Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

I think what they're referring to is the fact that for things like auto scoring and end game scoring, the ref panels across from each other have to match, that way you don't have doubled scoring or incorrect scoring.
The only thing that multiple refs on a single panel would work for is most fouls.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

I thought I would clarify this one since I hadn't worded it the best, and it might be causing some confusion. Here is an example of the situation I was trying to describe:
3 red robots are in the neutral zone, all are in the process of crossing a defense. To my knowledge, with the current "zone" system of refereeing, 2 referees would likely be watching them, and each would have a panel to input the crossings. With the "man-to-robot" system, there will still be 3 robots to watch and 2 panels to input crossings, but there will be 3 referees instead of 2 watching.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

From what I've seen, especially this season, the refs spend almost as much time looking at those panels as they do watching the match. With a game this complicated, I'm sure those tablets aren't the most user-friendly thing around, and based on the FMS issues I've seen, I'd assume they're very, very laggy. Maybe some improvements to the FMS is really all that's needed. With the amount of training FRC refs get, the refs themselves can't be the only issue.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

I do greatly hope that you know what happens when you assume. (Note that I don't assume that you know...)

Trust me, the lag was 10x worse in 2014. Lag this year is maybe 1 second for a defense crossing, less for most other things. Probably the vast majority of problems are when something happens and one or more tablets drop out. (3 field faults I've seen first-hand--of 4--were one or more tablets throwing a hissy fit.) Again, this is something that if you don't have experience, you're better off saying that you don't, because then folks know just how much salt is needed. For most refs, it's a quick look to make sure they hit the right button, then hit the right button and be looking at the field.

However, you're right about the refs not being the only issue. There's some defenses that are just there to be hard to see past...

Also, Caleb, this is something that would take some time to go into, and I'm not entirely sure I'm supposed to do that at this point in time. Suffice it to say that the refs operate two to a zone, but it's a floating zone based on what's going on for at least a couple of refs (as in, refs can flex). Focus: POINTS. Not fouls, POINTS. You want us to focus on fouls, beg the GDC to go back to games using end-of-match status as the score and bring back scorekeepers.

The fact that you're trying to change a system that you admit to knowing very little about means that people who DO know the system--and know it well--will be all over you about how you don't know the system. Note that I'm trying to help you understand the system a little bit. But I do think that you should look at the system first. Ask your local offseason--they're more lenient on who can ref than the regionals are, at least sometimes. Maybe ask the head ref at your next event if you can shadow one ref or another for a couple of matches--not sure if they'd allow that, but it might be worth a shot.

And, like Donut, I've been pulled in late at events. For one, I was the #7 ref filling in for someone who was in the ER (and got called in at literally the last possible minute). For another, I was #6--we needed 7, and couldn't find anybody. (7 is for a fresh ref every few matches so refs can take a break.) BTW, one of those refs is the head ref, who has to keep an eye on the whole field as best he can, and doesn't get much of a break. Sure wish we had an extensive ref network out here...

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

Thank you, that is exactly what I was going for.

I agree that this is something that would (and should) take some time to transition into if we wanted to use this system. I'm not even convinced that this system is superior, I'm just trying to float ideas out in the hopes that the system can generally be improved.

Thank you for this clarification. This is roughly how I have always observed the referees to operate. The focus should be on points, not fouls. I have not said anything to the contrary.

I respect that others know more about the current arrangement than I do, I'm not trying to imply that I know their jobs better than them. I aired this suggestion so that we could start a conversation on potential ways to, among other things, make life easier on the referees. I directly asked for input from current/former referees to help the discussion along, I thought that was a clear enough deference to people with experience, but I guess I'll have to be more clear next time.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

Constantly running up and down one side of the field would be difficult enough but if the robot cycling by going from one corner to the opposite corner, it would be almost impossible for the Referee to keep up with it and their view of the robot would be worse than it is now. If the Refs have to go behind the Driver Stations to get to the other side of the field, they will lose sight of the field and could get tripped up by all the activity happening behind the Driver Station (this would have been really bad in 2014 and 2015). It would also take a Referee who was very physically fit to keep running back and forth all day long. This would greatly reduce the pool of potential volunteers.

For this to work, the Referees would have to be stationed on tall chairs (like those at tennis tournaments) so that they have an adequate view of the field without running around.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

How to best utilize referees is certainly an interesting discussion, and there is no "right" answer.

First it is critical to understand that what works well one year will not work with other years. For example, take the proposal that each ref is assigned to a single robot and apply it to Recycle Rush. Robot A makes a stack of 6 totes plus a recycling container, then 2 minutes later Robot B knocks the stack over. Ref A (assigned to Robot A) properly records the stack. When the stack is knocked over, does Ref A have to remember that the stack was created by "his" robot? Does Ref B just have a button to decrement the score if "his" robot knocks a stack over? What if the stack just falls over on its own? Clearly robot-based ref assignment would have been problematic.

As evanperryg touched on, UX is also a huge concern (and one that the folks at HQ actually think about a lot). Buttons need to be big enough that the refs can easily hit the right one without hunting and pecking. There also needs to be sufficient information on screen to verify the current state of the match.

If refs were to be assigned to individual robots, here's a rough list of things that they would need to see on screen (just during teleop):

• The number and color of the robot they the ref is assigned to (because this changes in every one of the 60+ matches)
• Fouls and technical fouls assigned to that robot
• Representation of each of the 5 defenses- what the defense is, how many times the robot has crossed it
• Scaling/challenging status

If we are operating under the assumption that the refs would also be moving around the field to see "their" robot, you have to multiply this information for each panel each ref might run over to (let's be nice and assume that three refs per side stay on their side of the field, so only this x3). This also makes my first bullet a bit more complicated.

Not saying it's impossible or a bad idea, just that it is complicated.

If anyone is around for setup day at an event, ask your FTA if you can check out the ref panels while they are testing the field. It will give you pretty good perspective on how they currently work.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

Yes, I've had the "assume" thing banged into my head for years :D it's good to hear this kind of thing from an actual ref, gives us a much better perspective on what problems there actually are with the current referee setup. Sounds like the logistics of refereeing can get out of hand very easily.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

Just got around to fully reading this. It's actually 1 ref entering the crossings. But in that situation, there'll probably be 4 refs using at least peripheral vision if not focusing. Maybe 3 if the other side of the field has the same situation.