Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

Do you not think that it's entirely possible they got hung up on that boulder BECAUSE they couldn't use the field space being occupied by the damaged field element to make their way back to their batter??? They certainly knew trying to just drive over that Divider wall would be impossible so they had little choice but to take the route over the boulder.

Then, after struggling with that initial situation, following events are irrelevant as they likely wouldn't have played out in that same way had they not lost all the time fighting with the initial boulder.

I see this just like many sporting events where events occurring after some "critical play" in a game could NEVER be assumed to have occurred in the same way had that initial "critical play" turned out differently.

With even a few extra seconds, 1477 surely wouldn't have felt the need to make a break through the secret passage to get back to the batter.

Field Faults were called throughout the season for MUCH less impactful Outerworks failures...I don't see why one wasn't called here.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

This. 100 times over - this.

I try to explain to my students the difficulty of being an official every season (and for every sport I coach). There is a progression of sorts and each level the task becomes much more difficult. For me and through my own experiences, it is difficult to continue play as a contestant at a very high level (Elims/CMPs); more difficult to coach or mentor at this level; and at the top - officiating.

I understand that people get upset and yes I understand some of the decisions (or nondecisions) made by these people do impact the outcome of matches/seasons (hmm-hmm 2014 NorthStar Semi-finals). But if this is a constant concern and you do feel that strongly that things should be done better - well, then step up and do it.

I am off my soapbox now.

Champs was an incredible experience and I hope all that attended were able to grow themselves and grow their program.

Great season everyone!

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

This is a common circlejerk that I see being posted whenever anyone criticizes the quality of refereeing that occurred this year (and is quite frankly the definition of a straw man fallacy). It's entirely illogical. All because someone feels the quality of refereeing this year wasn't exactly exemplary doesn't mean they have no respect for the hard work put in by referees.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

I certainly believe it's possible. They likely would have had an easier time avoiding the boulder. They also had plenty of time once clearing the boulder to cross any of the defenses.

I'm not suggesting it's ideal. I'm just pointing out there's a lot more to it than simply "the piece fell off. They lost because of that. It was a terrible call." That seems to be the sentiment of several posters here. I was a bit surprised initially. But, I can see both sides and think it's a bit harsh to call out the refs with a tagline such as "poor calling" when really it fits within the rule. That said, I don't believe 1477 drove poorly. I used that statement as an example to show that it'd be wrong to make that claim just as it's not right to create the title we have for this thread. We wouldn't want to say the first. So, why are we so quick to agree with the second?

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

Publicly dissing the refs' calls is most likely a very major reason why refs are so hard to find. 2014 was a stressful year for refs; quite a few did not return. 2016 scared off potential refs!

Let me put it this way: If you know the rules better than the refs, then you're probably needed on the ref crew. If you think your judgment is better than the refs' judgment, you're probably needed on the ref crew. I understand that you think that "the quality isn't up to par" != "no respect", and I agree with that, BUT, 90+% of the time, it's expressed as "The refs screwed up, and it cost us the match!!11!" That's not exactly showing respect for the refs and their hard work! Which is why, almost every time this comes up, the response from the refs (and, in this case, a Volunteer Coordinator who has to RECRUIT them) is, "if you don't like the reffing, come on down and join us!"


And, in all seriousness, we need more refs anyways. Gotta replace all the ones that got scared off by Stronghold, and allow for more expansion...

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

I would just like to highlight another problem that has not been mentioned in the video. Time stamps refer to video linked above.

At 0:40 seconds (117 left in the match) 4678 bumps the sally port on the way back through it and knocks the panel out of place. For the remainder of the match the 67 human player has to be careful when bowling because the panel partially blocks the secret passage. The location of all balls passing through the secret passage for the entire match were influenced by that panel blocking the passage. At 1:51 a boulder is rolled and hits the divider when it would otherwise not of. This ball rolls back into the secret passage. The next ball bowled hits that ball and goes right into the courtyard. Code Orange scores both balls. The fact that it was not pulled off completely until the end by 1477 is not the only impact it had on the match.

I was not able to listen to what our driver said to the head ref or the explanation that followed. Either way I am proud of how she, and the rest of our team, handled the situation. We had a great season and a fun time at champs.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

It really can't. They started taking the rock wall route. After struggling there, they pulled back and went through the secret passage. We can say they typically don't have any issues getting over it. But, we saw this time giving them issues and cannot reasonably say it's guaranteed they'd have been successful.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

If we're being fair, your argument is far more of a straw man fallacy. Their post never claimed the original poster didn't have any respect for the referees. They said the poster should volunteer to ref if they don't believe the quality this year was up to a standard they could provide. That's the exact argument. "Quality of refereeing." Jumping into a debate as to whether or not that means they don't have respect for the referees work is building up the straw man to argue against.

I've been one of the more vocal on the side of "this might be a bit harsh" in this discussion. Yet, I don't think anyone on the other side doesn't have respect for the time the referees put into the event. They're just voicing frustration about specific decisions in a way that's harsher than needed. The general tone of the posts suggests they respect the volunteer staff. There's no need to suggest they believe otherwise.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

This. I'm not going to comment on stepping up to ref if you think you can do better. What I will say is that this year's game was HARD to ref. Even refs had things they wished were different. I dare say that some refs actively avoid CMP because of the chances of ending up being talked about in a thread like this one.

OP was very GP and just wanted confirmation for what they thought should have happened. The post I have a problem with is the one immediately following.

Yes, the match should have been replayed. No, I don't have a reason for why it wasn't, and I wasn't there so I don't know what was going on that would have caused them not to replay it.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

Could the reffing inconsistently at champs be the result of many refs at champs being head refs at their regional at district events? They weren't nessasarily part of the ref rotations or have practice doing all the crossings. I know I knew all the rules with relation to crossing but I struggled the first day at regionals reffing mostly because of the tablet. That being said, the calls on Carver seemed pretty solid all weekend from what I saw.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

I never stated anything about respect, and my post was actually extremely logical.

I actually do believe that we sometimes have poor quality ref situations. That is one reason why I love being a volunteer coordinator: so that I can help improve the system by recruiting new refs.

Don't like it? Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Complaining in public forums contributes to the problem, by making it difficult to recruit new and improved refs.

Re: Poor calling by refs Newton Subdivision SF2 M2
 

I love analyzing match videos, so I’m going to give my input about why I believe that this match shouldn’t have been replayed.

First off, I think we can rule out the claim that the dislodged shield interfered directly with 1477's robot. At around 77 seconds left in the match, 1477 picked up a boulder and held on to it for the rest of the time they were defending their courtyard. When they left their courtyard, if you slow it down with around 20 seconds remaining, you can see that when they hit the secret passage berms the boulder fell from their robot and became stuck under their frame. It seems pretty clear from the slow-motion that it was NOT the shield that caused the boulder to become dislodged. In fact, 1477 does even make any significant contact with the shield after it has come loose. After 1477 got off of that boulder, they became stuck on another boulder while trying to cross the outerworks. There is no indication from this video angle that the shield had any material impact on 1477 becoming stuck on either boulder or preventing them from making it to their batter.

There are also minor arguments like after 1477 got off the boulder they had to go around the fallen shield which slowed them down. I would counter this by saying that once they got off the boulder it was left directly in front of their robot. Even if the shield wasn't there, they could either go around the boulder or risk getting stuck on it again.

That leaves what I believe is the only major argument (which was already mentioned above) that the shield hindered the returning of the boulders by the human player. While a boulder does hit the protruding shield (47 seconds) and another boulder hits that one (44 seconds), only one of those boulders was scored by the red alliance. The 2nd boulder was picked up (23 seconds) and scored by 67 on the blue alliance. That other boulder that 3476 picked up (27 seconds) looked to have gotten there by a bad throw of the human player, not because of the shield as the person above suggested. So, did that single boulder (the first one) change the outcome of the match? I think that it is unlikely. Even if the red alliance didn’t get that “unfair” boulder, they had multiple extra they could’ve used on that side of the field instead.

To conclude, this situation was looks extremely close to being a field fault and it could have easily been a field fault if any of numerous situations had occurred (like the robot becoming stuck on the shield, the shield dislodging earlier, a robot tried to cross that defense). Though, from my review, I don’t feel like the shield had any material impact on the game which is why I think the call seemed reasonable.

Wow, that was a lot. Time to go back to studying :)