![]() |
Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Every year, with every game, it seems that the referees implement a "zone" refereeing style. That is, referees are assigned specific sections of the field and watch for penalties and/or points scored in this section of the field. Is this style the best use of referees? Or can we do better.
What if each referee, instead of being assigned portions of the field, were instead assigned to a particular robot. That referee would then be responsible for calling fouls on that particular robot, and granting points for things like crossings. Man-to-robot refereeing instead of zone refereeing. Benefits include:
I'm interested in thoughts on this system, particularly those of current or former referees. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Seems like an interesting thought. What if the refs just did all their scoring on tablets that they hold all match? That way, their panel will always be in front of them no matter they move, if they're assigned to a particular robot. Doesn't FRC always use tablets for field diagnostics anyway? Sounds like a cool discussion to have :)
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Read what EricH wrote, and do that. It's clear you've never volunteered as a referee.
Try being one and then you could have the credibility to comment. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
A couple notes --
- if red 1 pins blue 1, who puts in the foul? red 1 ref or blue 1 ref? - since refs have been heavily involved in scoring in recent years, how do you propose they do verification checks? (exe: refs have to agree/match on challenges/scales this year for the score to be finalized) - moving around to follow a robot is the biggest issue I see with this (tablets could be a solution, but they're not exactly comfortable to hold in a useful position for 8+ hours a day) other than that, I readily agree with changing up the ref style, or maybe creating a position that is the scorekeeper on the field, so refs can focus on penalties and not things like crossings |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
I'm a little worried commenting on this thread since I've never been a ref before, but I think there is a reason nearly all FRC teams do a 'man to man' scouting approach other than a 'zone' like the refs do. I know they aren't the same thing, but I do think there is some validity to the idea.
I think it is great that some are taking time to think and carefully lay out a potential improvement other than just making another the same lazy post about how instant replay will fix everything. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
I can tell you the Match Observer judges typically[1] take a zone approach but unlike refs they can fairly quickly focus down on teams given feedback from other judges as well as their own intuition. -S [1] MO's tend to be given a lot of latitude on how to do their job. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
The entire original post seems to be talking about the system the referees operate under, how to improve it, and how to potentially help and make the referees' lives easier. If we want to prevent future issues from happening, and YES issues are happening this year, we have to be much more open to ideas from everyone.
Why do the referees have to be the only ones who can suggest ways to referee? In regards to the suggested Ref to Robot style refereeing, the only issue I have with it upon first glance is vision. If the drive teams this year are throwing up 30' poles to watch their robots, the referees are going to have very broken vision as well. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
Judges are important, but I don't really think you can equate judging with reffing in this case. Also, judges don't have to talk to students about why they did or didn't get an award, so there's a lot less fallout from calling something incorrectly, or being mistaken. In response to other people - I disagree that people who haven't been a ref can't voice an opinion or solution, but I do think that those people should ask more questions first and be aware that the grass is always greener until you're standing on it. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
On the note of tablets, I'm concerned about wireless interference given how many comms issues already occur for teams, and a wired tablet would be a tripping hazard. I would however like to see the time sensitivity on the current screen buttons adjusted, as there were times where I and others have attempted to push a button but not had it register. Not sure if FIRST uses the default settings for button sensitivity or has actually tested the timing settings but it is a pretty easy change to make for next year's displays. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
If I got something drastically wrong in my analysis of how the referees currently operate, I would appreciate someone explaining what I missed. |
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
I don't think there is an easy solution to making ref calls more reliable. At least not with the current number of refs most events are able to get. Of course, all of these statements can be changed easily, but you'll lose other things. Want an exciting complicated game? - refs will be less reliable Want reliable refs? - game will be more like Recycle Rush Want both? - get more volunteers, or be okay with a much simpler game |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi