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:

• Referees' time is used more efficiently. I have seen matches where two or more referees are idle for long periods of time while robots are in other zones. With this method, all referees would be contributing to the refereeing effort for the entire match.
  
• Along with the above, referees will probably be less likely to miss calls or crossings because there are an overwhelming number of robots in their zone.
  
• Teams could know which referee is "theirs" for the match, and will more easily recognize when their team is the one being penalized.

Drawbacks include:

• May require more referees. Most events presently have 5 or 6 referees, while this arrangement would require 6 or 7 referees.
  
• Referees would need to move around more, which is often difficult because the area near the field is quite cramped at some venues.
  
• Viewing angles may be sub-optimal. With one ref on each side of each zone, at least one ref will always have a good viewing perspective on anything that happens.
  
• Inputting fouls and crossings could potentially be difficult if 2+ referees need access to the same input panel. However, 2 referees watching 2 robots and inputting into 1 panel could still be superior to the current system, where 1 referee watches 2 robots and inputs into 1 panel.

I'm interested in thoughts on this system, particularly those of current or former referees.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

Thought: I'm not sure you understand the current system correctly. Watch the referees at your next event and see what they're looking at. It will help you immensely.

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
 

This doesnt mean he should not be able express his thoughts.

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
 

Ok Don, I'm gonna ask for an explanation. My role typically has me doing other things during matches and I don't have time to play a game of "watch the refs" so I'd appreciate if you'd humor me.

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
 

When it comes to technical discussion of the act of refereeing, it means his comments should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

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
 

Uhh, is this because the Judges don't really need to know all the minute details of the rules and be able to asses and apply them at a moment's notice?

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
 

These two pretty much make a change like that a non-starter. I would run into my fellow refs if I had to follow a team around the field, looking at a zone allows you to focus on one area and certain penalties for that area. Also the two events I have been a referee at the last two years had to pull in at least one referee last second (two weeks or less notice) just to get to 6, we'd be more short with 7 needed.

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
 

Im very aware of this. Hence why I said "UNLIKE Refs". I was merely providing a point of reference to other folks for groups that do use zone scouting and why it was effective for that group. I don't propose refs do this in any way shape or form. Frankly judges miss a ton of stuff but because they are only watching to validate claims made by teams they can afford to without it impacting their job.

Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
 

I don't believe that being a referee is a necessary criterion to comment on how referees operate, but apparently you do. That is fine, just be careful that you don't comment on how US presidents operate until you have been a US president.


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
 

my mistake. I misinterpreted what you wrote!
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

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.