Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

While I wasn't involved - I did want to point something out. I watched that video - perhaps with a slightly different viewpoint than many people.

The referees went into the match had no special warning of where to watch. They had no advance notice that something major and very controversial might occur. As such, you and I are far, far more prepared to try to evaluate what happened. Especially since we have a very small section of the field to watch - we are watching a single robot for the whole match. That is the beauty of hindsight. We also have the wonderful ability of instant replay. How many of you simply watched that video once and drew your opinions from that? Because that ALL the referees had to go from - and worse, they were watching the whole field. Not 10 square feet of it.

So I watched it once. And only once. Here is what I saw.

1114 grabbed a ringer and then went to score while being defended. The other robot (48) was trying to push them around. At several points I, with my referee hat on, became concerned that the pinning was going on too long. In each instance, I saw 48 back away from 1114. Instead of turning, or any other type of maneuver, 1114 backed up with them. Were they off for three seconds? Hard to say, in my "only watched the video once" eye. I didn't have a stopwatch going. As I doubt the refs did. I DO know that 1114 was continually trying score.

But I DID see 48 back off - several times. Whether they did so for 1.5 seconds or 4.5 seconds is truly in the eye of the beholder. During the actual match, I'm sure 1114 was screaming they'd been pinned (their team member near the camera was screaming pin well before 10 seconds were up) while I'm sure team 48 was counting a little more slowly...1....2.....3.... I see several people saying 1114 was pinned the whole time. No they weren't. They continued contact with 48 when 48 backed off. That is not 48's fault, and does not constitute a continuing pin count.

It's the nature of competition. Team 1114's arm was broken. At the point where it was broken, 48 and 1114 were still moving forward. As such, it's very difficult for a ref to say they were pinned - you'd have to realise the entire situation of their arm being stuck. I know I had trouble seeing it. Did 48 know it was going to break as they pushed 1114? I sincerely, sincerely, doubt it. I see quite a few people here drawing judgements from their emotions rather than rationality.

I saw a hard fought match, which upon replay presented some questionable acts. In the heat of the moment, without replay or hindsite, and with the whole field to look at, I suspect I would have made the exact same decisions as the referees.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A lot has been said about the refereeing here.

I'd like to say a few things because I do not believe this thread has been very fair to the refs.

Refereeing is a very difficult and thankless job. No matter what you call, there will be those that disagree with your call (sometimes vehemently). Referees are human, and sometimes miss a call or make a call in error, this is a fact of life and we (as players, people, and teams) have to accept those calls (just consider it another lesson learned from FIRST). In many of the calls, the referee has to make a judgement call as to the intent of the action (did they mean to break the arm? was that ram intentional? etc). This is especially difficult in the heat of competition. I truely believe that the referees do a great job in FIRST, and if they make the wrong call once in a while ... well, it just proves that they are human.

There will always be bad calls. There will always be different interpretations of the rules. There will always be the human factor. And I'll challange anyone who believes they can do a better job of refereeing to volunteer next year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I have reffed before. it was at an offseason event, but most teams take offseason events just as serious as onseason events, but thats besides the point. Each ref is suposed to watch one part of the field that thats it. it is thier responsibility to make sure that the area they are watching is in accordance to the rules. from what i understand, the ref that was there didnt know the rules every well. I see that as a problem. at a regional, we have well qualified refs, refs that know the rules very well and call the matches in accordence to the rules. but why is that different at the championship. from what i hear, there was a alot of refs that were first time volunteers. i think that is an issue that needs to be adressed. in the superbowl, you have to be a proven ref to ref, some on that is seasoned and knows the game very well. in FIRST, that is not true. we can have any joe schmoe ref, i think that that is not fair to the compitition.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Please understand, I was shouting, but I wasn't angry. The issue about the autonomous keeper needs to be dropped - please look at Post #82.

As far as the re-match in the finals, 330's arm did not get broken off in that match, there was a "field fault", perhaps related to scoring (I've not heard a clear explanation). Having a robot's arm break off is not a reason for a re-match, it may be a reason to expect a DQ, but that is a referee's judgment call. The head ref has to decide that the action was strategically aimed solely at causing damage to the robot. Without any knowledge of a "history" between Teams 48 and 1114, the head ref may not be looking for this sort of behavior (which I believe is what Tom Line is saying in his post).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

From the 'tone' of your response, I don't believe you are looking for responsibility, but instead someone to blame.

We should not 'Bash' the refs for any bad calls, but instead talk to them (calmly amd politely) when the match is over, letting them know our point of view. Bashing them here on CD is poor form.

To relate this to professional baseball, Different umpires will call different strike zones. A pitcher has to adjust his game to the different strike zone even though the rules are explicit as to what a strike zone is.

Lets not play the 'blame' game. Lets congratulate the referees for all the calls that they got correct, because it is that difficult to be a referee.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

First off, what Tom said is right. In our areas (Boston/NJ/UTC/as well as many others), it is all about giving back to the sponsors and who you know. For the most part, they just laugh, and toss the college kids off to the sides. Boston has been the best though, and allowing some of the younger kids more access to privileged areas. Wayne Penn was a fantastic volunteer coordinator, and much can be said about him. The Regionals you attended have a very small volunteer base, and can do things for college kids.
I must agree with Bharat on this one too. When you have almost the whole entire community complaining about inconsistency, something is wrong. I read the rules 3 times over, I'm a 3 year driver, don't tell me I don't know the rules. I have every right to share my displeasure with all. No one has to do anything about it, that is their right too. I plan on speaking very loudly about poor refereeing. It has been getting progressively worse each year, this year was one of the worst I've seen.
We're the consumer, and very unhappy with the product, why shouldn't we speak up?
Note--I posted a thread in the Modded forum to continue discussion about what we think needs to be improved in FIRST, but they have yet to allow it..

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A point to consider:

NFL referees are paid professionals. They have rules that don't change from year to year. Many of them are veterans with decades of experience. They have the wonderful benefit of instant replay. And yet, despite all of this, there's still almost always atleast one bad call in a game. From someone's point of view.

I believe that most of the FRC refs do take their jobs seriously, do take responsibility for their calls, and do come as close as humanly possible to being as perfect as some people seem to think they should be. Mostly, I think people should step back and consider whether they really should be expecting MORE bad calls than there are.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think I've heard Dean state more than once "life isn't always fair". FIRST isn't exempt from this statement. It's very hard to accept that fact. We need to accept that there will be errors in judgment. It's a different matter if there are clear biases being shown by referees. FIRST deals with this by virtue of a "Conflict of Interest" form that is signed by referees and even robot inspectors. If anyone believes a referee is biased (intentially making calls in favor or against any teams), that needs to be addressed to FIRST - privately, not here in CD.

We live in a world where distrust has made life more difficult than it needs to be. Hence the need for so many laws, so many pages in a contract and so many people needed to protect our interests (lawyers, judges, police, etc.). I'd like to think that within the FIRST community, a higher level of trust exists than in the rest of the world. For the most part, that's been my experience and that's why I believe in FIRST.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I sort of figured somebody else would jump on this, but can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop? Of course 1114 backed up with 48 - our driver was undoubtedly pushing back against them trying to get out, so when they backed off we did too. Nowhere in the rules, or in any Q&A that I'm aware of, does it say that the motion of the pinned robot has anything to do with the pinning call. As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.

Sorry, Travis, but I think you're really stretching it here - the arm was snapped off and completely useless by the time 1114 started moving.

I don't think I can agree that the driver couldn't see well enough to tell what was happening, especially given that Jay Trzaskos has mentioned that he clearly saw the arm snap while standing behind the 48 driver station. And I think we all know that announcers are very often watching a different part of the field (pinning is usually pretty boring to watch), so I don't think the delay in announcing proves anything.

To me, there are two key points. First is the celebration in the driver's station which, even in the heat of the moment, I think is completely unacceptable. I didn't see it myself, but I have been told about it from too many independent, reliable sources to discount it. Second is one that hasn't been pointed out - in the video, it is quite clear in the 2-3 seconds before the arm breaking that it is bending back significantly, so there was ample opportunity to realize what was going to happen. I'm not ready to say the entire incident was premeditated, but there certainly wasn't any particular effort to avoid it, and it would have been easy to (near the end, the 1114 robot was clearly pinned, and in no position to score, so 48 could quite safely have stopped pushing).

I'm less annoyed at the referees; I may disagree with how things were called, but at least in the case of pinning I can see there being confusion about the rule (since it was changed at the drivers' meeting) and aggressive play is ultimately a judgment call anyways. However, I think the situation could have used some judicious penalties, e.g. a 10 point pinning penalty and a 10 point aggressive play penalty, or two 10 point pinning penalties, either of which would have conveniently brought the score to 10-10 and allowed for a rematch. As has been pointed out, not scoring the keeper was the right call, and unless the ringer with the arm was jostled off the stinger onto the leg, not scoring it was the right call as well (although I was told that the head ref said it wasn't scored because the arm was attached - perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

First of all congratulations to team 1114 for another great year, and all the teams on both the alliances. Let us keep the discussion down to facts without our own perceptions and emotions involved.

I was not at the Championships but I have personally seen 1114's bot at GTR and it was one of the best and most robust bots there. This has been their tradition since they started FIRST, as 1219 is not far from them in the pits. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to doubt their engineering or robustness.

I think the biggest question in this situation is not about whether the calls should have been different or whether the pinning was illegal. These things are too objective to debate about; they are in the past now. As teams in FIRST we realize that things happen and the show must go on.

However, reading this thread I have read 3-4 reports of a single person or a group of people witnessing celebration from the team in question (48) after this unfortunate event. As a historian if you were to write about this event, those eyewitnesses will weigh heavily in your decision. I personally think that this hurts team 1114 greatly because such a matter should not be celebrated upon and it shatters the great image of FIRST held in our hearts. I am not going to make a judgment as to if the celebration was because of the arm and I would assume and hope that there is a better explanation. But I would definitely want to hear this explanation.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Yes, referees are volunteers. Yes, they are doing their best.

But clearly their best is not good enough. Maybe that isn't their fault. Maybe FIRST is not training them well enough. Maybe a lot of different things are contributing to the problem.

Bashing the referees is not ok. But overall this year has had the all around worst officiating I've seen in my 7 years in FRC. Some of it has been inconsistincies in the rules. Some of it has been flat out not knowing the rules. Some of it has been referees just not paying attention.

I've been a referee. I refereed three events in 05 (by far the hardest year to ref). I understand that everyone is human and makes mistakes. In fact, I was part of the ref crew at SVR that was involved in one of the biggest controversies of the year. I'd like to think I have some basis for understanding the difficulty of the job of the referee.

FIRST should at the very least address the consistency of the head refereeing. There is no way they will ever be able to field ref crews at every regional that are composed of multi year FIRST participants who have a very good idea of what kind of contact is acceptable and what is not. However, they absolutely must have a head ref who is on the same page as all the other head refs, and they must have the proper training to be able to train their other referees.

If this means that FIRST needs to train and pay 10-20 head referees to attend every event during the season, then that is what needs to be done. Teams are paying far too much money to show up at an event and then find out the rules will be called very differently from the way they were written, because the referees are interpreting them differently.

And as much as the referees do give up their time to come volunteer let's face it--some of them should not be refereeing. Some have never even seen the rulebook until they show up at the event. Some still don't know the rulebook completely even after the event. Perhaps there should be some sort of rules quiz given to the referees at each event to ensure that they at the very least understand all the basic rules like: when you can touch the controls after auton, when you receive penalties for home zone violations, etc.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

We're not just consumers. We're active participants. We don't just receive services. We perform services. We can't just complain that FIRST needs to improve. We are FIRST.

We shouldn't just speak up. We should take part. We need to make the changes.

The problem seems to be that some of the refs are having problems fulfilling the task given to them. Unless you can find funding to train and maintain a professional corps of FIRST referees, I think the best way to help is to inspire enthusiastic and capable volunteers to step forward. Complaining that the refs are [insert derogatory or insulting adjective here] certainly won't make others want to take on the job.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

It isn't just complaining that we are doing here. We are trying to see what is wrong and tryign to make everyone aware of what we think needs to be improved. To me, it seems like we have attempted to take part a few times this year, and haven't been responded to very well. In some cases though (algorithm), it wasn't all of the parent company's fault.
It really would not be that hard to train a core group of refs on how to call the game. You can just make a quick video reel of examples of what everything is. There should be more of a requirement to ref, rather than just selecting someone who is high up in a company and you want it to look good. I know many people that could have done a better job this weekend, and would have loved to.