Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Hey guys,

After finishing up the New York City regional, I lost a lot of the respect that I had for FIRST. I don't mean for this to be a rant or anything, I just want to hear the community's opinion on a number of things that I noticed over the course of this and previous regionals.

Firstly, the ranking system. This year's seemed to particularly wonky. At a regional as large as NYC, eight matches per team simply don't cut it. How can a robot's abilities be assessed fairly in comparison with the rest when it mathematically does not have the chance to play with/against every other team. A lot of luck seemed to be involved. The large amount of penalties (I saw 120+ points scored on just penalties) also seemed to skew the rankings, especially when fouls were counted as goal/climb points. Let's face it, not everyone reads the rules. Why punish teams that do by dragging them down? Why not find a better way to rank based on individual performance. I'm not arguing that great teams gravitate towards the top, but shouldn't the best team deserve first place, the second best second, and so on?

Secondly, rules. In general, I liked the rules a lot. The ones that bothered me were those regarding penalties (this is going to be a common theme in this post). "Obstructing the flow of the game." What's that all about? It just sounds like defense to me, not to mention that it's extremely subjective. When does a good defense begin to obstruct the game? Instead of creating rules like this, why not just create a game in which this is not possible? Instead of placing two obnoxiously large pyramids in the middle of the field, with either side being easily blocked, why not create a climbing wall and leave a wide open field? Maybe place a different, smaller element there instead.

Which brings me to my final complaint. This exact bias in ruling occurred during the elimination matches of the NYC regional this year. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29860861). Not only do I find this unfair, but it all of the refs seemed to disagree on what the large penalty was for. It took us about 10 minutes to find out that it was because of "obstructing the flow of the game." Well, great. Ten minutes after our match we get the official ruling and just because one of the refs that was friendly and put in extra time to find out for us. I personally ran to the head ref and asked to dispute the penalty. He stated that the decision was final and could not be challenged since they "already moved on." I asked him to consider watching videos of previous matches in which I would gladly point out more extreme scenarios only a few matches prior which were not penalized. He refused and told me to relax, because "it's just a game" and the refs are "just volunteers." Well, needless to say, the majority of us are just volunteers. I personally spent two weeks of my college vacation helping my team and countless hours on the bus to see the regional. He told me that we still accomplished the mission of FIRST, since we learned a lot. He then walked away.

I am completely disappointed with this attitude. It is unprofessional. It is disrespectful to everyone doing FIRST and their efforts. I'm still pondering what the lesson learned was for my team. That life isn't fair? Is that such a great message? I personally don't care about winning. I'm done with FIRST. I just want others to get the experience that I got without having such great hopes shattered.

It would be great if FIRST could refine this system by introducing a more refined method of disputing claims via video. I know the volunteers work hard, but everyone gets it wrong once in a while. The true value of FIRST lies in exposing youth to fields that are slowly fading from our schools. If we truly decide to celebrate mediocrity and losses like this, what are we really teaching our youth?

I would like to see a lot more prizes celebrating engineering, programming, and business achievements. What do you guys think? Are we lacking in those?

Looking back, this is a bit of a rant and I apologize, but a large number of people on my team, alliance, and in the NYC regional feel this way. I wanted to see everyone's opinion.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to your responses.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The link is broken.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

when did that penalty happen? I don't see it.
(I do see some "dumb" defense)

EDIT:Next time avoid the opponent's pyramid at all costs

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

That's what we were trying to figure out.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Responding purely to the penalty, I disagree with it's issuance. I noticed nothing more than strategic defense throughout the match.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

After looking at the scoring I understand why you would feel this way. Team 3862 lost two qualifying matches last year due to volunteer error(which equated to about 1500 dollars worth of matches). I understand that every match cannot be replayed due to the time constraint in which that would put on a regional. I also understand that the refs are volunteers and they also are human. These guys get nothing from volunteering except for the fact that they know their extreme efforts are leading to great achievement and growth in the world's youth.
I propose a simple solution that I believe would leave everyone happy and situations like these from occurring. Give the alliance captain one red challenge flag that would allow them to use video evidence to dispute a match. This would provide an avenue that would allow a lot of certain close calls to be reviewed in eliminations in which many people walk away unhappy without slowing down the regional too much(teams usually get five minuets to change bumpers and batteries anyway).

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

One thing that bothered me was that camera usage was disabled due to field issues. This prevented 1635 from being able to do anything during tele op. I'm sure that they weren't the only ones affected. We too were affected by this since we rely on the camera for full court shooting. As far how the judging was handles, yes it would be nice to be able to remove subject bias but I understand that its not really possible to do that since being too specific can compromise the ability for teams to use creativity. At the same time NY had about 65 teams. The only way to get more matches in is to either start during the first day(less practice) or to expand to 4 days which isn't easy to secure with the vendor. I was upset with the way some things were handled but that is also part of the experience. Not everything goes according to plan. I just hope that next time we can avoid some of these mistakes.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

It happened at the 10 second mark when the two red robots were playing "defense" on the one blue.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

In the qualification matches it was seen where 2 robots played defense against one and no penalties were issued.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

There is no rule prohibiting 2v1 defense, or 3v1 defense for that matter. The only rules which must be observed are pinning and contact within frame perimeter.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

ROBOTS on the same ALLIANCE may not blockade the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. This rule has no effect on individual ROBOT-ROBOT interaction.

EDIT:Our team avoids all 2v1 defense at all costs because it is such a big penalty.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I guess it comes down to one's definition of "blockade". I don't view 2v1 defensive hits as blockading the field. Apparently, this ref did.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, I think this is such a subjective rule, but it has to be there to eliminate the choke-hold strategies.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Not quite. The "Blockade" rule specifies that two or more robots cannot work together to affect the flow of the game, which flow affectation is apparently left to the proverbial reasonably astute observer to determine. (G25, in case you're wondering.)

So, if a 2v1 or 3v1 is found to stop the flow of the match, it is a Technical Foul.

(I make no judgement as to whether the call in question would be correct given the situation. I'm not a ref.)

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

We (DiscoBots 2587) had similar issues at Lone Star with our head ref. A lot of fouls weren't being called that we thought should have been. A lot of teams were frustrated with our head ref but the good thing was the refs were very consistent through out the regional and when the call was needed to be made they called it. I do agree that the refs shouldn't have an attitude (granted that you don't approach them in an inappropriate manner) with any mentors or students when they are questioning a call, but at the same time, you have to move on and focus on the next match. What I told our students was it's ok to be frustrated and upset but you have to learn from it and get better for the next match. Just like with any professional sports league, there are going to be calls that a team doesn't like or agree with but they still have to play on and overcome it. Unfortunately for you, it looks like it ended your regional and I know that's a tough way to end the day. I believe FIRST will address these issues if it turns out to cause more problems and I hope they have it in order by Championships. It's still early and refs are still learning the game as well. It's one of the cons of playing in early events in the season. :/

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

It looked to me that that call was due to pinning and the technical foul was called when the red alliance hit a blue alliance robot that was defending a red alliance bot touching their pyramid. This is one where I believe an update needs to happen regarding that situation.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Unfortunately, all of this points back to the fact that some people interpret the same things differently than others.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

My suggestion as a team doing defense for 8-10 years, avoid the pyramid, loading zone, and multi-robot "pinning". Play "smart" defense! Look at Team 16 in the finals at st. louis. They played "smart" defense.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I would actually suggest that its less wonky this year than several in recent memory.

Just how would you propose they do it differently? NYC was running on a 7 minute match turnaround. The field crew needs 5-6 minutes to reset the field for the next match, and if you get a 30 pt climber which needs a belay, the time is even longer. With 65 teams, there just isn't room for more matches.
I agree not everyone reads the rules nearly as well as they should, but all of the fouls were laid out in the manual, for everyone to see, and learn how to play by them. They SHOULD skew the rankings, not playing by the rules is tantamount to cheating.
What? I don't understand. This isn't punishing teams that DO read the rules, its punishing the teams that choose to not abide by the rules.
In an ideal world, yes, but with a limited amount of time to run the tournament, you have to make compromises. We obviously don't have time to play the game with every permutation of 6 teams at a regional. There are ~82.6 million ways to choose 6 teams for a match from 65.
Looking at the video: looks like a techfoul on 1635 for pinning to me. Or possibly climb interference on 375.

An iffy call maybe.
Refs can't be expected to look at video every time someone feels slighted, see the "not enough time" argument I made above.
You should relax, and it is just a game.

That said, I agree with you that the mentors are volunteers too, and referees and other event staff should be expected to uphold the rules as written in a consistent manner. Anything less is unacceptable, and unprofessional in my mind.
This is correct.
There are several awards that exist for this purpose. See: Engineering Inspiration, Regional Chairman's, Engineering Excellence, Quality, Entrepreneurship, Rookie All-Star, Rookie Inspiration, Gracious Professionalism, Innovation in Control, Industrial Design, and Imagery. More awards would simply dilute the prestige that winning awards carries.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The senario in the image I have created here is what I understand to be the meaning of "blockading" the field. It sounds like to me that some refs don't understand the proper meaning of the rule.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm not going to comment on the ref's call but I will make a couple points.

#1 There is no way that FIRST can allow video reviews of matches. The NFL spends millions of dollars on equipment and gives the head refs many different angles to review a call and they still don;t always get it right. There is just no way for FIRST to implement a fair replay system, period.

#2 Your info lists you as a alumni. Only students are allowed to question the head ref, the head ref is not even required to talk with you at all. You are lucky he gave you the courtesy of disusing it with you.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Im interested in seeing how FIRST handles this since im sure we werent the only ones to run into this problem.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I would have to agree with racer on all his comments and congrats on the great regional max tech was fun to watch

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

What the FIRST definition of "blockade"? Maybe you have the definition wrong.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

this is the interpretation that the head ref communicated at GTR East this weekend, provided that R1 is additionally too tall to pass under the pyramid.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

[quote=John_1102;1245752]The senario in the image I have created here is what I understand to be the meaning of "blockading" the field. It sounds like to me that some refs don't understand the proper meaning of the rule.

The image you displayed shows a one on one defense in which R1 could go under the pyramid to get free so no this is not an alliance blockading the field.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I agree but try telling a student this that has spent 6 weeks building a robot only to have their season end due to a bad call.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Actually, it is. IF R1 cannot go under the pyramid, it is blockading. Or, if a third blue robot B3 was in front of the pyramid, it's blockading.

Additionally, the rule specifically calls out "to stop the flow of the match". If I were a ref, and I saw that setup (assuming B1 and B2 are not on their respective ways elsewhere), I would probably call the penalty regardless of whether R1, R2, and R3 could go under the pyramid, as B1 and B2 are attempting to blockade the field to stop the flow of the match--and the rule does not require a specific opposing robot action attempt to trigger enforcement.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Thank you Eric, for your eternal wisdom. (no sarcasm) I would love to talk to you in real life. Maybe at St. Louis this year.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

In response to some comments:

Racer: I would propose a larger implementation of the district model. That seems to work a lot better and attract smaller amounts of teams.
What I meant by punishing teams that do play by the rules is the fact that multiple teams seem to repeat offenses despite warnings. This can cost an entire alliance the match since penalties, as I've said, are reaching into the 100+ range this year.
How would you feel if they allowed video references during elimination?

On the topic of awards, I wanted to see more appreciation of engineering feats performed by teams that did not do very well in the competition. All of the awards seem to have a "and performed well during competition" clause. Perhaps a "best chassis," "best shooter," etc. awards. I saw multiple teams (271 had an amazing drive train) with amazing engineering achievements that went unrecognized.

Sam: If you could prove your point using the footage available, should that not count?
The fact that I am an alum is true. I do appreciate the fact that he listened to me, despite the fact that I was just following up on my alliance's complaint. I just can't stand to see my team lose a regional because of a bad call.

In general: It seems that these problems are widespread. A solution would be great.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The rules are not special to any individual team design. All teams had the manual and determined how to play the game. Teams like 1986, 610, and 2056 have no issue with this particular "blockkade" so why should the rule be called any different for teams that can't shrink under 29 inches. We designed our robot to be able to climb and stick out to max dimensions so that we could play some off hand defense. I think this year refs will be put in an undesirable spot just like what happened to OP.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Granted, I was not on the floor at the time, but from my vantage point in the stands I couldn't tell why the deciding match in that elimination round was replayed in the first place.
334/375, does either of you know why we got the replay?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

We got the replay due to communication issues on the field

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes. The controller for our (334) shooter/climber was not functioning due to FMS. We had a lot of problems with connectivity during the entire regional mainly due to team members not having updates.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I do think that the pyramid penalties are really tough. The point of them is to protect climbers, but the penalties end up punishing a lot more and deciding matches.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

To what (or more particularly, to whose)? Do you refer to the team videos, if they can be brought from the stands quickly (and which you can almost guarantee are in favor of the team), or to the webcast video (which in 9 cases out of 10, will be pointed elsewhere or not have the quality needed), or to some other video point? When you can define more fully where the video to be referenced is coming from, I can answer that question.


Not if the ref can't look at video (or rather is not supposed to). Referees will not look at video in a question--that's in the Manual, Section 5.

I think the main problem here is in interpretation, not in the rules or even necessarily the particular refs. Interpretation is a tricky thing to get both correct and consistent. There may not even be a solution.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

This. It is crazy that some teams get additional benefits because of arguably poor design decisions (all else equal, I think most would agree being less than 28 is better than greater than 28). This is similar to top heavy robots getting calls for being tipped when similar defense won't tip a better designed robot.

I recall this rule from 2011 and maybe last year. Has it ever been called previously?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I would personally be fine with the webcast video being used for evidence. It's pretty clear to see that there wasn't a penalty even in the video that I linked. I'd be fine with just using that.

I'm suggesting a change to that specific rule (Section 5), especially regarding eliminations.

I agree that the fault lies in interpretation. I would just appreciate it if the GDC left fewer of these rules in the manual.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

No, if you let teams start using video replay you open up a huge pandoras box of potential delays and bad angles and disputes. It might suck but it's the only way.

I think we were the poster child of questionable rules and calls last year, they even changed the rules at championships because of what happened to us.

After words I consoled my team and praised them on what a great job they did, then I found the head ref and complimented him on doing a good job and making a tough call. I didn't come on CD and complain about the refs and unfairness of it all.

BTW If you/we hadn't lost one of the other matches in the first place a questionable call couldn't have hurt us. Can't blame anyone else but you/us for that.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Maybe it's just me coming from SBPLI but today had the highest number of replayed matches I've ever seen. As part of a team that has had connectivity issues in the past and never had anything replayed, it struck me as a bit odd.

Anyway... thank you for the clarification. From the video it was not apparent that there was a malfunction - of course, I look for lack of motion to determine a connectivity issue most of the time. To I would guess many onlookers, 334's robot seemed to be functioning similarly to how it had in previous (not replayed) matches, for all if not most of the match.

That said, if there was an issue with your system that was impacting your performance on the field and delaying the progression of gameplay by requiring replayed matches "during the entire regional", I would assume common sense would dictate installing those updates at first opportunity.
The combination of upset victory by the other team with what appeared to be a very delayed call for a replay did seem just a tad fishy.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I suppose then that the several Innovation in Control awards that 1075 won, whilst never having a particularly competitive robot in those years is an exception then?

Furthermore, if the engineering feat they achieved didn't give them a significant competitive advantage, what made it remarkable? 1075 won IiC awards for a multi-position pneumatic arm (when you were limited to specific valves with no center-off option), and a swerve drive with several modes.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm just going to point out that in many cases, the webcast video (assuming that you've tapped into the box, which would solve bias claims and "takes too much time to grab" complaints) will be pointing not at the area of interest but to some other area of the field, unless webcasts have gotten a LOT better lately. Used to be, half the stream was looking at some poor robot that was stationary through no fault of its own (or not), which unless it happens to be the one where the call was made will be useless. With full-field cameras and the devices available to do playback at the event, I would be skeptical of the quality being sufficient to make a call except in the most blatant cases. (Look at the WPI thread, where the webcast viewers were wondering how two 10-point hangs weren't counted until someone pointed out that one robot was on the ground and the other was on a disc.)

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I think that this year having a point of view from where the drivers stations are or from overhead would help the refs to make good decisions about pyramid fouls. From last year it was easy to tell when there was contact in safe zones but if the team is almost pinning the other team to the pyramid it could just look like there is contact with the pyramid.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Also, part of passing inspection is that all software is the correct version. How was this even a problem on the field?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Just hypothesizing here, but: it might have had something to do with the optional driver station update (it was strongly recommended but not mandatory).

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

To clarify, it was not our system that was malfunctioning. The problem stemmed from driver station updates. If one team's driver station was not fully updated, the entire alliance would lag out. We found this out during a practice match and immediately fixed it, however, other teams did not and continued using the old version. Moral: CHECK FOR UPDATES!

As to the malfunction, our robot had mechanical jams in a few of the matches. We installed guards to prevent this, so we knew this was not the case. Not to mention that our climber was not working.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Were the FTA's alerted to this?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

First of can we stop bashing the Refs. I do not want to have a MOD close this thread. Second the Refs are doing the best job that they can. Just to let you all know all most all of the refs have close to 7-10 years in FIRST EACH, is not like its their first time at an event. Like some one said we are only Human, we cant see everything at once and we do miss things but teams need to learn and move on. Yes blockading is a tough call to make on the field but when it is called there is a reason behind it. And As to the Ops video post of the match that would be a tough call to make but there is NO way that any video replay would or should over rule a head Refs Final call. And this was in the semis so there was no more of giving teams a break when it comes to fouls.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

So what you're saying is that not you but somebody else on your alliance had the older version?

Having had issues with this previously, do you think this is something that should have been checked as soon as your alliance was formed? It's not like you didn't have a lunch break to confirm that and have your alliance partners install any necessary software updates.

Also, how was this avoided in your elimination matches before semifinal 3?

And is it normal for part of a control system to malfunction while the rest continues to work perfectly?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I definitely consoled my team as well. We found solace in the Industrial Design award. We're fine. I just wanted to hear the community's opinion on the matter. I'm sorry if I seemed to be whining.

The fact that teams should account for bad calls is unacceptable. That's comparable to NASA having to account for changes in the laws of physics.

I'm not saying that video proof would be the end all of a dispute. I just want it to be used. Period. The fact that it's being completely ignored bothers me tremendously.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The laws of physics don't change from day to day due to human error.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, FTA was made aware very early on.
The update issue was not of concern during eliminations. We checked everything. The problems stemmed from something else. We don't know what.
I'm just putting out a warning to you guys. This was a problem for some qualification matches until we started verifying all of our alliance members.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Essentially, all of a sudden with what was basically the deciding match of the regional on the line, you had a mysterious failure of unknown cause in your ability to score?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Haha. It sounds so fishy. But yes. We checked everything and were extremely distraught. The day was full of ups and downs.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Mods will close the thread if we don't check our passion at the door of the thread that is as touchy as this, so let's step it down a notch. FIRST is a passionate event, but that does not always warrant fiery discussion that may come off poorly. I can assume you are a referee, and I would not say anyone is going out of your way to tear you or your volunteering kin down. I will say it is good to have a healthy discussion on rule interpretations in the hope that the game evolves properly over the 8 weekends it is in-season, be it rules, strategy, robot execution, and overall event quality. Some of the rules are left up to interpretations the Supreme Court could not easily decide on, but that's how it is.

I hope you weren't meaning to come off as mildly condescending here.

Let's all take a deep breath, read this, sleep on it, and try again tomorrow.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I do agree with the OP on some point, particularly with the occasional horrible penalty call. I empathize with your team because I remember a time when I felt the rules screwed my team out of a win that would of sent our alliance to the semifinals.

I also agree that the best teams aren't always on top. I occasionally see teams I did not expect at the top of the rankings, or even elite teams that somehow are in the bottom half of the rankings. Take 254 at the San Diego Regional. They finished with a 5-5 record, but were picked by the #1 seed even though they struggled throughout the event. And on the other side of the spectrum are teams that are ranked near the top, but are declined by many higher seeding teams. I agree that the rankings can be a little messed up, but generally they're pretty good and almost always the best teams form the best alliances and they will usually win the events.

Also, keep in mind that FIRST really is doing the best job it can do. And given that the competitions are almost exclusively run by volunteers, I think FIRST is doing a pretty good job. And if you don't think so, just look at other competitions such as in college and professional sports, and you'll know FIRST is doing something right. College sports are dominated by a few teams, and it's very rare other teams rise above the rest. Every regional is worth watching in FIRST because there's always a few outstanding teams that aren't recognized outside of the region. And while our volunteer referees and judges aren't perfect, is our system so much worse than the systems in professional sports? I'm always hearing how the greatest players are favored by referees, and the blatant cheating that participants get away because of how difficult it is to objectively call fouls and penalties. And in every sport I can think of, the perennial playoff contenders are almost universally hated. Great teams in FIRST are universally respected, and we actually cheer for winners as often as we cheer for the underdogs. And think of all the smack players talk about players from other teams. It really is amazing how a bunch of high school students act more maturely than these "professional" athletes.

So I agree FIRST has problems, but I can't agree that it hasn't been doing a good job for the most part.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, FIRST does a very good job. It got me to where I am today. The volunteers are amazing and you can never thank them enough. Yes, the attitude of FIRST is pretty great. However, that doesn't mean it cannot greatly improve. You should always be seeking to improve. I wanted to call attention to a few things that I noticed that could/might be improved. I wanted to see some explanations for both sides of the argument in all cases. If something is not possible, that's fine, I'll accept that. I just wanted clarifications on a few thoughts.

The thing for me with powerhouse teams is that they inspire others. I always drew inspiration from 254. I always wanted to and still do want to become more like them. If they shine in competition and seed high, that gives teams a clear goal. But if teams like that are not in the top spots, what message does that send?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

It sends a message that even the best have an off event now and again. They have their issues like the rest of us. And, there is hope that maybe we can be asking them to join our alliance instead of the other way around.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out some other, really annoying ranking systems.
2001--besides the 4v0, IIRC it was just the scores of the teams--if your colored ball was on the goal you got 10 extra points.
2003--details escape me, but I remember it being some function of scoring.
2010--When Coopertition Score was the biggest driving factor of the standings, things got "interesting", including a "planned" 6v0 match where the loser shot ahead of the winner in the standings.
2012--The bridge points affected an awful lot of rankings. 254 couldn't get a good ranking at one event because for one reason or another nobody went for the Coop Bridge with them.

This year, it's back to the good ol' win-loss-tie system, which like a republic is the worst system around except for all the others.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

A long post justifies a long response.

Luck will always be involved. Time will always be a constraint. Unless a better, viable alternative emerges, this is how things will work.

The district model also requires a more expansive program, even more experienced and efficient volunteers, and stronger outreach than NYC offers. The unfortunate reality is that despite efforts to do so, we haven't been able to introduce NYC to the district model precisely because we don't have the resources to make the district model viable here.

Because teams shouldn't be ranked just by individual performance, but how they contribute to an alliance. That match you mention? We were on the receiving end of those penalty points; we won that match 10-165 because of those penalty points. Our very next match, we were partnered with the team that incurred those penalties, coached them so that they wouldn't do so, and went on to win that match as well.

Moreover, individual performance isn't exactly something you can judge quantitatively - e.g. how do you compare offense with defense? 3137 played fantastic defense throughout eliminations and were critical to our wins, but they didn't earn our alliance any actual points.

IMO, its intent is to encourage scoring over blockading - that is, to encourage active gameplay and discourage anything that inhibits active gameplay. Maybe it's not a "fair" rule, persay; certainly, it is very subjective precisely because of its ambiguity, and makes defense harder, but it's part of the game. And when the game itself prevents you from executing a certain strategy, you work around it.

It's not exactly a new rule:
This is an inevitable problem that will arise when making judgments with respect to ambiguous rules - that is why there's a head ref, so that there can be someone to bring a close to the discussion.

You aren't the first, nor you will you be the last person to argue with this policy, which FIRST explicitly lays out in the manual:

If the footage you use to prove your point offers a misleading perspective of the situation, should it count?

This isn't something our Head Referee decided on the spot. This is an enduring FRC-wide policy precisely, because as Sam explained:

That he even listened to you instead of turning you away, as he easily could have done, is gracious in itself.

And you're wondering what the lesson learned for your team was? The lesson was your build season. You guys pulled yourself together, harnessed your resources, and put together an amazing robot. During both a strategy meeting yesterday and a celebratory dinner tonight, the consensus was that you guys had the most competitive robot there. There wasn't a single person at New York that wasn't impressed by your performance. The way you got there - the little things you did, the changes you went through, the experience you gained - that's what you come away with.

We consider our Lunacy robot, Michael1, to be the best robot we've ever built, even though it didn't go to CMP (which was partly because of abstruse FMS issues specific to our programming that caused us to lose matches) - and the lessons we've gained from Michael's season have driven our success as a team. Virtually everything about how our team operates today - our build criteria and process, the importance we place on driver practice, the effort we put into scouting - is driven by the lessons we learned from Michael's year. And as the cliché goes, those lessons we learned that year - about the importance of simplicity, of implementation, of efficiency - extend not just to FRC but life in general.

That's the kind of thing you walk away with.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I definitely agree that FIRST has glaring issues, and that we should work to improve FIRST by eliminating these problems. It just seemed to me that when you said you lost a lot of respect and that you were done with FIRST, you were giving it up because of these existing problems.

To me it means that the elite sometimes struggle and the lesser teams sometimes excel. It says nothing other than there's parity within FIRST that often doesn't exist in other competitions. Parity means teams have to work hard to remain the best, and with hard work you can become the best. I actually think that's a pretty good message to send.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I wrote this before reading the replies. I wholeheartedly agree with Racer26. Sam (as senior on 694) wrote an excellent post as well. Great job Sam!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the "ranking system", I thought the "picking your alliance" was supposed to compensate for that. Personally, I refer to it as a seeding system rather than a ranking system. It's not a simple ordered ranking but a guide. Like in tennis. The #1 seed isn't necessarily the best - he/she is the one who played/won the matches. Many people realized #334 was the best. I didn't see the match you lost so I don't know if it was bad luck or a jam or what. But you were clearly a top robot and the #1 seed certainly recognized that.

We were on the opposing alliance of the one that got 120+ points in penalties. (I think it was more because when they asked for a re-count on their missing 10 points, our score went up about 40 points.) It was early in the day so I'm guessing the penalty calling was overly aggressive. That said, pushing a robot while it is under it's own pyramid isn't a good strategy. Too much risk of pushing the opponent into the pyramid. (The high penalty match was #4 - can't find it on ustream for a link)

"not everyone reads the rules" - Sorry, but this is a cop out. We were all given the rules. We are all supposed to read them. If a team is out of dimensions, it doesn't pass inspection. Yes, it is unfortunate that the alliance partners get assessed the penalties too. All I can see, this increases the need for the experienced teams (like both of ours) to *talk* to our alliance partners to make sure they know the rules. Particularly the ones relating to the match strategy. Or any of the 3 coaches to notice the penalties and tell the driver to back off.

I'm sorry you feel "done with FIRST" after your team had such a great day. Your team fielded one of the best robots there if not the best. I hope they learned a lot. They inspired others. That is what FIRST is about. And mentoring for the matter. Granted, I'm thrilled we won - but that wasn't the most important thing to me that happened yesterday.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

How exactly was the blue alliance not penalized for ramming into 334's robot in the feeder station?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Was it the left or right feeder station? (driver pov)

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

While I am going to avoid any of the specific references brought up in the original post, I think it is worth addressing a couple of things related to the clarity of rules and their enforcement at events. Two things regularly stand out to me that perhaps merit some (re)consideration.

Referee Accountability
Let me preface this point by saying that I am eternally grateful to the myriad volunteers that make FIRST tick. The countless hours that are put in by people that give their time to the programme has a profound impact on its participants (me included).

The role of referee is amongst the most difficult to take on at a FIRST event. It takes time to prepare for the event before carrying out the various tasks in a high-energy, stressful environment. It is hard, often thankless, work that makes me admire referees tremendously for the work that they do.

That said, I think one must not ignore the fact that any role (as a volunteer or not) comes with responsibilities. It will not take you very many threads to find a reference to the fact that FIRST is very much a microcosm for the real world. In this real world, accountability for your actions is paramount and ignorance is not a passable excuse. There are plenty of other jobs that are screaming for your involvement if you do not quite have the time to dedicate to being a referee.

Yes referees are volunteers, yes they are human and will occasionally err as we all do, but that is not a get-out-of-jail-free card applicable to every situation. Let us find a way to hold our referees accountable so we do not hear complaints about referee rulings event after event, year after year.

Penalty Announcements
I would love to see penalty calls (and their rationale) explained by the head referee. As the field is reset there is often an opportunity to explain why a call has been made in a given match - there may only be time to explain why technical fouls are called, but something is better than nothing at all.

In my experience, as a score is read off by the announcer readying themselves to introduce the forthcoming match, on rare occasions references may be made to fouls assigned but almost never to why they were called. Perhaps this is to be expected: the announcer's role is keep the atmosphere of the event exciting, not to elucidate the minutiae of the rules.

Allowing the head referee a moment to announce any penalties and why they were enforced as they were would bring transparency to a generally murky realm. It would make clear to all teams at the event how the referee interprets the rules and what actions must be taken to avoid being penalised in the future while adding an element of accountability to the referee's actions.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm not sure this image contains enough context to make the sort of bright line rule assertion you want.

I assume R1 is driving back to the blue alliance side to shoot frisbees, but who knows. Is B2 lining up for a hang? lining up for a shot? Did B2's battery die and they are just sitting there?

The GDC has not clearly defined all corner cases with explicit examples. In fact, they have empowered the referees to use their discretion in a variety of situations.

So in the manual we have a two sentence description on blockading (G25) and in the Q&A we have all of ONE question on G25 (Q491). What is the answer?

Your assertion that 'some refs don't understand the proper meaning of the rule' seems like a hasty generalization to me. I would imagine they understand the rule but have made a judgement call that you disagree with. If you want more bright line rules go talk to the GDC, not the refs.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I recall in 2008 when there were always lots of penalties, the announcer often read the team number, followed by the rule number the penalty was assessed for (G22, G16, etc). Particularly rare calls were explained, at least in eliminations.

I think this should be standard operating procedure, as it clears up a lot of confusion and issues. It's the standard in other sports, like football, for the referee to state what the infraction was for and who it was on. In odd cases (such as 1pt safeties) they explain the full context of what happened and why it merited the call. I agree, at the very least the announcer should be told what rule was violated and who the penalty was assessed on for tech fouls. Especially in eliminations, the teams and spectators are owed at least that.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I was a ref at an event this weekend, and I have been a ref for a number of years. Before that, I was a student and a driver. I know what it's like to be on both sides. I will not comment on the specific call you refer to, it would not be appropriate, and I can only give a personal opinion and can not in any way speak for FIRST, FIRST policy, or for how rules will be implemented at future events.

I will give some personal observations.
1. There are 5 refs on the field, and 6 robots and 24 people who are all capable of causing a foul. Calls will be missed, and some wrong calls will be made. It is unfortunate but it is reality.

2. Some of the rules are subjective and will be enforced differently. Blockading is an extremely difficult rule to call, as is rule G-18-1. Rule G27 requires refs to determine the difference between consequential and inconsequential contact. If you have questions, talk to the head ref on Thursday and ask them to clarify for you their take on it.

3. Every ref I have worked with as a ref is 100% dedicated to getting calls right. No one takes mistakes lightly.

4. The field runs on an extremely tight schedule. In order to get 8 matches for every team there can only be a few minutes in between matches. There is no time to review video, and FIRST rules explicitly deny it. The head ref has a lot of responsibilities during that time, and the refs are busy making sure the field and robots for the next match are setup legally. Furthermore, the rules clearly state all questions must come from a student member of the team directly to the head ref.

5. In my opinion, the quality of the reffing at the events I have attended, from the time I was a driver to now, has consistently been improving.

If you want to help improve the quality of these events:
1. Know the rules and avoid situations that make it a judgement call. Talk to the teams on your alliance while in the queue and try to make sure they know the rules as well.
2. Ask questions, especially on Thursday when it's not as busy, before the situation arises.
3. Encourage as many people as possible to volunteer at regionals, especially people with previous FIRST experience. The wider the pool of volunteers, the better referee's will be.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Vague rules create situations like this. This situation and this topic are case in point as to why justifications like "common sense", "don't lawyer the rules", etc. etc. don't work. If the "blockading" rule is going to remain in the rulebook, it needs to be at a bare minimum clarified by examples, or else it will remain as it is now: it could theoretically be applied to any defensive effort by more than one robot, and no one knows where the line will be drawn.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The rankings are defined just like the robot rules. To shine in the competition implies ranking high. If teams do not rank high it says they are not excelling. Play the game as it is written NOT how you think it should be.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

A few thoughts:

If you have real issues with how events are refereed, the most direct solution is to volunteer as a referee. Be the new standard that all other refs will look to.

Just about all of us have been on the bad end of bad calls by referees in FIRST. It is also very likely that we have been on the "good" end of bad calls by referees (a glancing blow to a pyramid that wasn't noticed, etc.). Sometimes it seems things don't go your way so much that you develop a reputation. Believe me, I know what it is like to have "that talk" with a team all too well...
It is difficult, but it is what really makes a difference - a real difference.

As for the ranking system, the problem isn't so much that really good teams don't rank high (this is really rare), but the the alliance picking system places many, many teams in a "too good for a third pick" category. In many (most?) regionals now, the battle for the championship is between a handful of elite powerhouse teams who pair up and then look for a solid third pick. With all respect to those third picks, they are (because of the system) not generally among the top robots at the event. This places the robots in the 7th through 20th or so seedings (generally speaking) in a place where they almost never have a chance to form an alliance with a really competitive dominant team. There is a much better chance that a team in the lower ranks will be selected to round out those dominant alliances.

With the chance to participate in the Championship on the line, sometimes I ask "is this fair?" The clear answer is no. But then I realize that I've been drawn into the trap of thinking that this is about robots and scores and winning.

Reboot. Remember why we do what we do.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Ouch 694:

"Moreover, individual performance isn't exactly something you can judge quantitatively - e.g. how do you compare offense with defense? 3137 played fantastic defense throughout eliminations and were critical to our wins, but they didn't earn our alliance any actual points."

As the coach of 3171, I saw a consistent 30+ points each match by us. 18 auton, 10 hang and a few during tele when we were not defending. Should we deduct the 30 we did not score from the match totals??

Great alliance! Quick changes in strategy during the elims, called by 694 BTW, were critical to the success of the alliance.

Team connectivity and replays: all teams should be required to demonstrate updated software before going on the field for practice.
BTW have you ever tried to do an emergency fix on a problem with 2 people looking over your shoulder and stamping their feet? Now try it with 65 teams worth of people. Not an easy job for volunteers.

Losing the ability to use cameras during elims: We used 2. One to aim, one to spot disks for pick up. OUCH again.

Referees' calls: I was steamed. It appeared to me that there were at least 3 instances when we were on the pyramid and got whacked by an opposing alliance member. Once while we were attempting to hang (It bent our hanging hooks) No call on any of these instances. When questioned, the reply was: we did not see it. I am also of the opinion that student's efforts should not result in poor payback because of bad calls. BUT
Reality: The refs are human, and volunteers. It will happen. I needed to calm down. (my bad)

On rankings: Good scouting over rules ranking. Our scouting database results were consistent with most of the picks for alliances.

Again, thanks to all teams for their efforts, especially our alliance partners.
And thanks to all the volunteers that make this event a reality!

Team 3137 words of wisdom: There is plenty of time to to it right, but never enough time to do it over(especially during a 2:15 minute match)

Good luck all for the remainder of the season!

fsracer

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Interesting, I thought this was already the case. In fact, a random review of my match videos has the GA explaining the specific technical foul violation in every single one. (Sometimes the team number is omitted, particularly for very specific--e.g. human player violations--so as not to call out a specific student in front of a thousand people. However, my alliance has always been provided this information directly, at least if we ask.)

I've never had a question about why a technical foul occurred against my alliance in this year or previous ones where similar concepts existed. Sometimes the announcement has been omitted for whatever reason--usually coinciding with comm or scoring issues--but in 7 years and 11 different official venues, I've never encountered a situation in which a polite student in the Q box was not told the exact nature of challengable fouls. (Mentors not so much, but it's illegal and unprofessional for us mentors to be asking anyway.) This is not to say I always agree with the calls, but at least they're not a mystery. If this disclosure is not the case for everyone, I agree that should be remedied. I wonder why the discrepancy exists in the first place. What happens when a student politely questions the technical, and what does the head ref say when you request announcements at the driver's meeting?


As to G25, if you have a Q&A to ask, please do. The chances of rules getting clarified goes down significantly if you don't try.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Not sure exactly what you mean here with the ouch 694? Hope no one was offended by any of the posts by members of our team. I think the meaning here was that you can't rank a team purely on their scoring, because great defense and other factors are very difficult to quantify. 3137 gave us consistent 28 points in auto + climb, but they also robbed our opponents of a lot of points with their stingy defense.

With regards to penalties, learn the rules and have your scouts figure out how they are being called, you can argue till you are blue in the face. If you want your partners not to commit penalties, take the initiative to have them understand the rules and don't rely on them to have great knowledge going in. We have a list of rules and common penalties that we go over with all our partners before every single match no matter the partner, we even went over them with 375 who I believe has won NYC more times than any other team.

With regards to the semifinals, not pictured is 1635 hitting us in the protected zone almost every other time we went to the feeder station, these weren't all called but I'm pretty sure the fouls you are referring to in the disputed match were mostly that and 375 contacting our pyramid and our alliance. Just, because the call was not in your favor or in the stream does not mean it did should not have been called.

With blockading I interpreted the rules and I think the refs did as well, the way that blockading has been called in the past specifically in 2011. Two robots teaming up on one robot to stop them from crossing the field. In my mind this refers to only one lane or in front of the pyramid. 1 robot cannot stop a gap from existing in either of these 3 zones, 2 robots can, that is why the rule exists. 2 robots on opposite ends of the field cannot be evaluated as a blockade especially because that would mean that if one robot is on one side playing defense that means there is no way for their partner to enter the other side of the field because there is now no area they can cross without creating this interpretation of a blockade. Also the idea that if the robot can go under the pyramid or not has an effect on the call is pretty crazy. What if I have a robot that can go under but the bot breaks and is stuck in the above position? This is not only unfair because you have made a design choice around not being able to use this part of the field but is also up to the referee to evaluate if you can under the pyramid or not to see if you are being blockaded. To me the rule is pretty black and white. Two robots sitting in front of their opponent trying to stop them from getting somewhere is a blockade, everything else is just defense.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm sorry for not understanding, but what? How do you have a system where you earn $750 per match won? This seems very different from all sponsorship we have or I have veer heard of.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I believe he is dividing up the $5000 dollar entrance fee into the number of matches played. Depending on the number of matches played, a team pays roughly $500 - $750 dollars per match.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I believe he is saying that they're paying $6000 for a regional and they get 8 matches, so they're paying $750 per match to play.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Aah, thank you, I was very confused about that. However, are you really viewing the registration fee as paying for matches? I don't think that viewing 2 matches that were affected by a referee's decision as a complete waste is a good outlook on FIRST. Frankly, the referee's are just volunteers. If you are taking this so seriously that winning qualifying matches are that big of a deal to you, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

FIRST isn't about winning qualifying matches or even blue banners from the Championship. It's about inspiring science and technology in the youth. I guarantee that the kids on the team won't remember specific matches in anything other than a positive light several years from now. If they don't, they aren't doing FIRST for the right reason.

Please, can we stop complaining about the referees and the rules? GDC works hard to make these games every year. Just because something didn't go your way doesn't mean that it was a bad game. More often than not it was most likely actually your fault. No one is trying to "fix" FIRST matches. Let's stop acting like the referees are all wrong and that they are out to get you. 90% of the time the referee's make the correct call and when they don't it really doesn't matter.

Just my $0.02, sorry if it doesn't agree with yours.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I agree completely that matches are not fixed. Human error is at fault, not some conspiracy FIRST has planned against any individual team. The fact that 5 referees (at LSR) handled the entire event is still mind-boggling to me, and I know I certainly would have had an extremely difficult time in their shoes. Their sacrifice of time and effort is certainly much appreciated.

That being said, the registration costs are quite significant for most teams, and the students on ours raised every penny. While I disagree with the sentiment that losing the match is equivalent to wasting a portion of the payment, it is certainly disappointing to know that your ranking was determined by a decision beyond your control. Winning is still an important part of the competition after all. Just as athletes shed sweat and tears for the gold, FRC teams toil and labor for a blue banner. Inspiration from the process is certainly the most important, but it's awfully difficult to be motivated when your efforts may be rendered useless by the interpretation of a rule. I know certainly that there are still a few who laugh wistfully at our team's last match at SVR 2008.

There were two main issues I noticed. Firstly, results could not be challenged whatsoever. There is a question box for drive coaches to respectfully request review of the match. We were brushed off twice by the understandably busy head referee. There was a video recording on hand, but due to FIRST's rules, it could not be factored into the decision. It took a little while to shake off the disappointment, but we were fine after another match.

Secondly, the interpretation of rules varies a bit from competition to competition. For instance, fouls for contacting an opposing robot touching their pyramid was heavily enforced in certain Week 1 regionals, but was passed over multiple times during LSR.


Unfortunately, I criticize yet have no concrete solutions to offer. More in-depth training, a more specific rules manual and a greater number of referees would probably help, but how much would have to be seen. This has been an issue year after year, and while it has been getting better, an incorrect call still stings.

It would be wrong to pass over this flaw completely, but it is important to recognize that the referees are trying their best. So once again, I feel the need to thank the volunteers for their hours of service. They have an extremely difficult job, and every team appreciates their contributions to the regional.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm sorry, I think it's a pretty ridiculous stretch for you, a ref, or anyone else to say that essentially any 2v1 defense on a robot constitutes blockad[ing] the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. You can't just pull the word "blockading" out of that and treat that as the rule, and "stop[ping] one robot from crossing the field" does not, in my opinion, come close to meeting the actual definition of the rule, nor does anything that happened in that match. Would you honestly look at the rule the same way if it hadn't been your team that had benefited from that call?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Alright, I feel that this discussion is drawing towards it's natural conclusion.
I just wanted to summarize some of the things that I've seen repeated and that we can all agree on.

• Refs work hard and their job is very difficult. Yes, they are just volunteers. We greatly appreciate their work even though it often goes unthanked. However, this does not mean that they are always right. We would like to see more accountability in terms of decision making. Perhaps in the form of explanations of large penalties after every match and a more refined system for appeals.
• The GDC should work towards removing ambiguity in the rules. We understand that this is a difficult task, but a few more examples of blockades, etc. would have greatly benefited the competition. Try to explain rules, especially if they can be left open to interpretation.
• Field communications seem to be getting really wonky. Please look into better solutions than having every team disable their cameras.
• FIRST needs more volunteers. So go help out! I know I will be from now on.

Thank you everyone for your responses. A lot was clarified and many topics were illuminated. It was a great season for 334 and I am tremendously proud of all the students on the team. I hope that the season improves for later competitions in terms of uncontrollable issues and wish you all good luck. I know that I will be sticking around for a long time to come, likely as a volunteer as some of you suggested. 334 will definitely be back with a vengeance as the work for next year has already begun.

Once again. Thank you.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Maybe add pay attention at the driver's meeting. This is the place to find out the event ref's interpretation of the rules. Ask well thought out questions there. Listen to the answers.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

First, I'd like to thank all the judges, referees, and volunteers that I met and interacted with at the NYC regional. Second, I'd like to voice my concern over the communication errors that occurred during the elimination matches. I understand that having 65 teams continually shuffle through the field is difficult, but forcing teams to turn off their cameras in the finals wouldn't fly at most other regional competitions and definitely not at championships. Losing our Kinect feed completely crippled our ability to shoot.
More frustratingly, our robot lost communication during the teleop periods of our only elimination matches. Although the first couple of elimination matches were replayed, ours was not. Despite talking to some of the field management people, the ruling was never made and we were considered out without taking a single shot.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

"Firstly, the ranking system. This year's seemed to particularly wonky. At a regional as large as NYC, eight matches per team simply don't cut it. How can a robot's abilities be assessed fairly in comparison with the rest when it mathematically does not have the chance to play with/against every other team."

You are lucky that you get 8 matches. At the Seattle Regional which has almost the same number of teams, we have gotten as few as 6 matches each in the past.

I agree with what others are saying, if you want to have a more accurate ranking system, you would have to be paired with every single possible combination for both your own team and the teams that you are against. There is no feasible way to do this unless we were to stay at competition for days...
I believe that the majority of robots that deserve to be in the top are usually there, although sometimes it is a bit wacky as you said. But overall as a student that has been with FRC for six seasons, I feel like FIRST does a good job of setting up rules and ranking systems that work pretty well.

It is impossible to ask the VOLUNTEERING refs to do an even better job reffing than a team of football, basketball, soccer or hockey refs that are TRAINED and PAID PROFESSIONALS. I think that the refs do a pretty great job, and I am saying that after my team suffered from some hard debated calls last year at the Spokane regional. Nothing will ever be perfect dude.

If you have such an issue with it, don't participate in the program anymore. Maybe you should go out and start your own robotics competition that includes the things that you see "missing" from FIRST competitions.
Overall I do not see how you could have such grief over something that is supposed to be about learning. That is the whole point of FIRST. And sometimes students AND adults need to learn to accept defeat and BS that comes their way, which a situation like yours seems to have been a great opportunity.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I agree with your post, and will also point that bright lines are impossible. The more FIRST tries to draw lines in the sand, the more lines need to be drawn.

They will never be able to call out enough specifities in the rules to remove doubt. Considering that the refs have to learn a completely new game each year, the more simple and concise the rules are, the better. That means by necessity the refs will always have to make judgement calls.

I leave you with a perfect example. During the elimination rounds, a team (not one playing against us) hung. They continued to bounce their rear wheels off the ground through the end of the countdown after time had expired.

I asked the ref how he was calling it (in between matches when I was joking around with him) and he told me - if the bot is rocking and the wheels lifting off the ground, it's supported by pyramid and not the floor.

It's a judgement call, and I'll stand behind the refs when they make them, good or bad. We've certainly gone home disappointed a number of times directly connected to ref decisions. So have NFL, NBA, and NHL teams, and their games don't change each year.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Thanks for letting me know I wasn't doing FIRST for the right reasons when I was a student, I wish someone told me sooner.

Of course, the famous "let's blame the teams" response. This worked well on Einstein.

This is a great attitude! If you don't like a certain aspect of FIRST or something that happened to you at an event, you should go quit! (Sorry for blowing up everyone's sarcasm detectors.)

We had a post from a concerned FIRST participant who was unhappy with his experience at his event. Instead of listening to his concerns and trying to see where we can improve things, people feel the need to chastise him, tell him he doesn't understand FIRST, and that he should go quit and find another program. I can't believe that's what this forum has come to. If someone can't offer criticism of the program without having stones cast from the glass houses of the peanut gallery, there's no way we'll be able to keep the program growing and improving.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The best answer to these concerns isn't instant replay, a challenge system, or a 500 page rulebook.

It is a District-based competition model. NYC has 65 teams, each paying $5000+ for 8 matches. Not much space for growth, and a large number of teams are "one and done" participants whose 2013 season is now over.

A FiM/MAR model gives you more than twice as many matches per dollar (Minimum 24 matches, and two shots at making eliminations at small events rather than one in a larger crowd)...

1) It lessens the impact of an individual "bad call"

2) It gives ranking algorithms more samples so they can converge towards a true "top 8"

3) It necessarily results in more trained refs who get to experience more matches (and presumably get incrementally better as they do so)

Yes, losing because of a bad call sucks. It has happened to all of us at some point. How should we choose to react to it? Complaining on the internet is seldom the best way. Instead, understand why it happened and what can and can't be done about it. Funnel your frustration into motivation*.

* (I'd be willing to bet that the poster immediately above me was pretty freaking motivated going into their record-setting 2008 robot build after a frustrating end to their 2007 season)

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Better I think would be to participate more. Become a volunteer and try to improve what you see as deficiencies in the current volunteers' performance.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I am a Game Announcer at GSR, WPI, Boston, and Hartford this year.
I always try to announce and explain fouls, especially technicals fouls, who they were called on for affecting which Robot, and why.
This is very important to reduce question box activity, but also to explain to the audience and provide data for scouts.
This is discussed in our weekly conference calls with Blair.
We hope to improve on this in the upcoming weeks.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm glad someone else voiced this. I honestly thought I was screwing something up for myself and my students when I read that. There are some bad matches that are just plain unforgettable, especially when you're behind the glass with everything on the line.


I'd like to answer the OP, though I'm on a fine line (I was reffing the event, though the incident was caddy-corner to me and I did not witness it). Without discussing the call, I will say--in a statement that's biased more as a coach than as a ref anyway--that I don't believe the head ref's conversation was ungracious, if for no other reason than he was talking to a mentor, which he's not intended to do anyway. OP, I'm interested to know what happened when one of your students asked in the Question Box. If they did not receive a timely and correct answer, that's certainly something that can be changed.


I have no solutions to offer for the ranking system, though I will point out that the system is part of the game. Yes, there's luck in the schedule, but if you can't work with the ranking, you're not playing the game. We've been on the good and bad sides of this, and I have to say this year is among the most straight-forward years in recent history.

That said, I love the District Model's guaranteed 12 matches. Turnover is impossible sometimes, but it's serious bang for the buck. Finding a way to manage something like this in other places would be great, but I'm involved enough in MAR to know how challenging it is. Even just adding another field to Javtis requires significantly more volunteers and support.


Like others, I cannot see video replays happening. I wouldn't mind having a challenge flag that instituted some other yet undetermined review process, but I can't see an unbiased and cost-effective way to institute video reviews. Some events have enough trouble setting up video at all. And especially in this year's game, angle is everything. The view from my Week 1 driver's station* is entirely and utterly different from my Week 2 ref stand (despite running back and forth for both). It's really unlike anything I've played on in 8 years. You can probably find an angle to show anything this year. Take a stroll around the field--it might even tweak your strategy.

*...from whence I ranted silently about several 'blatant' missed fouls in a match we lost by 1 point. ...It goes both ways though: in Week 2, I got reamed by a coach that thought an opponent was hitting him in a hang, when in fact from the side it was clear his ally was the one in the way, and the opponent wasn't even in contact.


As for G25, I stand by my Q&A suggestion. I'd do it right now (and I will do it later), but I asked 5 of the last 7 and the GDC may or may not be ready to kick me. I'd suggest something about if blockading can mean 'robots-on-robot' or if it must be a 'zone defense' sort of thing (relative to impairing the field rather than a robot).

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Over the years, my team has been on both sides in matches - we've benefited from calls, and we've suffered. We've benefited from having good alliance members, and we've suffered from having bad ones. It's the nature of the game.

If you think losing a match for reasons beyond your control has an associated "cost" based on entry fee and number of matches played, then you're missing the point of FIRST. Yes, losing matches sucks. Yes, having it happen because of something you perceive as a bad call sucks. Yes, being ranked low because you were on the wrong end of the "alliance member coin flip" sucks. We've all been there. But whether you win or lose, it's not a question of monetary cost. You aren't paying for the individual matches. You're paying for the experience. You're paying for the privilege to work with professional mentors and to build something awesome. You're paying to show up and be inspired (and hopefully do some inspiring in return) by other teams.

When I talk with my students, I do my best not to let them dwell on a match. It's in the past. Look forward to the next match, or the next event, or the next season. Handle what is under your control, and strive for constant improvement. After it's all over, celebrate your successes, and the lessons that failure has taught you.

There's certainly room for a lively discussion on what can be done to improve the system we currently have - there always is, in every system. But please, through all of it try to remember why we're all here. It isn't just about the robot.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

We did not receive a timely reply at all. The only way my team found out about the foul was through one of the refs that knew our head mentor.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, I got that, but what actually happened in the question box? Did the head ref not come over, did he refuse to explain the rule violation, or what? The solution for the ref not coming over is entirely different from not explaining the violation when asked by the student, so more clarity is appreciated. (In other words, finish the story, "my driver stood in the question box ready to politely ask the cause of the technical foul, and...")

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

From my understanding, our alliance captain never received a reply. The match was already a replay and was marred by countless delays. I really don't know what happened. We asked a number of refs until we received an answer. I was with the alliance captain when talking to the head ref, after knowing the source of the violation. He refused to view our complaint since it was too late. 1635 would know better than I do. The entire situation was hectic.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I was actually a Ref at this event and the one who found out the penalty for you. Your head mentor is my old head mentor.

Believe me when I say the referees at this event disputed over the interpretation of G25. We discussed it even prior to this match but ultimately, it comes down to the head referee's decision, whether we agree with it or not. We have to try to be consistent with each other and refs from other events.

We all have a heart and really don't want to see anyone go home based on a "bad call" or missing something. If we saw it, we called it. There are only 5 referees watching the field at a time, 6 robots, 24+ teams members, media people in our way (despite telling them to move), and lots of other variables. I'm not trying to make excuses but paint a picture. We can't possibly see everything all the time, just like any other sporting event.

The panels the refs use to input fouls only shows what is put in by that particular ref, it doesn't show what penalties other refs have put in. The walkies are only so much help when you're in a packed arena of screaming people. It's not until we meet after and try to clarify what we've called after that everything is clear. While we're doing this we are also making sure two refs didn't call the same penalty, confirming climbs, trying to get a green light, confirming the score, and in NYC, deal with field issues.

We can call agree some reforms should be made however, as a referee I would like to make some observations.
KNOW THE RULES. All of your drivers and driver coaches should be very familiar with the game manual. There were SO many teams that didn't take advantage of the manual strategically and received penalties simply for not knowing they couldn't do something.

I'm VERY sorry that your season ended this way and I know saying "It's the nature of the game" doesn't help, but it's true.

Shout out to 334 and 1635
 

I'm really late on posting to this thread, but I have been following it. I'm the driver for team 375, and honestly felt the same when reading the begining of this thread. However, I realized that there isnt much we can do. Believe me, being the driver during that match, you can imagine how upset I was at the outcome. Especially knowing that NYC was techknights only regional, I felt particularly bad. It took a while to calm down over the bad call and all that, but once I did, I realized something that the entirety of 334 and 1635 should know. We played an awesome game. Im honored to say that I was able to play alongside you two teams. 334, your robots efficiency, speed, and maneuverability, as well as your unmatched ability to score was an amazing thing to watch. 1635, your powerful drive train, strong defense, amazing strategy and all around excellent driving helped our score soar past the other alliance. Ive watched this match many times, and Im proud to say that we delivered by far the best show during the whole event. Between the lighting fast scoring cycles of us and TechKnigths, the unstoppable defense of Technotics, and the great communication and support between the three of us, I think we were more successful than anyone else out there.We may not have won, but before the penalty, we saw the score, and we should all feel very proud. If it wasnt for your guys amazing and fast help during our between match radio wiring fiasco, my team might not have made it out there at all. Id like to extend a thank you from team 375 to both of you guys, for not only being amazing alliance partners, but being amazing teams over all. We all built great machines, played hard, and scored high. Thats what FIRST is all about. Team 375 knows what kind of team you guys are: the kind that works hard, plays hard, cheers hard, and does it all with a gracious professionalism not often seen during a time as intense as a semi-final tie breaker. Our season isnt over yet, and we plan on taking home the gold. With the confidence that comes along with knowing you played with 334 and 1635, no penalty can stand in our way, and we hope that you guys take that confidence with you too. Your entire teams should feel very proud, because if they are like me, every time they watch that match, although the end wasnt expected, our performance brings a smile to my face.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The comment I made about quitting was actually meant to be sarcastic. I am sorry that it did not translate that way when you read it! I will work on my cyberspace sarcasm....::rtm::

I do not think that we are necessarily "chastising him", for in Alex's opening thread he said,
All the replies I have read have varied from agreement to stark disagreement. We are all just doing what he asked, stating our opinions. There were a few comments that seemed a bit harsh, like my accidentally not so sarcastic remark, but overall I think that Alex has received the comments he asked for. (Correct me if I'm wrong Alex!)
Overall you can not control how people will react to a strongly opinionated post, so Alex probably knew that there would be people who disagreed with him, because there are always two sides to an argument.
From a student's stand point this type of discussion is very interesting even if I strongly disagree. Seeing everyone's comments and opinions whether they agree with me or not is a great way to practice for the real world. I bet you that not everyone agreed with things that Dean Kamen first proposed, and in the field of STEM, that is happening every day. It is good for us youngsters to be exposed to this sort of argument so that we can be better equipped for the future.
I believe that this type of discussion is the way to make the program grow. People become passionate when they argue, and passion will drive someone or a group of people to action, to fix a problem that they might see.

I am not sorry for having my opinions and for stating them, but I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings in the process. That was never my intention! :]

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I'm a little surprised that we didn't receive any info on the stuff discussed in this thread in the update from today.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I dont think FIRST is going to touch this topic very much. Its not something that can be discussed easily. In the update you can see that an indirect reference was made to NYC regional problems, to be more specific the bandwidth issues with the field and cameras. A c++ update was released with fixes to the smartdash, which is where my team noticed trouble when we were on the field. After reading the updates I can conclude that FIRST will try to resolve the issue without actually bringing it up. That is just my opinion i can be wrong.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

That particular problem was in no way limited to NYC, though it was uncommonly bad there. (Actually, the G25 interpretations also weren't NYC-limited.) As to the others, I suspect the 'turn off your dashboard' will be unannounced, but it'd be nice if they could publicly standardize disc placement and feeder station procedure.

As for G25, I've put in a Q&A, Q577. I suspect it'll take some follow-ups to edge anything but "Reasonably Astute Observer" out of the GDC. (Entirely unfair, as Head Refs are more than reasonably astute and they obviously disagree about this.)

Does G25 have the potential to apply (at the referees' discretion) to all types of 2-on-1 defense, or is the intent limited to field-centric blocks? Could intentionally impeding 1 robot with 2 defenders qualify as blockading if no other match flow is stopped?