idea of a massive online drivers meeting. It might be kind of hard to get together but it would be beneficial. The driver and the Refs could all have a meeting and the drivers could ask questions about the penalties that are going to be called. It would be just like the regional meeting but all the Refs would be in the same place so it would probably make it easier for them to make more consistent calls. Also, teams would know better what to do and not to do.

[JayLopez191]

Personally, I believe it should be the head refs job to ensure that the game is called consistently. This is by working with the other refs to make sure everyone is on the same page on thursday's practice day as well as friday and saturday. In any sport, the refs are under a huge amount of pressure and will make mistakes. However, if the head refs are on the same page, many of these mistakes should be prevented.

[Danny McC]

Also now that I have put out my thoughts, how do you guys think it would to actually make that happen.

[Lavapicker]

How about getting mentors who are not participating in the regionals call the game? We know the rules backwards and forward, so do the kids. I was extremely disappointed at SVR when our team captain came back after standing the "ref's box" during the finals and told me some lady from the back in a FIRST shirt came up to him and told him to "stop complaining and get on with it" before he had even had a ref come up to him to see what he had to say. Looking at the rules this year I think we all knew it was going to be a bad year for calls. There was too much subjectivity and obscurity in them.
What happened to us in the finals during the third match however was not subjective when a track ball supported by an opponent was not counted. Blatant mistakes and lack of knowledge for general rules has no excuse.

[David Brinza]

If a team recognizes that a rule is not being applied correctly, like <G14> (Trackball partially supported by the overpass at the end-of-match) at SVR, it is their duty to make the refs aware of the correct ruling. I've read in the SVR Regional thread that this rule was consistently mis-applied throughout SVR but, somehow, the refs weren't made aware of the issue until after the Finals-3 match.

Who's fault is that? Why didn't a team affected by this error in an earlier match "camp" in the challenge box until it was resolved? There is a ruling appeals process that starts with the head ref, then FTA, then FIRST authorities. There's a field-side rulebook with FIRST Q&A Forum responses appended for reference. If the team is told "even if we reverse the call, it won't affect the result", that's no reason to accept an incorrect ruling. As we've seen, the problem can and most likely will resurface. The business of making "consistent calls" is OK for judgment calls (like what defines "incidental contact" between robots), but not outright changing of the rules.

I wouldn't bash refs if teams are just "rolling over" and accepting incorrect applications of the rules. If you are told to "cease" your protest to keep the game flow moving, please make sure that the FTA or other authority is at least aware that an issue has been identified...before you walk away. The challenge box is there for a reason, you have a right to appeal, don't give it away.

There's an adage I often hear in my business: "silence is concurrence".

If something is wrong and you don't speak up, don't expect the problem to magically disappear.

[Gary B.]

The problem is that many teams were challenging the <G14> ruling at SVR and they were consistently sending the student players away by saying that that was the referees call by their interpretation of the rules. You asking quite a lot out of a student player to have them sit there and protest a call until the referees change their mind about a ruling when everyone around them is trying to keep the elimination matches going and usher them off the field. My only thought about this is that some one should should have got a clue that something was wrong with this "ruling" after many teams were challenging the same thing. It seems odd that it would have taken until the the third match of the finals to figure this out.

Our alliance captain for QF1-2 challenged the same call affecting a 12 point bonus. I would have been a lot to ask of her to protest the call until it was right after she was told the reason for the call, which she graciously disagreed with, the scores had been announced and the victor of the quaterfinal matches had already been proclaimed. I am not saying that the outcome of the quarterfinal match-up would have changed but, it would have been nice to get it right. I also believe that a team in the SF1 matches also protested the same call.

[Madison]

These events are for our students -- it should never be their responsibility to make sure they're run correctly.

[IndySam]

There are inconsistencies in professional sports too. Ref crews in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB all call things a little differently. From strike zones in baseball to holding penalties in football every game will have it's own personality.

It's just the nature of the beast when you have humans making the calls.

It will always be part of sports and FIRST. A teams job is to learn how the game is being called on that day and a good coach/strategy team will adjust accordingly.

[Wayne C.]

Heres the problem: These referees (who are trying their best) who have just the slightest inconsistencies in how they call penalties has a HUGE impact in the W-L column of the respective matches. I have never seen a game where penalties consistently affect whether teams win or lose.

this recalls the 2005 game where "being in the box" for picking up tetras on the loader was called in ridiculous fashion and different throughout the country

the only way we will ever get past this sort of ridiculous nonsense is to have a game where the rules are not subject to the interpretation of the referees- aka: less of them and no contest. Since we have refs involved in making the game each year you can be assured that they will ALWAYS be center stage in whatever FIRST comes up with.

if the rules are so complex they require a special interpretation forum and committee to determine them there is something wrong with the game. When you watch a regional and 90% of the rounds have penalties assessed then that game has rules issues. What is essential and what is picayune?

how about a game where either the task is done or it isn't? The refs are nice folks but this is a game played with machines and not people.

as I've stated previously- this game " inhales audibly" - for just the above reason. JMO

WC

[David Brinza]

These events are for our students -- it should never be their responsibility to make sure they're run correctly.
Unfortunately, <G53> (referee interactions) puts this responsibility solely on students.

I don't understand why COACHES cannot participate in rules discussion. It seems that FIRST assumes the referees always have it right and allowing another adult in a rules discussion can only lead to bad things. Maybe this rule needs to be revisited (i.e. allow coaches to consult with the FTA, should the student/referee interaction be fruitless).

[Lil' Lavery]

Okay, this is starting to get ridiculous. How many threads do we need to say the same thing? THE REFS ARE FLAWED, I THINK WE'VE MADE THAT POINT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO FIX IT, SUCK IT UP AND MOVE ON.
Constantly whining about it won't get you anywhere. So far this thread has contained exactly two suggestions to actually try and improve the situation. Two pages, twenty-three different posters, two suggestions. And you wonder why this issue comes up every year...
If you want to resolve the issue you have to be progressive, work towards a solution, not continually bash the refs and whine about rulings. How many of you have been refs before? How many of you took the online training course? I'd be interested in hearing what that course contained and what we could do to further increase its effectiveness.
Perhaps we could increase the amount of time Refs spent on the field during Thursdays, and emphasize to the student's this is a time to work with the rules and the refs to explore how they will call the game.
Does anyone else have any suggestions, or are we going to go back to flaming the refs?

[thefro526]

I think a large portion of the issue this year is the complexity of the rules. At kickoff a student on my team said to me, "Dude how hard can this be? All we have to do is go straight and turn left." My first impression was the game will never play out this simply but, at least the rules should be straight forward.

I've studied the rule books for the last three years and I've never seen rules as complicated as this year. It seems as if the rules were not as concrete as previous years. In 06 and 07 I can remember the rules being so straight forward that just about anyone could ref the matches. The only clear inconsistency I could ever remember was how certain refs would call defense; I know personally in one match I drove last year I should have gotten a penalty or two but they were never called.

This year's rules are far to complicated. When it comes down to matches where people are debating whether or not their robot has crossed the plane when the smallest portion of their 'bot moved onto the line; it's time for a new rule. I think that I am most furious about the now infamous SVR Final Match three. The call was so wrong that anyone who was watching the web casts or saw a picture could tell it was wrong, yet refs who are feet away from the field and who can inspect the field after the match can't make the right call. I think there needs to be a massive rules clarification before week 5 (may be to late to do for week 4) and if not week 5 the championship.

[David Brinza]

Does anyone else have any suggestions, or are we going to go back to flaming the refs? You're right - flaming on the refs is pointless and unfair.

My suggestion of allowing coaches to participate in rules discussion isn't intended to allow teams to beat up a referee. I think that even the most articulate student driver or team captain cannot be expected to get an adult referee to admit that a rule is being applied incorrectly. As part of GP, we expect our students to respect authority and somehow a student arguing with an adult appears disrespectful. Ultimately, the students will back down, no matter how right they are.

The issue at the SVR arises from a clear deviation from rule <G14> as written. This error was made multiple times, but no appeal was successful. It wasn't until the outcome of the finals hung in the balance that something was done to try to correct it. This is a very different situation than a judgment call (i.e. did my robot REALLY contact the other robot while hurdling).

When the rules are effectively being changed by referees (something that FIRST has already said is not appropriate), the process for appeal must be open and allow the teams (including coaches) to resolve before it gets out of hand.

[Paul Copioli]

Lil Lavery wanted suggestions, so here are some I have already brought up to individuals within the reffing and GDC circles:

1. While the NASCAR theme is cool, forget about this "look at the robots right at zero nonsense." Just assess the points when everything comes to rest: robots and balls. Why? It makes it easier for the refs and the spectators.

2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.

3. Along with number 2, use 6 referees per match plus the head referee. Each ref is assigned one robot the entire match. They asses every penalty associated with that robot as they are actually watching that robot. The zone reffing makes it almost impossible.

4. Use examples in the rule book. Let's take the multiple configurations rule as an example. A simple "if it looks like the two mechanisms could be used without each other on the field as a moveable robot, then they are not considered mechanisms; they are considered robots" would stop the majority of the debate (there will always be FIRSTers who try to wiggle through every word (aka lawyering) even though they will swear they are not lawyering).

5. Clearly state the reason for the yellow flag. Is it for dangerous play or not? I thought it was reserved for dangerous play. How does an offensive robot get a yellow card while it is being aggressively defended?

6. If there is a particular intent for a rule, state the intent in the rulebook.

The rest of the suggestions are for the FIRST community:

7. Don't blame the game of the refs for certain deficiencies in our skill. G22, for example, is a clear rule that is being called as per the rule. Hurdler interference is a penalty that has to be called. You are stopping a team from scoring 10 points, so the penalty is 10 points. It is the "pass interference" of Overdirve. We make every decision based on the rules. If there was a rule against guarding the trackball, they we wouldn't consider it a viable strategy. However, even though we know this is supposed to be an offensive game, we are using the fact that there is not a rule about guarding the trackball as a reason to guard the trackball. Because of us, the rulebook will keep getting bigger.

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I sent more to the GDC, but it is not appropriate for this forum.

[rcflyer620]

Just got back from Chessie and while the referees weren't perfect it was called pretty consistently.
Here is something that happened that may be an idea going forward.
On Thursday the refs were actually working with the teams to identify some sticky (subjective) rules and how they would be applied. As an example we are a herder/lap bot. We wanted to get the extra 2 points for the ball crossing the line as often as possible. This brings up the question of whether we were in contact with the ball even if it was rolling on the ground. The refs made it clear they wanted us completely seperated from the ball and even helped by signalling during Thursdays matches whether or not they would call it good. This was extremely helpful. If more of this behavior were exhibited I'm sure there would be less controversy in the later matches because there would be a better understanding of what to expect.

JM2C...

Mr. E.

[Richard Wallace]

... Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed before and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution. ...Thanks, Paul. This is, by far, the most constructive suggestion yet.

[eugenebrooks]

I don't see any value in having an adult handle challenges to
referee decisions because they are less likely to back down than
a student is. To think of this in terms of likelyhood of backing
down, or not, is an example of wrong thinking for our envionment.
This is not a basketball game with the teams coach hollering
at the referees. Backing down, or not, is not what this process is
about. The more appropriate context is that of a lawyer making
a learned argument before a judge, with the judge's decision being
final. This is a learning opportunity for a student, not a an opportunity
for an adult mentor to bring home the bacon for the team. The
students who presented their case before the referees at SVR
did a great job.


My suggestion of allowing coaches to participate in rules discussion isn't intended to allow teams to beat up a referee. I think that even the most articulate student driver or team captain cannot be expected to get an adult referee to admit that a rule is being applied incorrectly. As part of GP, we expect our students to respect authority and somehow a student arguing with an adult appears disrespectful. Ultimately, the students will back down, no matter how right they are.

[Guy Davidson]

To add to Paul's excellent suggestions:

1. Have some policy in the event of a blown call. What do you do if a penalty was tallied wrong? An object was scored incorrectly, based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules? Does this policy change if the correction is after the first match of qualifications, part way through qualifications, during eliminations, or affecting the third match of the finals?

2. Make the policy from item number 1 available for the teams to read. The teams would very much appreciate knowing what would happen in the event of a referee mistake.

3. Simplify the rules? I really don't know about this one, but it seems that the rules this year are either too complicated, or that the referee training course needs to be more thourough. We went to speak to the referees about rules and scoring inconsistencies with the manual twice in SVR before the pivotal finals match 3, and in each time, the referees changed something they were doing. I have seem most of those referees before; I do not think there were many rookies. However, something is not right when you can reach the last match of the competition before catching a blatant ruling mistake.

I just hope that what happened during the finals at SVR never happens again.

-Guy Davidson

[TKM.368]

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.

[GaryVoshol]

Huh? "No, we scored 4 hurdles, not 3!" How long do you think those arguments will be?

[meaubry]

Lil Lavery makes a good point and Paul's response supports what he suggested.

Paul provided a number of suggestions that could be considered to improve the situation.

David made one as well, by the way - years ago, adult mentors used to be able to discuss rule infractions with the ref's. It was said that the discussions often were a bit too heated for some folks comfort level. Only thing I could guess is that debating questionable and even sometimes bad calls, must not be considered gracious professionalism. I would even say that some high profile mentors might even intimidate some less confident head ref's. Oh well, it is what it is.

As to suggestions -
1) Start with a formal rule infraction appeal process that is initiated as early as seeding match 1. Make sure everyone understands how it works on practice Thursday. This rule infractions appeal process is for improving the refs performance, not changing the score or outcome of the match. As stated in the rules, ALL decisons are final. The earlier the process begins the more consistant the ref's and drivers should become.
2) Track all rule infractions, off field as well as on field - for on field rule infractions track which ref is calling it, and on which team, under what situation, and what rule, for example: Ref #2, team #47, while crossing mid field line, G22.
3) Rule infractions should be reviewed with the offending teams designated drive team member, after each match in order for that team to better understand what and when the infraction was that they are being penalized for. Don't leave it up to everyone guessing what and when the penality is for - and have the ref that called it explain.
4) Rule infractions must be reviewed by the entire team of refs whenever more than 2 rule infractions occurs per any ref, in order to validate the rule is being called properly and with appropriate understanding by ALL of the refs. After reviewing it, if 2 additional penalties are ruled on - have the game announcer and/or emcee remind the teams of the rule prior to the next few matches.

Clearly, this game may never be penalty free (even though I witnessed many penalty free elimination matches this past Saturday).

Difficulty by the drivers to see the entire field will lead to some "inadvertant" penalties.

Those penalties derived from aggressive game play and supported by the belief "there's no rule against it" are unfortunate for those applying that kind of thinking.

The idea of consistant application and understanding of the rules is doable, but it takes EVERYONE to move the bar up in the process.

Mike Aubry

[Guy Davidson]

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.

It shouldn't be the driver's or robocoach's job to try and count the score. Neither should it be the coach's job. Each of those people have a very, very important job to do, and it has nothing to do with counting the score. The drivrs have to be focusing on their robot. The robocoach, hybrid mode, and other times in which his functionality might be used. And the coach, helping the drivers make their decisions.

As Paul Copioli suggested, dedicated scorekeepers would be a step in the right direction. While he suggested four, I think that even moving to two would be a huge improvement. One on each side of the field, counting each lap, herd, and hurdle, as well as hybrid points. It cannot be too complicated, and will allow referees to focus on impeding counts and calling penalties.

[math4origami]

There's an adage I often hear in my business: "silence is concurrence".


If I am sitting in the stands, and my team is NOT in the game currently playing, and I see a blatant incorrect rule call, can I go up to the referee box and complain?

If I can, then consider all the other 42 teams in the crowd. Let's let them all go up and stand in the box then, too.

The issue is that it HAS been complained about, and that the ref's just brushed off all the previous allegations.

It's not OUR fault if other matches conducted previously that we did NOT participate in were called incorrectly.

If it was, then I will gladly go stand in the box to complain about every rule that I think is scored incorrectly from now on.

I am sure that FIRST does not promote that kind of anarchy, letting every team complain about every rule.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.
Unless I'm completely insane, Lone Star has had teams sign off on match scores for a couple of years now. We've also yet to have a regional run significantly behind or have any serious scoring controversies. Possibly a benefit of running a later regional, possibly a benefit of having a staff that is incredibly, ridiculously serious about running a high quality event. Either way, I think it might say something about the current state of affairs.

[waialua359]

having a dedicated scorekeeper per robot would not work 100% in this year's game.
Example I gave earlier: A team unsuccessfully hurdles a ball and it gets stuck on the overpass. Another teammate comes around and knocks it off.
Its a hurdle that may be missed by a scorekeeper who only keeps track of what his/her respective robot is doing.
This happened as our team was waiting in the que area before our match.

If we can take one positive out of what happened at SVR, everyone who was frustrated with these issues at their respective regional(s), has really come to light as a result of the SVR situation.
This will definitely help FIRST and the GDC to address with greater emphasis on referee game knowledge, rules and the design of future games.:D

[Derek Bessette]

2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.


I think this would be the single largest improvement we could make. The scorekeepers could be given the following assignments.

Scorer 1: Hybrid lines, Laps and Herds for red
Scorer 2: Hurdles, removals, and places for red
Scorer 3: Hybrid lines, Laps and Herds for Blue
Scorer 4: Hurdles, removals, and places for Blue

Learning all of the rules is difficult. By creating roles that are specialized, each volunteer has less to learn and can become more of an expert. The scorekeepers wouldn't need to learn all of the other rules and the referee's (excluding the head referee) would not need to know all of the details involved in the scoring.

The tests that each volunteer is given could also be specialized for each role, allowing for a more in depth examination of their knowledge.

I am also a big fan of examples. When I was a hockey referee we were given a rule book and a casebook. The casebook was filled with examples showing the interpretations of each rule.

[Andy Baker]

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I totally agree.

Refereeing is not easy, obviously. I've been reffing since 2000, but it has not been my focus during the FRC season. I have reffed off and on, and only consistently as the head ref at IRI. People give me fairly good feedback from my reffing at IRI. I have learned some lessons* over the years.

(IRI is easy to ref, in a way, since we learn from the recent FRC season)

Last year, I volunteered as a judge at a new regional. I thought this was a good thing to try out. During the finals, the referee made a bad call, and I realized that my place is not to be a judge, but to be a ref. I should not be sitting there, criticizing the head ref when I think I can do a better job.

So... I signed up to be a head ref this year. Pat Major and Gail Alpert asked me to be the head ref at the Michigan Rookie event 2 weeks ago (except for leaving the teams on the field for too long during a field failure, I think I did well) and I will be the head ref in Oklahoma. Depending on how I do, I might be a head ref in Atlanta. Head ref or not, I will ref in Atlanta. This will be tough, as I could also be supporting team 45 or manning the AndyMark booth at the supplier's showcase.

* yeah, this is coming from a guy who disabled the wrong team in one of the semi-finals at Portland in 2004 (we re-ran that match), and the same guy who DQ'ed 71, 111, and 93 for entanglement at IRI in 2002.

So, yes, I agree with Paul. I usually do.

Andy B.

[Guy Davidson]

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

If the mess at SVR has taught me one thing this year, is that I will apply to referee an event next year, regardless of where I am. I have seen the effects that a referee mistake can really do (and I don't think I've ever seen a more significant mistake than the one during the SVR finals), and I want to help change it. The first step, in my mind, is to referee during an event.

[Michael Corsetto]

Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I knew I wanted to be a referee after I graduated, but my freshman class schedule did not permit me to do so at my two local regionals, SVR and Davis. I enjoyed refereeing Cal Games 2007, and next year I plan to be a referee at both SVR and Davis, possibly at Championships too if I get the chance. I think coming into refereeing with same "read the rulebook front and back, twice" mentality that I (and many other FIRST alumni) had as a student will help me make more consistent calls. Hopefully :p

Mike C.

[EricH]

I don't ref FRC because I don't think I'm up to that level. I did, however, ref FLL and an FTC competition.

FLL is relatively easy. If the robot goes back to base by hand, grab the object that needs removing. At the end of the match, total up the score.

FTC is another level. 4 robots to watch simultaneously. I think I did OK, but am not sure. (I did know enough to refer ruling questions to the Head Ref.) I had only seen the rules that day because I was an emergency "He's here, the ref who should be here isn't. Have him read the rules; he'll ref."

I don't ref FRC. Sometimes I want to, but then I think about it. It's a little out of my league. At least that's what I think.

[Cory]

I don't ref FRC. Sometimes I want to, but then I think about it. It's a little out of my league. At least that's what I think.

I can't speak for this year, but it's truly not that difficult most of the time.

I refereed in 05. I was a little apprehensive at first, but I was confident I knew the rules and how to call them.

90% of the time it was very clear to me what happened. The other 10% of the time was when you get into subjective areas where you have to try to determine intent, or piece together what happened, and what rules are applicable, and you know one team will be disappointed no matter what happens.

As long as a ref has a very strong grasp of the rulebook, and are attentive to the robots/areas they are responsible for watching, they should get it right almost all the time.

[chaoticprout]

* yeah, this is coming from a guy who disabled the wrong team in one of the semi-finals at Portland in 2004 (we re-ran that match), and the same guy who DQ'ed 71, 111, and 93 for entanglement at IRI in 2002.

Andy, just thought of something hilarious while reading an old thread:

2. Many suggestions were made at the time of the call to simply replay the match. I understand this mentality. However, FIRST has never re-ran a match in this sort of situation where people have disagreed with the referee's call. We made a decision and stuck with it.

[GaryVoshol]

So... I signed up to be a head ref this year. Pat Major and Gail Alpert asked me to be the head ref at the Michigan Rookie event 2 weeks ago (except for leaving the teams on the field for too long during a field failure, I think I did well) and I will be the head ref in Oklahoma. Depending on how I do, I might be a head ref in Atlanta. Head ref or not, I will ref in Atlanta. And even the great Andy Baker can change his call when presented with the rule and he realizes that something was incorrectly interpreted. :p

By the way, Chrysler has just told me that I must take vacation during IRI. I'll have to check the home schedule, but it looks like I'll be available.

So, yes, I agree with Paul. I usually do. So do I, except when he's arguing with the refs. :rolleyes:

[Swan217]

1. While the NASCAR theme is cool, forget about this "look at the robots right at zero nonsense." Just assess the points when everything comes to rest: robots and balls. Why? It makes it easier for the refs and the spectators.
As far as problems go, I see this as one of the least. On the contrary, I think it's much more exciting seeing if that robot can beat the buzzer to the finish line. (As a robot-scorer referee as well)


2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.
We already do this. There are 4 referees dedicated to scoring. They do not call penalties or do anything else besides scoring. You may think of them as linesmen.


3. Along with number 2, use 6 referees per match plus the head referee. Each ref is assigned one robot the entire match. They asses every penalty associated with that robot as they are actually watching that robot. The zone reffing makes it almost impossible.
You may want to ask the Great Lakes/Detroit Head Referee about this. In previous years, he had a system where your idea would be the norm. Unfortunately, with all of the problems last year, orders from On High were to have no more than 8+1 referees on the field (including 4 linesmen & Head).


4. Use examples in the rule book. Let's take the multiple configurations rule as an example. A simple "if it looks like the two mechanisms could be used without each other on the field as a moveable robot, then they are not considered mechanisms; they are considered robots" would stop the majority of the debate (there will always be FIRSTers who try to wiggle through every word (aka lawyering) even though they will swear they are not lawyering).
Agreed - examples would make it easier for teams, and harder for lawyers on said teams.

5. Clearly state the reason for the yellow flag. Is it for dangerous play or not? I thought it was reserved for dangerous play. How does an offensive robot get a yellow card while it is being aggressively defended?
<T05> Adequately describes the purpose of yellow flags. The trouble arises when <G#> rules such as <G34> or <G40> blur those lines without any clear middle ground.

7. Don't blame the game of the refs for certain deficiencies in our skill. G22, for example, is a clear rule that is being called as per the rule. Hurdler interference is a penalty that has to be called. You are stopping a team from scoring 10 points, so the penalty is 10 points. It is the "pass interference" of Overdrive. We make every decision based on the rules. If there was a rule against guarding the trackball, they we wouldn't consider it a viable strategy. However, even though we know this is supposed to be an offensive game, we are using the fact that there is not a rule about guarding the trackball as a reason to guard the trackball. Because of us, the rulebook will keep getting bigger.
Agreed - Pass interference = good rule. Guarding trackball = good non-rule & great strategy

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.
I relish the day when some uppity team coach comes up and yells at referee Paul Copioli for some bogus call he just made. But yes, as I mention in FIRSTruth (http://video.google.com/videofeed?type=search&q=firstruth&num=20&output=rss), the great regionals are the ones where the referees are biased - towards fair play and the love of the game.

[Anne Shade]

There have been attempts to improve refereeing made this year. I agree that the online training and "certification" process was the start of a good idea. At the very least, it forces the referees to look at the rules before they show up to the competition. This should help the head referees come competition. BUt how does it help if the referees are allowed to retake the test 53 times before they pass? At one point, you'll end up guessing the right answers with still no understanding of the rules.

To continue the list of improvements to the refereeing:

1. Limit the number of times the referees are allowed to take the test before they fail (I think this may have already been done but want to make sure it's mentioned in case it has not).

2. Provide for a method of evaluating the referees, specifically the head referees. Training is only half of the equation. Training provides the knowledge but is it being applied correctly? Referees in all professional sports are evaluated by their organization after all games. If too many mistakes are made, they are re-trained or released. Where is the evaluation for FIRST referees? How do we know that the training received was effective if their is no evaluation of performance? Some people are just not cut out for the job but we have no way to determine that until something goes grossly wrong.

3. This has been said already but to reiterate, provide hands on, face-to-face training for all the head referees in FIRST. It should be no different than what FIRST does with FTAs...

4. Give Aidan some help during the game design process for development of the referee process and during the regionals to evaluate performance of the other head referees. Maybe the Championship head refs should be determined at the Championship the prior year so they can form a referee committee to help Aidan? It is way too big of a job for one person.

[Brandon Holley]

I agree with many of the posters in this thread who agree that "they are just volunteers" excuse is no longer valid.

Something MUST be done, because what would a major league sport be if the crowned champions were crowned (or not crowned) because of a poor referee decision?

Unfortunately, reffing a sport, or being an umpire or any of this, is not usually something that can be picked up over a online courses test. I was an umpire in little league baseball, which believe it or not can have its fair share of confrontation. There were umpires that simply could not cut it. They didn't have the eye, or the "nack" to do it. Even though they are volunteers, in a game as complicated as that, you may have to look at getting professional help. The head referee cannot look at the entire field at once...



My suggestions:
1. There absolutely must be a way to train these referees better than just a test. Corey balint had suggested a video of possible scenarios played out via animation or even people robots like done in the kickoff examples, and do this pre regional events.

2. Even if it means raising the regional fee a hundred dollars extra per team, it would be worth it to have all the referees in person, together, going over the rules and some of the scenarios that might occur. Teams pay so much money to go to an event, its simply unfair to not have consistent refereeing event to event. Even if this means paying for these referees to fly around the country to keep it consistent.

3. The last suggestion I have isn't really a suggestion, but more of an observation of things that I've seen at competitions that unease me. Specifically in the case of talking to referees in the "box", I have seen white shirted volunteers turn students away without giving them the chance to state their case. This is obviously unacceptable. The box is there for a reason, it is there so that a student can talk to a referee about what had just occurred in a match. There is no reason for a disconnect between the students and the referees. Regardless of whether its about the robots or not, its always about the students. If it means the schedule needs to wait for 45 seconds, then let the schedule wait. Everyone is supposed to be there for the kids, so lets actually let the kids talk. Going from FLL in '01 to FRC '02 to '05 to FRC college mentor I have definitely seen the disconnect between the students/teams and FIRST as a unit. It saddens me to see students turned away from expressing their opinion, this isn't what FIRST is about.

[Bob Steele]

In looking at all of this an idea occurred to me.

What about taking another page from the new rulebook of sports.

The challenge flag... Each team would be allowed one per event.
Throw it for little things.... waste it....
Save it for something really important.... perhaps a change that would make a difference in a match score and tip the scales...

Perhaps use it as a third tie breaker for qualifications...

Perhaps, Each alliance would have one (only one) of these for the elimination rounds.

Of course this would not be used this year.... just something to kick around for next year...

I applaud the referees for the work they have done this year....
This is an extremely difficult game to referee compared to many others we have played.

thanks
Have a great year!!!

[David Brinza]

I agree with many of the posters in this thread who agree that "they are just volunteers" excuse is no longer valid.


3. The last suggestion I have isn't really a suggestion, but more of an observation of things that I've seen at competitions that unease me. Specifically in the case of talking to referees in the "box", I have seen white shirted volunteers turn students away without giving them the chance to state their case. This is obviously unacceptable. The box is there for a reason, it is there so that a student can talk to a referee about what had just occurred in a match. There is no reason for a disconnect between the students and the referees. Regardless of whether its about the robots or not, its always about the students. If it means the schedule needs to wait for 45 seconds, then let the schedule wait. Everyone is supposed to be there for the kids, so lets actually let the kids talk. Going from FLL in '01 to FRC '02 to '05 to FRC college mentor I have definitely seen the disconnect between the students/teams and FIRST as a unit. It saddens me to see students turned away from expressing their opinion, this isn't what FIRST is about.
Would it at least be acceptable to allow coaches to front off these volunteers that just want the issues to "go away" so the show can go on? If directed to leave the challenge box by an adult volunteer, many students will do so because it's GP to respect authority. Let the students get access (for however brief) to the referee to present their case.

[seanwitte]

Why does the officiating have to be consistent between the regionals? As long as they're consistent with a venue, does it matter what happens at another event? The rules will never be so objective that they can be uniformly applied across so many different events. You have all day Thursday to understand the way the game will be called, which is not an unreasonable amount to time to make any necessary adjustments.

[Brandon Holley]

Would it at least be acceptable to allow coaches to front off these volunteers that just want the issues to "go away" so the show can go on? If directed to leave the challenge box by an adult volunteer, many students will do so because it's GP to respect authority. Let the students get access (for however brief) to the referee to present their case.

David,

You hit the nail on the head in my eyes. As a high schooler on the team I felt that if an adult volunteer told me not to be somewhere, I should abide and walk away.

However now as a mentor, if I saw one of my students turned away, my first instinct would be to politely confront the volunteer to find out why they were turned away.

While i see the point why adults can cause heated conflict, I do see a place for them in just GETTING the student to the REFEREE. I have full faith that any of my kids could explain what the situation was we were contesting, however if my kids cannot even get to a referee this is moot.

[Brandon Holley]

Why does the officiating have to be consistent between the regionals? As long as they're consistent with a venue, does it matter what happens at another event? The rules will never be so objective that they can be uniformly applied across so many different events. You have all day Thursday to understand the way the game will be called, which is not an unreasonable amount to time to make any necessary adjustments.

This is not good thinking in my eyes.

At some point in time all these teams are coming together for this thing called the championship event. What would it be like if on curie they scored all the balls on the overpass as per <G14>, but on archimedes they scored them as per how the refs scored them for a good chunk of time at SVR ?

Well when you get to einstein and the refs are calling it as per <G14>, those archimedes teams are going to be playing a slightly different game.

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.

[Guy Davidson]

I agree with Brandon. It does not make any sense, in any way, for there to be different rules for different venues. There is one set of rules - that is the one written in the manual.

I think the adult volunteers need to be better trained about the meaning and the reason for the yellow challenge box. Luckily for us, in SVR, we were never kicked out out of the challenge box by any adult volunteer. If that happens, then perhaps this needs to be emphasized with the adult volunteers.

[David Brinza]

This is not good thinking in my eyes.

At some point in time all these teams are coming together for this thing called the championship event. What would it be like if on curie they scored all the balls on the overpass as per <G14>, but on archimedes they scored them as per how the refs scored them for a good chunk of time at SVR ?

Well when you get to einstein and the refs are calling it as per <G14>, those archimedes teams are going to be playing a slightly different game.

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.Last year, I watched the brutal elimination round matches on Curie. The ref's allowed some very aggressive play on that field. In the first semi-final match on Einstein, the Curie alliance received a DQ for tipping 71, when the robots involved were attempting to hang ringers on the same spider. My initial reaction was that the Einstein ref had a very different criteria for illegal robot-robot interaction than what was called on Curie. After viewing a video of the DQ, from a field-side spectator, I don't question the call by Aidan, but the same ruling probably wouldn't have been made on Curie.

A problem with aggressive play is it tends to intensify to the point where fouls must be called, but once refs start down the path of "let 'm play", it gets harder for them to draw the line.

[Richard Wallace]

Would it at least be acceptable to allow coaches to front off these volunteers that just want the issues to "go away" so the show can go on? If directed to leave the challenge box by an adult volunteer, many students will do so because it's GP to respect authority. Let the students get access (for however brief) to the referee to present their case.Which volunteers do you mean?

Only the Head Referee can make a team's post-match clarification request "go away". Head Referees I have worked with prefer to interact with pre-college team members who are standing in an area that has been designated (e.g., with tape on the floor) for that purpose.9.6.2 Referee Interaction Rules

<T03> The Head Referee has the ultimate authority on the field during the competition. THE HEAD REFEREE RULINGS ARE FINAL! The referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

<T04> If a team needs clarification on a ruling or score, a pre-college student from that team should address the Head Referee after a field reset has been signaled. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent match. Head Referees will only discuss calls, scores, penalties or match outcomes with pre-college team members.

[seanwitte]

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.

In your example, I would not expect Curie to vary from Einstein in any substantive way because the staff are working together all weekend at the same venue.

I'm assuming that there are some lessons learned being rolled up each week when a regional wraps up. By the time the championship event happens the majority of the issues should be worked out and the refs will have a full body of knowledge. BUT, if a first week regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, is that really a problem?

[Guy Davidson]

In your example, I would not expect Curie to vary from Einstein in any substantive way because the staff are working together all weekend at the same venue.

I'm assuming that there are some lessons learned being rolled up each week when a regional wraps up. By the time the championship event happens the majority of the issues should be worked out and the refs will have a full body of knowledge. BUT, if a first week regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, is that really a problem?

You wouldn't expect it, and neither would I, but, at the end of the day, that's what happened.

If a week one regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, I think that's acceptable. However, we are in week three right now, and I don't think that anything here is very much slightly different - the referees made clear mistakes that are against the rules.

I think that any way you look at it, there is a problem with refereeing this year. I posted my suggestions earlier in this thread, and I agree with most of Paul Copioli's suggestions.

[David Brinza]

Which volunteers do you mean?

Only the Head Referee can make a team's post-match clarification request "go away". Head Referees I have worked with prefer to interact with pre-college team members who are standing in an area that has been designated (e.g., with tape on the floor) for that purpose.
I'm referring to non-referee volunteers trying to quickly usher the teams away from field-side after their match, sometimes before the scores are announced. We know that it can be a challenge to keep on schedule, especially if there are field faults, repairs, referee discussions, etc.

Teams are entitled to get clarification of rulings from the referee in accordance with <T04> and <G53>. This needs to be made clear to all of the field-side volunteers, who should point them to the challenge box. The teams need to use discretion in seeking clarification, no whining about a judgment call, but understanding what action triggered the penalty should be fine. Most certainly, questions about correct application of the rule should be explained.

[jgannon]

Which volunteers do you mean? Only the Head Referee can make a team's post-match clarification request "go away".
Officially, yes, but sometimes some headstrong field personnel feel like they can usher you away from the box because you're slowing things down. This happened to us once this season, and this same volunteer told me later that we were lucky she didn't tell the judges about the incident, because she felt that our resistance to her demands should exclude us from eligibility for awards. It doesn't surprise me to hear that others are being turned away from the challenge box by people other than the head ref.

[Corey Balint]

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution..
I do mostly agree with this, however, I have seen some people, who were FIRST alum, fail..horribly. I do agree with you though. There are some rule hounds that can do a great job, but they never want to be involved with the reffing of the event, they want to be involved with the Driving, Coaching, and Strategy.

Also, it is very hard for an adult my age to be able to get a ref position on the Eastern Seaboard. Most regionals here tend to have some bias in the selections. I have seen numerous well qualified students be passed over for Sponsors, Friends of the VC, or VIPs. I have seen it at NJ, UTC, Philly, and Boston. I have a strong knowledge of how an event should run and the rules for the game (while I certainly don't know the most about it, I can understand the game and have been involved in Reffing offseason events), but I have been passed over before as well as some other high profile CD'ers with a strong knowledge of gameplay. For some, there is no point in even trying because they know they will be passed over if the RPC finds someone who might be interested in sponsoring the event.


This may sound very stupid and crazy at first, but it might help. If they were to start an incentives program for Refs (ie, if they make a certain % of correct calls, they get X, and if they don't, that X decreases). It will never happen, but it is certainly an idea.

[Brandon Holley]

Which volunteers do you mean?

Only the Head Referee can make a team's post-match clarification request "go away". Head Referees I have worked with prefer to interact with pre-college team members who are standing in an area that has been designated (e.g., with tape on the floor) for that purpose.

<not meant to be derogatory>
Its great that the rules tell us the head ref is the only one who can make the post-match clarification go away...however we've seen some rules not called and some called too much on the field....makes sense for the same to occur off the field too

Honestly in a rule book world it makes sense. The head ref acknowledges the student, the student tells head ref, head ref explains, student goes away not necessarily happy, but more satisfied with a ruling.

Problem is some "Officially-given-to-me-because-I-volunteered-white-FIRST-overdrive-tshirt-wearin'" volunteers have told kids to move on. I saw this specifically at an event this year. Because the score had been announced, and because that alliance had been knocked out of the tournament, the volunteer told said kid to move on, its over now. Outrageous and unacceptable, plain and simple. And a good mannered kid is not going to defy an adult telling them what to do....this is the problem.

My point was to get kids INTO the box and INTO conversation with the head ref. If they cannot even do that 100% of the time, whats the point of the box?

Officially, yes, but sometimes some headstrong field personnel feel like they can usher you away from the box because you're slowing things down. This happened to us once this season, and this same volunteer told me later that we were lucky she didn't tell the judges about the incident, because she felt that our resistance to her demands should exclude us from eligibility for awards. It doesn't surprise me to hear that others are being turned away from the challenge box by people other than the head ref.

This is unreal to me. Threatening to tell judges of the teams behavior for trying to PLAY BY THE RULES AND GET A CLARIFICATION??!?!? Just ridiculous if you ask me. A select few of these volunteers feel that they supersede the rules and the event and the students just because they were "put in charge" of something. This is honestly when someone needs to go to bat for these kids, in a gracious and professional manner, and explain to these people that the students have a right as per the rules, to be in that box WHENEVER they want (to a reasonable extent).

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Also, it is very hard for an adult my age to be able to get a ref position on the Eastern Seaboard. Most regionals here tend to have some bias in the selections. I have seen numerous well qualified students be passed over for Sponsors, Friends of the VC, or VIPs. I have seen it at NJ, UTC, Philly, and Boston. I have a strong knowledge of how an event should run and the rules for the game (while I certainly don't know the most about it, I can understand the game and have been involved in Reffing offseason events), but I have been passed over before as well as some other high profile CD'ers with a strong knowledge of gameplay. For some, there is no point in even trying because they know they will be passed over if the RPC finds someone who might be interested in sponsoring the event.

Interesting point you bring up, Corey. I believe I have seen this as well, and it is a shame to hear about.

[Joe Matt]

Interesting point you bring up, Corey. I believe I have seen this as well, and it is a shame to hear about.

Ditto, maybe that's why off-seasons tend to be much better staffed and follow the rules better?

[Ryan Dognaux]

Officially, yes, but sometimes some headstrong field personnel feel like they can usher you away from the box because you're slowing things down. This happened to us once this season, and this same volunteer told me later that we were lucky she didn't tell the judges about the incident, because she felt that our resistance to her demands should exclude us from eligibility for awards. It doesn't surprise me to hear that others are being turned away from the challenge box by people other than the head ref.

In the event that this happens, it's almost worth it to try and talk to the volunteer coordinator and report these remarks. A crew volunteer should have no control over the awards selection, that's for the judges to decide only. Stories like this make me angry as most volunteers are amazingly cool people who are there to make your regional run smoothly. I guess there's room for bad apples even in FIRST.


1. While the NASCAR theme is cool, forget about this "look at the robots right at zero nonsense." Just assess the points when everything comes to rest: robots and balls. Why? It makes it easier for the refs and the spectators.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this point. After attending BMR, I saw so many matches where balls were knocked off the overpass, but remained as counted on the overpass because they didn't hit the ground in time. This is lame. It confuses the crowd and even threw me for a loop at first. Little things like this make a big difference for the "wow factor" of an event. Many ends of matches that could've been exciting were quickly extinguished because of this flaw.

[Ken Streeter]

After attending BMR, I saw so many matches where balls were knocked off the overpass, but remained as counted on the overpass because they didn't hit the ground in time. ... Hmm. In cases of unrestrained motion, the trackball positions are scored based upon where they do finally come to rest, not where they are when the clock reaches zero. If BMR was scoring all trackballs based upon where they were when the clock reached zero, that was incorrect based upon Team Update #13, which resulted in rule G14 being updated as follows:

<G14>
When the MATCH ends, each TRACKBALL that is at least partially supported by the OVERPASS and not in contact with any ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn a 12-point bonus. If a TRACKBALL is in unrestrained motion (i.e. not in contact with a Robot) when the clock reaches zero, its contribution to the score will be based on when it comes to rest.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Hmm. In cases of unrestrained motion, the trackball positions are scored based upon where they do finally come to rest, not where they are when the clock reaches zero. If BMR was scoring all trackballs based upon where they were when the clock reached zero, that was incorrect based upon Team Update #13, which resulted in rule G14 being updated as follows:

Maybe they weren't counting them because they were knocked off after the clock hit zero. Not exactly sure, but it could be the case. At least in one of our matches, our partner (1018 I think) knocked a ball off right at the end and it was still counted as being on the overpass. The officiating was pretty consistent either way. Tons of penalties of course.

[IndySam]

I can't tell you how much I agree with this point. After attending BMR, I saw so many matches where balls were knocked off the overpass, but remained as counted on the overpass because they didn't hit the ground in time. This is lame. It confuses the crowd and even threw me for a loop at first. Little things like this make a big difference for the "wow factor" of an event. Many ends of matches that could've been exciting were quickly extinguished because of this flaw.

I didn't see that, what I saw were balls that were knocked off right at the buzzer and were rightfully counted because they were in contact with the robot knocking them off at the time of the buzzer.

[Ken Leung]

2. Provide for a method of evaluating the referees, specifically the head referees. Training is only half of the equation. Training provides the knowledge but is it being applied correctly? Referees in all professional sports are evaluated by their organization after all games. If too many mistakes are made, they are re-trained or released. Where is the evaluation for FIRST referees? How do we know that the training received was effective if their is no evaluation of performance? Some people are just not cut out for the job but we have no way to determine that until something goes grossly wrong.



My suggestions:
1. There absolutely must be a way to train these referees better than just a test. Corey balint had suggested a video of possible scenarios played out via animation or even people robots like done in the kickoff examples, and do this pre regional events.


Perhaps we can take care of both of issues with one stone, maybe 3 issues with one stone. Ever thought about focus groups of FIRST Referees?

The difficulties of using video footages to train refs is an excellent idea, but I don't think animation is going to cut it. We literally need footages from the first week regionals. It's true that there will be no footages until the first week, but that is not that different from how things are now.

The Refs and the GDC go into week 1 without a clear vision of how things will played out, but their vision is refined after that, and refined again after another week, and so on. So, its a matter of how you can capture the first week to help you train the Refs better in the weeks that follow. Besides, there are certain elements that will continue to come back year after year, such as entanglement, tipping, and high speed ramping.

Anyway, back to the focus group. Here is the idea. You look at videos from week one. You look for instances where rule violations occur. And you look for them so much that you begin build up a spectrum of instances between clearly acceptable acts and clear violations. Say you get 5 video clips of ramming that give you an understanding of, on a scale of 1 to 5, what's acceptable ramming and what's unacceptable, and the gray area in between.

Here is how you apply these videos to training and evaluation. During the training, you show 1 clip as an example of clear violation of a certain rule. After the training is over, you show 5 clips of the same rule, and you ask the person in training which ones they feel are violation and which ones aren't. You give them a chance to make mistakes so they have a better understanding of the variation.

Then you show them another 5 clips for another evaluation. After you repeat that once or twice, you should have a good idea whether that person has caught on to what's acceptable and what isn't.

For training purposes, it is very important for the head Referee at the headquarter to decide, on scales of 1 to 5, what is acceptable and what isn't. Once a line is drawn, you drill that line into all referees' head in the weeks that follow. Consistency is what's important here. And you continue to use these clips and newer ones to train and evaluate refs before and after the events, and before and after the years.

Won't be for every rule of course, just the difficult ones.

Here are some side bonuses:

1. You release some of these clips to the teams so they too will get a better understanding of what's acceptable and what isn't.
2. You collect data as people evaluate various clips. The more data you collect, the better you are at understanding, in general, how people are calling certain rules. This understanding will help you decide whether a rule need to be better written, or if the training need to be improved.


Sounds complicated, right? You betcha! There is probably a simplier idea in here somewhere. On the other hand, there are many people watching many videos of many competition during the weeks. Won't be hard to find volunteers whose job is to identify these clips for the GDC and the head Ref at headquarter. Once a system is in place, Refs and refs in training just need to go to the training site and watch some videos.

[Anne Shade]

Ken, I think you have some valid points but the evaluation I was refering to is an evaluation of a head referees' performance at a regional. There needs to be a way to say that a head ref did a good or bad job and to determine who is not right for the job. Tests and questionaires only get you so far in the evaluation of a person's skills and performance.

Part of that evaluation could be team and key regional personel feedback but most really should be video review or in person evaluation. Why not have the committee of championship head referees review random matches from each regional and evaluate the play calling and the refereeing procedures utilized by the head referee? Head referees would receive feedback on how they can improve and those that are not performing up to par can be replaced.

This is the second part of training. Without the evaluation, the training has very little value.

[GaryVoshol]

Hmm. In cases of unrestrained motion, the trackball positions are scored based upon where they do finally come to rest, not where they are when the clock reaches zero. If BMR was scoring all trackballs based upon where they were when the clock reached zero, that was incorrect based upon Team Update #13, which resulted in rule G14 being updated as follows:

Maybe they weren't counting them because they were knocked off after the clock hit zero. Not exactly sure, but it could be the case. At least in one of our matches, our partner (1018 I think) knocked a ball off right at the end and it was still counted as being on the overpass. The officiating was pretty consistent either way. Tons of penalties of course.

I didn't see that, what I saw were balls that were knocked off right at the buzzer and were rightfully counted because they were in contact with the robot knocking them off at the time of the buzzer.

Another possibility is that Update 13 came out on Thursday evening of the competition. Perhaps the information was not given to the Head Ref.

[GaryVoshol]

There needs to be a way to say that a head ref did a good or bad job and to determine who is not right for the job. Tests and questionaires only get you so far in the evaluation of a person's skills and performance.

Part of that evaluation could be team and key regional personel feedback but most really should be video review or in person evaluation. Why not have the committee of championship head referees review random matches from each regional and evaluate the play calling and the refereeing procedures utilized by the head referee? Head referees would receive feedback on how they can improve and those that are not performing up to par can be replaced.

This is the second part of training. Without the evaluation, the training has very little value.
And how do you know whether that is or is not happening now? (I don't mean to be harsh here. I'm just pointing out that we don't know everything that goes on in the background.)

Head Referees have been replaced in the past.

[Anne Shade]

Gary,

I have been a referee for the past three years and a head referee the past two. I have not been a head ref this year (started a new team). Video review has not occured in the past. I've spoken to Aidan on this before.

Head Referees have been replaced in the past, that is true. They were replaced when the situation got so bad that FIRST had no choice but to act. We need to diagnose problems before that point. Hence my comment, evaluations are the next step after training.

[waialua359]

chesapeake had several instances where robots crossed lane dividers after the bell sounded for hybrid period ending, but no score awarded, especially the 3rd line.
How is that different from how the ball ends up on the overpass, not when the bell sounds, but where it eventually ends up at rest.

[waialua359]

I agree with Brandon. It does not make any sense, in any way, for there to be different rules for different venues. There is one set of rules - that is the one written in the manual.

I think the adult volunteers need to be better trained about the meaning and the reason for the yellow challenge box. Luckily for us, in SVR, we were never kicked out out of the challenge box by any adult volunteer. If that happens, then perhaps this needs to be emphasized with the adult volunteers.

I wont mention his name, but at Chesapeake, I got a "this isn't VCU remark" when I questioned an inconsistency during inspection and to the same person as he was a referee during matches for a penalty call.

[Joe Ross]

chesapeake had several instances where robots crossed lane dividers after the bell sounded for hybrid period ending, but no score awarded, especially the 3rd line.
How is that different from how the ball ends up on the overpass, not when the bell sounds, but where it eventually ends up at rest.

It might not make sense, but that is how it is supposed to be called. Team Update 13 clarified this

In reference to the <G14> rule change, referees will make the calls as follows:
determine the scores contributed by the Robots based on where they are
when the clock reaches zero.
determine the scores contributed by the Trackballs based on where they are
when the clock reaches zero – unless they are in unrestrained motion (i.e.
not in contact with a Robot) at the time, in which case determine the score
based on when they come to rest

[RoboMom]

I wont mention his name, but at Chesapeake, I got a "this isn't VCU remark" when I questioned an inconsistency during inspection and to the same person as he was a referee during matches for a penalty call.

The Chesapeake Regional Planning Committee, along with all the lead positions will be having a formal debriefing. I am happy to pass along your constructive criticism if you send them to me in a brief document. jbeatty@usfirst.org

There is always room for improvement.

My understanding was that questions about anything that happened on the field were to only be addressed by the head referee. If that process was not followed, please include that in your comments.

It was a pleasure and an honor having Team 359 at Chesapeake.

[Rick Thornbro]

Wow, I glad I'm not a ref this year.

I have ref in the past and know it takes a great deal of time away from my paying job and family to work at an event. I wasn't paid and did not expect to be.

We must remimber that for the most of the people working these events, are unpaid and do so to the best of their abitilty. This year, in order to increase the quality of the refs, FIRST has tried to balance training with the refs schedule. I believe that overall, the refs have improved over previous years. Are they perfect? No.

To increase the amount of time a ref must be trained for an event is a great idea however, can all the people take the time off work and away from family to do it? If not, do we not use that person? It's hard enough to get people to give up their time without the criticism (constructive and not).

[Brandon Holley]

To increase the amount of time a ref must be trained for an event is a great idea however, can all the people take the time off work and away from family to do it? If not, do we not use that person? It's hard enough to get people to give up their time without the criticism (constructive and not).

I agree. I to have a paying job that i must leave to attend a competition, as do many other mentors and people who are NOT volunteering. The point is that if you volunteer to be a referee, expect criticism, plain and simple. I am more than willing to be a referee, but as expressed through this forum, it appears, on the east coast at least, that you need an in to become one.

I think everyone here understands that "they're just volunteers", but they hold a great deal of responsibility. The culmination of a lot of things runs directly through their hands, so shrugging it off as they're trying, lets leave it at that, is not going to get the job done here.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I think college students are the best bets for referees. Most of team are able to to get to competitions on Thursday and Friday, have a passion for the game, rules, and fairness left over from high school, and have lots of potential to open up doors for the program if they come back over the years. (Thats right, the STUDENTS can open doors for the PROGRAM, not the other way around...)

Instead I've seen these students turned away as they are "unexperienced" or "not the right fit". To this I say: What gives? If college students were not allowed to ref because of these reasons and this thread didn't exist, I may not care so much. But, obviously people have been dissatisfied with the performance so far, so I would like to call this matter to attention.

[RoboMom]

Also, it is very hard for an adult my age to be able to get a ref position on the Eastern Seaboard. Most regionals here tend to have some bias in the selections.

Four of the Chesapeake Referees were adults your age, all FIRST alums from 4 different teams.

[GaryVoshol]

Detroit had 4 referees in or near college age, and another one not much older.

[math4origami]

The Chesapeake Regional Planning Committee, along with all the lead positions will be having a formal debriefing. I am happy to pass along your constructive criticism if you send them to me in a brief document. jbeatty@usfirst.org

There is always room for improvement.

My understanding was that questions about anything that happened on the field were to only be addressed by the head referee. If that process was not followed, please include that in your comments.

It was a pleasure and an honor having Team 359 at Chesapeake.

Is there a Silicon Valley Regional Planning Committee contact?

[Lil' Lavery]

Is there a Silicon Valley Regional Planning Committee contact?

http://www.firstsv.org/contact.php