[moderated]: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released. At some events, ramming and tipping were being permitted with no penalty, causing damage and much frustration to offensive teams. At others, such as Midwest, refs are nullifying legal defensive strategies as defined by Rule G25 by their application of the overaggressiveness *rule*. I'd love to hear why they are choosing to levy these penalties, but oh yes, they don't bother communicating their reasoning for each penalty to the audience. Pity. More people than I care to remember have expressed similar frustration in these forums and at these events across the continent. The same, tired old excuses of "Oh, they're just volunteers" and "Oh, we don't have the resources to oversee the refs as much as we'd like" is starting to wear thin. FIRST, you have a MAJOR problem with the way you "manage" your referee crews, and if you do not do something about it soon, I fear you are going to see some teams walk away from this program in disgust.

(Virtual shouting alert. All of you who get uptight about such things, grab your virtual Tylenol, use it on your virtual headache, and hush).

Yes, I freely admit it. I am biased. Biased toward fairness. Biased toward balance. Biased toward equality of experience at all events for all teams, both offensive and defensive. Why must we always have to deal with these extremes in judgement from the refereeing crew, extremes which cause students who feel they've just accomplished something amazing to suddenly have their spirits obliterated by a penalty that didn't exist at their last event? THAT IS INEXCUSABLE, AND FIRST YOU ARE DROPPING THE BALL BIG TIME. This is the ONE area of the entire competition you SHOULDN'T leave primarily in the hands of the regional volunteer staffs. I know many of these refs are walk-ons at these events and have had little training. BUT THAT IS NOT AN EXCUSE - THAT IS EVIDENCE THAT YOUR REFEREEING SELECTION AND TRAINING PROCESSES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! THAT IS EVIDENCE OF YOUR FAILURE IN THIS AREA! I am tired of everyone asking us to use GP and look past these shortcomings. You exist as a non-profit organization who have dedicated themselves to serving the needs of the people and teams who quite literally buy into your message and choose to participate in this program. Each year, we all look to you to create an exciting game challenge, exercise fairness in judgement, and provide swift guidance and communication when such things are needed. When the central body fails to come through in these areas, the whole community is weakened by it. This is an area where we NEED more leadership from you. It is challenge enough for these mentors to run their own programs and find ways to inspire them in our home towns. We expect the competitions to be a capstone experience for the kids that lets us all celebrate the successes of the build period together, one which takes the kids' breath away and leaves them wanting more. This refereeing inconsistency is severely hurting that experience for many students and their teams, and that is inexcusable.

FIRST, this is a call for help. Please fix what is broken, so that the great FIRST experience we've all come to know and love isn't further eroded away.


************************************************** *******
I originally posted this in the Midwest Webcast thread, but moved it here.

Relevant posts can be found in the Midwest Regional Webcast thread, page 4 and beyond:

The video of the match in question can be found here.

I just watched the video of this semifinal match. Thank you to SOAP for providing this great service.

Some excerpts from the announcer....

"Some great defense by the blue alliance."

"Captain Krunch....playing pure defense."

Boy, those blue dudes sure had him fooled. Good thing the refs were there to set the record straight and penalize that *overaggressive* alliance for pouring everything they had into upsetting "the favorites".

I will tell you that the vid of that match didn't reveal all 2:00 of the blue alliance's defensive activity, but from what I saw, they were pushing low. They never rammed. They backed off periodically to avoid the pinning issues. Basically, they played the defensive game the way it was meant to be played. Yet they were denied.

Did anyone actually bother to communicate the SPECIFIC reasoning behind the call to the crowd at the venue? Or was everyone once again left in the dark to fuel the flames of debate here on these forums and beyond?

I'm that much closer to bringing the G25 Freightliner to Atlanta.

Rule generalities such as the "overaggressiveness" penalties permit personal bias and inconsistency to taint both the quality AND equality of the game experience for participants across the board. They pretty much give refs free license to annihilate any explicitly-worded rule in the book at their leisure. IT STINKS. PERIOD.

Congratulations to the winning alliance in that Midwest semifinal, for you played your best and did nothing wrong, but I truly salute you, 107, 79, and 648, for a job well done and, in my opinion, improperly rewarded.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Ironically, that was the loudest cheering I heard all day yesterday over the webcast.

This is disappointing. IMHO, there was nothing wrong with their defence. At all.

FIRST should have 5-10 main "Aggressive" refs that travel to the Regionals each weekend and only they are allowed to call G25. That would limit the inconsistancy, I would hope.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Speaking as a referee (from the Detroit Regional), G25 is a very difficult call to make, because it is, at its heart, a judgement call. Even when you know the rules extremely well, as I do, it is incredibly difficult to make that call, and to keep it consistent, because every situation you witness is different. What may be crystal clear in one situation is clear as mud in another.

In addition, everyone has a slightly different idea of what counts as G25. Some believe that most contact should be eliminated to encourage offense. Other referees take a laissez faire approach, saying "let the teams play." This is, for the most part, how we called the rule at Detroit. If we thought a team was intentionally ramming or tipping, we would call a 10-pt. penalty, warn them, and tell them the next time was a DQ (we never got to the DQ stage). If, however, the contact appeared to be incidental, legal defense, or the call was very questionable, we would call nothing, and just give the team a warning after the match.

So, as you can see, it's not an easy call to make, and an even harder one to make consistently. Is there room to improve on this? Absolutely. There are ways, I'm sure, like requiring all referees to attend a training seminar at FIRST HQ, but you have to remember: referees are just volunteers. They sign up on the FIRST website like everyone else, and, often, FIRST needs all the volunteers they can get. When you run things that way, a 2-hour training session on Thursday is really the best you can do.

Finally, even if you were able to get all the referees to a weekend training session, and had regular meetings to ensure consistency (both of which are possible for a small number, perhaps, but not every single referee), G25 is, in the end, a judgement call. You can define it extremely well, but it's still up to the men and women on the sidelines to make the final call, and, they're only human.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I cant tell anything from watching the video, so lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume a bad call was made by the refs.

Show me a sport where this never happens, where fans never BOOOO the refs, or feel like they have been robbed?

Ok, shall we talk about teaching students about good sportsmanship now, how to go with the punches when you feel like you DID get the short end of the stick?

Shall we talk about mentors setting the example?

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

If the measuring stick was the same length from week to week, perhaps that would be an easier task to accomplish....

I'm sure it would be easier for those opposed to my opinion to try and counter with the "You're just whining and bitter" defense, so I'll just cut off that angle right now - it's been a very long time since I can remember my team being directly and majorly affected by a ref's call. Any penalties we've received this year have been well deserved and have been explained to our kids as such. We've been fortunate in that area; many others have unfortunately not. I make these pleas solely in the best interests of all FIRST teams, and specifically for the emotional states of the kids who are affected by such inconsistency.

There's also the popular argument that "well this is how the real world works - it's not always perfect, and it's a good life lesson for the kids". I'd like to think that the bulk of those lessons, both positive and negative, should be learned in the metal shops, warehouses, tiny storage rooms, and dimly lit hallways of high schools throughout the world, as well as in the pits at the competitions. There are times when your team will struggle and there are times when it will achieve great victories. There will be times when unknown and uncontrollable factors will intercede to provide an unexpected outcome for which your team must compensate. Referee inconsistency is both a known AND controllable factor that should NEVER be allowed to create an unexpected outcome on the playing field. It's not a life lesson that should be accepted and learned from; it's a PROBLEM that should be eradicated as quickly as possible, so as not to detract from the TRUE and VALUABLE life lessons these kids learn at these events.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I always thought the great thing about FIRST was that it wasnt a sport.. :rolleyes:
I think it's great Travis made this post. There has been controversy about this rule going around these boards and elsewhere. Obviously, many people are upset about these inconsistent calls. But what is this in the eyes of FIRST? To me it would just seem like a whole mess of sour high school kids complaining because they didn't win. I love everything the great mentors of FIRST have done for us, and appreciate it immensely; without you guys none of us would even have this opportunity. But at the same time, its the kids who pour their hearts and souls into this.. its their game. While an unbiased, unaffiliated adult may take these "bad" calls with a grain of salt, saying its just a part of the game, a student who has devoted everything they have into this robot is going to take it a little more seriously. And it will be their quest to fix the problem that will result in something good. Maybe this will be a rule change, or better referee training.. but hopefully it will be that no one else has to get their heart broken the way he/she just did.

A perfect example of this is Ted Boucher from team 237. In the 2nd round of finals at the NJ regional, his team clearly won the match, but was forced to replay the match after a communications error, and it cost them the regional. While a bit bitter at first, Ted quickly got over the loss and moved his attention from his pain in losing to trying to make sure that what happened to him never happened to anyone else again, ever. I think this shows true maturity on Ted's part, and I salute both Travis and Ted for their cool handling of the situation, and great understanding of the teenage mindset.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

If you hadn't started this thread, I was going to today. I agree 100% with you, the inconsistency shown at the Midwest Regional this weekend is unacceptable. G25 is a shady area and needs to be clearly defined to avoid these types of incidents. Just what is defense, what does it constitute, what is not defense, what is considered aggressive play? These all need to be clearly defined within the rules for all to see, and then need to be upheld to the fullest.

To put it nicely, I was outraged when 79 got the ten point penalty. Krunch played some of the best defense I have seen all season. How is trying to prevent a team from capping by shoving them with your drive and covering the goal with your arm considered aggressive? Krunch was doing what they had to do to stop the scoring machines 71 and 111 - they were executing the only strategy that would work, and they were penalized for playing the game. It's absurd.

Quite frankly, I am so glad we did not compete at Midwest this past weekend.

The drastic change from Purdue in calling the 'breaking the plane' rule was insane. Teams who touched the plexiglass were disabled. At times, entire alliances were disabled. At Purdue, teams who went over the plane of the player station were not disabled even when one of THURST's operators was hit with a tetra!

Another thing, why were refs running across to the player station to hit the E-stop button to disable the robot? Wouldn't asking the scoring table to disable be much faster and make more sense...?

I can honestly say I was angry when I left the Midwest Regional, and our team wasn't even at the competition. I really, really felt for all the teams that got the shaft this weekend - 107, 79, 648. You are handling this better than I would, you are amazing teams.

I will say congrats to 71, 111, and 537, because they really did play very well.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Just imagine you walk into your office one day, and your boss called a party because one of the employee's did something great and took the company to a new level. It happens to be your best friend that has being credited with it even though you and everyone knows its you who has put in the work for it. How would you feel?

In the past years, there was not too many bad calls. This year, because the game and its rules, there are a lot. I feel really bad for the teams that go through these bad and inconsistent calls because I know how much it hurts. I don't want to blame the refs because I know some of the rules are confusing and based mainly on human eye judgment. I do want to blame some of the refs because some of them are similar to past years, and the calls were still absolutely non-sense. I can't wait to see how things turn up at the championship event. Every regional has had a different tone and different interpretation of the rules, which makes the game even more confusing for me. All I can hope is the championship will be a better event, with more fair and consistent calls. It's just a game afterall.
Good luck to all teams,
-Bharat

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Wow. I don't know what to say other than I am disappointed that a FIRST mentor could set such a horrible example for his and other students.

You seem very focused on the impact to the students because of one call. I suggest that it is not the call, but your reaction to the call that creates any negative impact on the students.

Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about. You do not get that it is not about a random ref call here or there. It is about what the students learn and are exposed to over the six week build and during the competitoin. No ref has ever taken away the FIRST experience from a student -- the vast majority of the time they add to it.

I am not passing judgement on this particular incident, but yes, refs sometimes make mistakes -- not just FIRST refs -- all refs. Even the highly trained, highly paid professional refs. I'm not going to justify FIRST's efforts to you other than to say that FIRST does go to considerable effort and expense to ensure that the Head Refs at each event are trained and communicate amoungst one-another throughout the season.

Lastly, if you feel you really need to make a gigantic banner with <G25> printed on it and bring it to Atlanta, I will suggest that maybe you need to reconsider taking the trip. The amount of negativism you would be displaying would be a big negative impact to the students -- much greater than any ref's call.

Aidan

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I want all refs to consider this: A call for intentionally excessive rough play accompanied by a disqualification is an indictment of the team it is called on. When you flag a team for this, you are accusing them of playing dirty, playing contrary to the principles of gracious professionalism. You are pointing a finger at their drivers, saying, "You didn't have enough class to play fair that round." You shouldn't make such a call if you are only 51% convinced the violation was intentional. By making that call, you are dissing a team, so you better be darn sure you are right. Remember that the next time you flag a team for intentionally excessive rough play.

The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I also do not blame the refs as much as the rule of G25. My team team 135 lost the boilermaker and buckeye regional in the finals because of hitting low and being penalized that cost us to lose. TWICE. The first time losing hammond team 71 in the finals we were just happy to make it that far but at the Buckeye where our robots arm did not work for the finals and the robot we hit had a high CG and tipped we lost the finals because of it. We are done and ready for nationals and hoping that at nationals the refs have some more consistency on the G25. Because we do not care how they inforce it just keep in consistent for all.

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Just for reference, people may watch the match in question on SOAP108, the link is - http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/...l/il_sf1m3.wmv

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

Whoa! You are way off base here. The refs are not idicting or accusing anyone -- they are doing their job of impartially enforcing the rules.

I want to ask everyone who is posting on this topic to take a deep breath, think back, and ask yourself:

"If all of the people at the regionals you attended were watching every move you made during the 6 week build season and in the pits at the competition, would they find any faults in your decisions or actions?"

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest. You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better.

So, what's a guy to do? I know that I'll be pestering 1293's drive team to ask the refs at Palmetto for as many details about G25 enforcement as they have, and for information on what caused every single flag we get. (Of course, my dream is to go the distance without getting a flag. :rolleyes:)

Re: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)
 

There are a few points to address:

1)In my opinion, 79's defense was not a penalty. However, it was very aggressive and my vantage point was not as good as the refs.

2)I would prefer no defense. When that was tried in 2001, there was an uproar to bring back the interaction. In 2003, it wasn't battlebots, but it was right up next to it. It was a "game of denial" where offensive bots were completely nullified. This game is an attempt at a compromise.

3)Lighten up on the refs. These people are volunteers doing the best job they can with the game they were dealt trying to keep it as fair as possible. Yes, they were calling it tight(we were disabled twice at this regional), so you have to adjust.

4)As far as defensive penalties, my analogy goes back to my basketball days. Every now and then, it came a time to give a "hard foul". Most of the time, it was called a foul. Every now and then, it was called a "flagrant foul". Sometimes it was deserved, sometimes not. But as a caution to teams that play "hard defense", due to inconsistencies in human judgment, the risk will exist for a penalty under the current system.

5) FIRST is concerned about safety, but have only a 6'-8" wall as a barrier. Put up a 2-3 ft Plexiglas wall on top of the current operator's station. This will stop a whole bunch of disablements and make the game a more exciting game.

In conclusion, it was an unfortunate conclusion to the semifinal. Both alliances played well and were deserving. Let's hope that this experience makes for a better Nationals and a better FIRST.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty