The refs should know the rules, shouldn't they?
 

Okay...here's the situation. . . .keep in mind, there's nothing personal against the teams involved...I quite like them both.

During the quarterfinals, we (810) were in an alliance competing against 340, 639, and another robot who's number escapes me.

The first round of three, we won. The opposing alliance was 340 and 639.
The second match, we lost, but the opposing alliance played with 340 and 639 again! I was pretty sure this was wrong.

Now, rule T11, reads, "Each team in an alliance must compete in at least one match in each series."

My interpretation of this rule went like this -

You're only assured two rounds. There exists every possibility that a team can win in two rounds. As such, to satisfy the wording of the above rule, a team must be switched out of both alliances.

I brought this to the head refs attention, and received the runaround, basically. They reasoned that, if the second alliance lost again, they would've been in violation of rule T11, and be DQ'd. But, it was academic, because they'd already lost. If they won, there would be three matches, and they'd be forced to switch out a robot in the third match.

I argued that this, while fair to the 340/639 alliance, may put our alliance at a disadvantage. It does have an affect on our strategy. Particularly, though we won the first match against that pair, it was very close. Close enough, in fact, that we lost the second match. That may not have happened were they to switch out a robot as we were required to.

After about ten minutes of rather unsuccessfully trying to get the ref. to see my point, I was, essentially, dismissed. In essence, I was told that there was a change in one of the team updates. I didn't have the updates handy, so I couldn't produce this change. As such, my concern was promptly ignored.

Now, the main I have. . . I came home tonight and double checked for this update, just to see if I was mistaken about my inclination.

The update reads, "The following text is added after the first sentence of T11: 'Therefore, the team that did not compete in the first match of a series should compete in the second match of the series.'"

So, not only was my interpretation correct, but it was clarified in a team update.

Why, then, was I given the runaround, and ultimately told that the ruling was something totally contradictory to what it really is?

I understand they're human, and they make mistakes. I think I made a good case for myself, and I think that the whole situation was handled poorly. In the end, it became irrelevant as we won the third match. But, I thought that this may happen again, and so I wanted to bring it up here.

M~
I agree that the refs were mistaken about the rule. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they are the refs, and if they make a wrong call, then guess what, they're right no matter how well you argue their reasoning. Still, i hope that there are referees reading this right now. Hopefully this doesn't happen again at one of the other regionals.

On the same lines, is there any way for people to send a message directly to the referees between comps, and that referees could message directly among themselves, so that we can prevent the same things happening over and over again. It seems like that would help a whole lot.
pp2lfunC,
Amy

Like I said. . .I understand they're human, and I certainly wouldn't fault them for a judgement call. That is, whether or not something was entangled, or if a robot was in the endzone. This, though, is *not* a judgement call. This is plain and simple, black and white rules sorts of things.

I was just a little disappointed in the way I was treated, and I just wanted to make others aware of the discrepancy so they can look out for it in the future.

After all, if I expected them to be perfect, I should've known what the update said without having to come home, right?

Yeah, I hear you on the referee runaround bit. If you look at the post "Controversy at Rutgers," we got runaround from refs on a bad call. There should definitely be some widespread consistency. I don't know what, but something. Maybe I'm mistaken - please correct me if so.

Chris

I posted about this, because after watching the Buckeye Regional, I noticed they had done the same thing there. In Buckeye, they were making the winning team switch, not the losing (of the first match).

I shouldn't say they.... that's what the announcer kept repeating, I don't know what kind of enforcing, if any, was occuring.

In VCU, we played by the written rules.. expecting to see the same in San Jose.

In both the Buckeye and the Great Lakes, it was announced that only the alliance that won the match would have to put in the third robot for the next match. And that's the way it was played.

I agree
 

I do agree that the refs should have made the teams switch out. At Lonestar I saw the teams switch out everytime in the finals. I even saw an alliance get Disqualified for having an extra person in the alliance station! So that shows that they are paying attention to small stuff like that. I also wonder, where do the refs come from and what are they required to do before becoming refs. I know at Lonestar the announcer said something about taking off their job at footlocker. I don't know if he was serious or joking. But I think the refs should be required to study the game rules more than once and have a quiz on the game just to make sure they know what they are doing. Hopefully this won't happen at nats. Good Luck everyone!!:)

While sitting in the stands watching finals I was surprised like you were Michael to see both my team and 340 taking the field for the second consecutive match. I had been under the impression that you must switch as well. However the refs did explicitly announce that you only need to switch if the alliance wins. As long as they're consistant I guess it's alright.

Congratulations on a good matchup!

- Patrick

It seems to me that there have been many many many complaints about referee's calls, and their deviance from the rulebook and updates. Did anything similar happen last year, or the year before? or is it unique to this game?
I am curioius to know if this is a regular thing that I should look forward to for next year as well ;)

As "Chief's Dad" posted earlier, At both the Buckeye and Great Lakes Regionals ONLY the winning alliance had to swap a member out. Sure wish there was someway of knowing if this is the correct or incorrect practice. Maybe it was interpretted incorrectly at those 2 and evryone else was right?? Who knows for sure??? Maybe we can compile How rule T11 was interpreted at each regional and ask for clarification before we all get to nationals - I think we are looking for consistancy and understanding regarding this rule. FIRST owes us that much.

all the referees are volunteers. they do not always know the rules. Our team, 365, was concerned about the entanglement rule, so we sent a representative to make sure the refs knew it. If you are concerened, i suggest you do thesame at your next competition. But do it in a nice way, screamng at the refs will get you nowhere

Forgive me, then, but why are they refs!? The refs at basketball game know the rules. The refs at a hockey game know the rules.

Anyway, after the update, the rules reads, "Each team in an alliance must compete in at least one match in each series . . . Therefore, the team that did not compete in the first match of a series should compete in the second match of the series."

While I agree the original wording could be ambiguous, the new wording is most certainly not.

If an announcement is made that indicates a change in a rule, at least it should be consistent from one regional to the next. In this case, though, it seems as if the announcement was made without regard to the actual rule, and rather as a clarification of what the referee's assumed to be true.

Either way, I'd just like to know which way it'll be for Nationals.

In the 639 pit we too were suprised to be put out 2 rounds in a row, but we checked it with the refs and they ok'ed it, the announcer even said that only the winning team has to rotate their robots.

I think one reason you may have been unsuccessful was the attitude you took towards the judges. When a judge says no thats it- NO, you don't continue yelling and argueing (I don't know if you relized it, but you were).

Another rule says that all of the refs decisions are final, the fact we were legally checked in and on the field was enough to make it legal.

It was confusing for us too, we were told by our alliance captain to go on, we checked with the refs to make sure it was ok, we went out. You guys played a great game- that first match was really close.

Greg

For me, this is a confusing issue. While I understand the need for a referee's ruling to be final, in this instance, it's absolutely clear that they were disregarding published rules regarding the game. Further, by pointing me toward a team update that corroborated *my* argument shows that they were ill prepared and unaware of the rules. To that effect, while I may have been a bit emphatic (my team had a long, long day), I don't think I was wrong to pursue the issue.

Again, it's nothing personal against your alliance, and we did play an awesome set of matches.

This was less about the outcome of the match and more about getting a consistent ruling that matches the rules. If it's an official rule change, make it official, and adopt it at every regional. If it's not, the referees need to be better informed of the rules. This year, moreso than I can remember in past years, many of the rulings FIRST has made about the legality of certain strategies, parts, rules, etc. has been totally disregarded at the competitions. It's as if the onsite crews are using a totally different rulebook than what I received in January. . . at least, in some instances.

The refs at KSC were pretty much the same as the ones you talk about.

But we ran into two problems one was a team should of been DQ for ripping the rug. the ref said it didn't matter because we won anyways. We got a 0 score because they did not score any points. But it was only me that talk to the ref and once he gave me the answer I said thank you and moved on.

The second one was we clearly won the match but they score the match wrong. My team wanted to run up and yell at the ref but I sent them to the pits and I took The mentor from the other team with me to the head ref and stated our case. they reviewed the match and saw we did win and it was a error on there part so they changed it. we did not yell we asked nicely and we kept the highly angry students away. I think by doing this the refs do listen and if they tell you something that you don't like bite your lip and move on. that is the beast of competiting.


The ref do have a hard time with this. and it could cost you the regional or the national win. But it will show more to the students how you react. If you know you should of won then so be it. the kids feel better if you explain it ot them and you can move on. But if you get mad and blame the refs and everybody goes away mad and not wanting to play again.


So talk to the Refs and explain to them what you want in a very short statement. and when they give you a answer just say thank you and move on to the next match.

I believe that in this situation the refs' ruling is correct. Here is rule T11, including the sentence added to it in Team Update #7 (I added the bold for emphasis):
The first sentence says that each team must compete once in a series. This "must" means that if rule is broken, the team will be DQed.

However, the second sentence only states that the teams "should" swap out after a match, and this means that this sentence does not necessarily need to be followed. This sentence was probably added as clarification for teams that were confused.

Therefore, like the refs said, if a team wins the first round, they must swap because if they win again they will be DQed, but if they lose, they lose, so its a lose-lose situation to leave the same two robots in. However, if a team loses the first round, they can leave their best two robots in because if they win they have another round to swap their robots and if they lose they get DQed anyway.

Although I agree that the refs have made some fairly poor decisions, I believe that, according the the rulebook, they are correct in this situation.

Now if this was how first meant for it to be played I have no idea, but we have to follow the rules.

I agree, in this situation either our alliance would win and swap out the third team or lose and be DQ'ed (only DQ if we lose).

Confusing, but if you think about it a bit it makes sence.

its simple if you sont read into too much



all three robots must play in the first 2 matches unless they are disabled.

if you alliance wins the first: you must swap because if you win again you advance and its teh end of that 1st series

the same if you lose in the first match. you could lose again and that would mean you would lose without playing all three teams, which is illegal.

Yes, but if you dont swap in the second round and lose then your DQ'ed, so it dosn't matter. If you win then you must swap the last match or be DQ'ed (then it would matter to you).

The winning team has to swap the second round because if they don't and win they will be DQ'ed costing them that round.

stay calm people
 

There seems to be a lot of anger in this thread, if anyone tried to approach any of the refs or judges with this anger they surely wouldn't listen. I totally agreed with Mike Norton when he said we need to approach the refs nicely and not fuss. If there is any problems or contraversy at any other regionals or at nats, the best thing to do is approach them nicely. By the way this is being discussed I think FIRST is aware of the problem, I'm not sure if they read this forum or not but I think they are aware of it. I'm only a second year FIRST participant but for some reason I think FIRST will clear all of this up before the matches start at nationals, so lets stay calm and not get too mad, because all of this anger won't get us anywhere.

After reading some of these letters I have to apologize on behalf of refs all over the country for some of these unreasonable calls. I was a ref at the NJ regional and from what I saw the lack of knowledge on alot of rules is also comming from many of the team. We had many problems with team having no idea of some of the most obvious rules in the book. I do have to say however that there have been matches that I've seen in other parts of the country where dumb calls were made. I only hope that everyone keeps on their teos and pays close attention to what they are doing. Remember while its nice to win its only a game.

While it may not be consistant with the rules, all the matches at the NYC regional were played consistantly. The announcer was VERY clear that only the winning alliance had to switch out. I think the reasoning behind this may be that by keeping the two stronger teams in for the second match it gives the losing alliance an advantage. They would be at a disadvantage in the third match where it would now be a weaker alliance competing against an alliance that had already beaten the supposed stronger alliance.

I'm not sure if that made any sense, but the judges stuck to one set of rules. There isn't really any where to place blame. They were very clear about they way that they would be enforcing the rule.

810 - As difficult as losing is, I have to give you props for having a great rookie team. I thought we worked very well together in round 82.

consider this...
You have alliance 1 playing against alliance 2.
In the first match, robots 1A and 1B go against robots 2A and 2B.
Alliance 1 wins.
So in the second match, robot 1A is playing with their weaker partner, robot 1C, while alliance 2 is still playing with their strongest robots, 2A and 2B
So naturally, alliance 2 wins this time.
Now, in the third match, alliance 1 gets to use their two strongest robots, 1A and 1B again, while robot 2A is forced to play with their weaker partner, 2C.

Are you following me?

Probably not.

But anyway my question is, if you lost the first round, why would you *not* want to swap out robots?
Match 1: Strong against strong
Match 2: Weak against strong
Match 3: Strong against weak

That doesn't make sense to me.

At the Johnson&Johnson Midatlantic, BOTH alliances needed to swap robots in between rounds.

Also, AmyBeth330 is right. I was under the impression that the strongest alliance partners would square off in the frist round, and then come back for a "rematch" in the third. Not swapping robots in the finals is a silly thing to do, because the strongest combination will be pitted against the opposing alliance's weaker combo.


As for the rules, I think FIRST needs to screen their refs a bit more, i think having them take a quiz on the game, and having a network of rulings at different regionals would be a big steps to eliminating these problems.

As for the rules themselves, I think FIRST might have to "spell out" more of their rules. The Yahoo Group, although informative, often provided contradictory information, and MAJOR rule changes were made in the fourth week.

Think about it: they have 10 months to plan next years game, can't they have a bunch of engineer/lawyers sit around a table and nit-pick potential problems before they start?

I don't want to bash the FIRST people, but something really went wrong this year, from rule changes to referee calls, much more so than last year. Organization was a mess this year.

I hope this stuff gets fixed up for next year, or I think FIRST might start losing its veteran teams. How can a team play the game to their fullest extent when so much is dependant on rules and rulings that VARY from regional to regional?

(hope i didnt offend anyone)

--Ben Mitchell

For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology
 

I don't really think robot C should be called the 'weak' robot. If you are the alliance captain, it was your team who picked the robot, therefore if you chose a 'weak' robot, that is your fault. FIRST doesn't say in the rules that you have to choose one strong bot and one weak bot, it is VERY possible to choose two strong bots. So the back up can be just a strong as the primary, it all depends on how you choose and how you scout.

My team is not an old team but I would still say we are a veteran team. By no means would I or my team quit FIRST just because of some small problems like these. Even though this is stressful and wrong in a way, FIRST is still the best thing in my life right now and I would never give it up for something like this. And I don't see any other teams giving up FIRST for something like this either. Even with this going on, FIRST is still about learning, having fun and 'Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology'.:)

Alright, I feel I need to reply. The main reason 639 took the field in the second match was MY decision. I am the coach for 340. I was just using the information I had seen at Cleveland the week before & what the JUDGE said. I can see by reading the rules that this may not be the "letter of the law", but the refs are volunteers. Not paid official like in hockey, basketball, or any other sport. Please use gracious professionalism here. DROP IT. Don't tarnish all of the good things FIRST does & all of the great things your team accomplished. Mistakes are made, 1 cost us the #1 seed, but that’s OK. These people are trying to help. There are a lot of better things these people could be doing with their weekends than having to justify themselves.:)

I'd been trying to avoid replying to this thread once more, as I think it's spiraled out far beyond my original intent, and I'm sure some of what I would've liked to have written would be taken to be at lot more caustic that I intend.

So, with that said, this will be my final reply on the subject, and I hope that I can clarify some of *my* feelings, so maybe you all won't think I'm a 'big giant mean idiot'(TM).

Foremost!!!!! I have no ill feelings toward anyone on the 340 alliance. We played an excellent series of matches, both together and as opponents, and I have nothing but praise for the members of all of the teams.

I understand that you were just acting in accordance with the standard set forth by the refs., as our alliance did the same as yours in our semi-final round. None of this troubles me.

What does trouble me, moreso than anything else, is the disregard for the published set of rules. Again, I understand that an announcement was made regarding this. Primarily, though, my biggest complaint is that it has *not* been consistent from one regional to the next. . . and, as such, I'm not sure what to expect at Nationals. In my mind, whether or not something is consistently wrong is irrelevant, as it is still wrong. 2+2 does not equal five. . . no matter if we keep saying that it does for 20 years. The real truth is, well, it won't ever equal five. Similarly, they might've deviated from the published rules for the entire regional, but the fact remains that they *did* deviate.

I understand that they're all volunteers, and I do not disrespect them for their effort. I'm just worried by what seems to be, across the board, a lack of cohesiveness and consistency from one regional to the next.

Further, I understand everyone's argument about the symantics of which teams are involved (i.e. - if you lose, it goes to three anyway and all). Again, I believe that the order and combination of robots that play in the eliminations can greatly affect each alliance's strategy. This is a further reason I'd like some clarification as to how things may be at Nationals.

Finally, for those of you who saw me at NYC, I was a worked up. Like I said, my team had a tough day, and well - I'm quirky in that I tend to be too passive for my own good - and don't argue well as a result.

My attitude, throughout all of this, is most certainly not one of anger or disrespect or anything remotely like that.

My concern lies entirely in the blatant disregard of published rules (one more than one occassion, in my opinion) and the inconsistency of the enforcement of these rules from one regional to the next.

Like I said - I realize everyone's a volunteer, and, in retrospect, I'm beginning to worry if this is a signal that FIRST is growing too large for it's own good. . . Volunteers are wonderful, but I think things can only grow to a certain point with volunteer help - and then some of the magic is lost to bureacracy, efficiency, and red tape.

So, with all of that said, I am sorry that I ever brought this up. I wish, somehow, that I could've be a bit more concise and and written with a bit more clarity as to convey my feelings. My congratulations go out to all of the folks on the 340 alliance, and I hope that you all understand I did not wish to single out your teams, and I do not believe you were trying to gain any advantage. After two weekends of competition, I've once again returned to the conclusion that, cool robot or otherwise, winning isn't worth the stress and anguish, sometimes.

Sorry.

In response to the referees, their qualifications and knowledge of the rules. The referees at each regional are recruited by the Volunteer Coordinator. The people you see in the ref shirts are as follows: one head ref recruited by FIRST and local volunteers recruited by the regional volunteer coordinator. In addition to the referees FIRST staff from New Hampshire are on-site at each event and ensure that all rules are complied with.

The referees are not folks who have jobs at the FootLocker. The referees at the Lone Star Regional were folks who are very intelligent people (ie they work on the International Space Station). These people are volunteers who give their "Gift of Time" to make the regional happen. They are away from their families, jobs etc. and volunteering their time. Please remember if you don't have referees "You don't have an event. Being a referee is a Thankless Job.

The referees receive a rulebook prior to the event and are assigned the task of studying the game rules. Note--more time away from their job and families. These good people do not take their job lightly.

I don't know about the other regionals but at the Lone Star Regional we did everything humanly possible to address any issues that teams brought forth. Whether it was a controversal call, parking passes, pit issues etc.

You will find some things different at each regional. A good rule of thumb to use is "Should you have questions ask, but do so in the manner you would like to be treated". Screaming, yelling or name calling is not recommended.