Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't really understand you. You start out alright, stating that things like <G22> are a judgment call, and <G14> are straight up wrong when applied incorrectly, but then you go on to suggest teams pony up an adult volunteer, which you already said are in short supply (read: my team has ONE dedicated adult mentor). Never mind that the logistics of this are completely outlandish, and the conflict of interest issues that would arise are huge. I also don't really think paying the refs will solve the problem. I know lots of people that get paid tons of money to produce crap. The problem is that its alot harder to 'fire' a volunteer, because their output is crap. Its pretty hard to say to someone that their output is so crappy, we wont even let you do it for free.

I really, truly, honestly DO NOT think that it is unreasonable for teams to EXPECT that FIRST will provide them with a team of referees, who have at least READ the rulebook from cover to cover at least once. Many teams and team members read the book cover to cover tens or hundreds of times in the first week of build. I'll be honest. I DIDN'T read it "cover-to-cover" but, I DID read all the parts that are specific to this years game (Namely the Robot, and Game sections, and small parts of the others). I only read it once. I am known amongst my team as one of the most knowledgeable members when it comes to the rules, and I often find myself remembering something, then going to check it. This is all I expect of the refs. Something like <G14>. I might not expect them to KNOW the part about the partially supported ball by heart, after all, they're human. However, I WOULD expect them to at least remember "Hey, there was something in the rules about a partially supported ball, let me go check that before I make this call."

I DO NOT expect the refs to KNOW every rule in the book to a T off by heart. This would be unreasonable. I DO expect them to have read the book, and questionable events to trigger a checking of the book. The way alot of calls are being made this year, I almost question if SOME of the refs have read the book at all.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

the funny thing i see about people wining about defense, you guys wernt' aroudn in 2002-2004. thats when REAL defense was played in FIRST. I think first has become more of a finese type game. I loved watching the agressive play of 8 during the finals, 254 wasn't really getting ready to hurdle (or at least thats what it looked like to me on the webcast) when 8 started playing defense.

i just wish we could go back to the good old days with no bumpers...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

99 where everyone was fighting for the puck also comes to mind... those were fun games...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

What I do like about bumpers is that they establish the zone where robot-to-robot contact is clearly allowed while affording some protection (by rule) of mechanisms and other sensitive components from defense-oriented robots.

Having less stuff come off of robots during matches is a good thing for FIRST.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This paid referees thing is getting a bit out of hand...

In my eyes, throwing money at the same volunteers is not going to fix a thing. I don't see these VOLUNTEERS as being malicioius people who only try hard when there is money involved.

Reffing/umping/whateveryoucallit is not easy EVER. I umpired little league, and it was not easy, and there were maybe 50 people at a game, let alone 3000 or so.

Professional help might be an option. Some referees will ref year round in several different sports. Its not unreasonable to have them jump in for the robotics season too...


sorry for the tangent..

brando

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This comment is on the money. The teams will always study the rules much more completely than almost all referees. This is because the teams have much more at stake. A good solution to this problem would be to have a mentor from each team, or a subset of teams, who is very well versed on the rules form a committee that could be referenced when a question about the rules is encountered. One could subset the comittee when addressing something with respect to a specific match, so that no rep from the teams involved in the match speaks on that specific issue. This would go a long way to resolve the problem.

Ultimately, it is the head ref that decides given any available input, but a "rules committee" to refer to for learned advice would really help.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I want to apologize to all referees past, present, and future. These remarks were intemperate and not worded in a constructive way. I am truly sorry for them.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've been holding back and just reading for the past few days, but I'd like to jump in and say a few words:

First off, congrats to both finals alliances, they were certainly the best matches of the entire competition (as it should be), so thanks for making it exciting.

And of course, I'd like to say a few words about the reffing.

This regional had an insane number of penalties, and what makes it worse is that I saw just as many penalties that weren't called. I do not believe these were the referee's faults. This game is so dependent on catching all the little things that teams do wrong in a match, that it's nigh impossible to catch them all. This game is inherently inconsistent in reffing simply because it's so hard to catch everything, and the penalties are so subjective.

I'm not saying this excuses the poor reffing in matches, but I would like to bring some perspective to the fact that these guys aren't going to catch everything, simply because there are just too many to catch.

This opinion applies only to in-match penalties that would require instant-replay to correct a call, NOT to game-state calls such as bonus balls, popped track-balls, etc.

It's also highly upsetting to me that the issue of supported trackballs was brought to the referee's attention earlier and was not addressed. It is their job to ensure that the rules are being enforced to the best of their abilities. Some rules are ambiguous, but G14 is completely clear in what counts for a bonus. Once a wrong call has been brought to the ref's attention, it is no excuse to continue calling it wrong just to be consistent. Consistently wrong is still wrong.

I do not agree that paid referees will fix the problem. I believe that referees who know the rules better are the solution to the problem. The referee test is a step in the right direction, but evidently was not rigorous enough. I don't have any better solutions, but I'm sure with everyone here, someone can come up with something.

</soapbox>

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I like this idea for a "Rules Committee" They'd have to be on hand for the head ref to ask for clarification, but having a group who's only responsibility is to interpret the rules would go a long way. In order to keep the committee fair, ref's wouldn't give team numbers, but only "If RedAbot did X" type questions. If something like this were in place, or if the refs had to go through more training and testing (I acknowledge that they do, but more might help a bit...), then we wouldn't have an issue.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I read this about ten pages ago or so, but just to clear it up:

Woodie Flowers Award was awarded to Lonny Weissman, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath

Volunteer of the Year award was awarded to Dennis Jenks, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath

I would also like to note that thanks to Dennis Jenks, Team 115 and 604 are going to be splitting $25,000 to go to Atlanta this year thanks to his hard efforts.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

You are assuming such a system does not already exist, and is not fully documented in the materials provided to all the Head Referees and senior officials at each event, and that it does not already document the precise procedures to be used for seeking clarifying information and elevating appeals of decisions by referees, Head Referees, field managers, FTAs, and other event personnel.

Unfortunately, as many of us have learned time and time again in our professional lives, having those procedures defined, documented and available is only one part of the process. The affected personnel - whether they be spacecraft design engineers, FIRST referees, airplane maintenance technicians, or almost any other profession - must also use the established, approved procedure once they are available.

-dave

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I would just like to say that today, we had meetings regarding what occurred at the regional, and the comments said about team 100, 254, and 115 were all very positive. Congratulations on winning the regional, and even though there was confusion over the final points for the last games, all three teams deserved to win. It was an honor to have played against you.

And to team 8 and 2024, you guys are awesome. I hope that we're able to ally together sometime later on.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Not to subvert the discussion, but if anyone needs a break from debating the replay of the final match at SVR, Team 766 has just posted our 16 on-board robocam videos from the regional. In total they feature 38 out of the 48 teams at SVR, so there's a good chance that we've got at least one video of your robot in action as the other robots see it from the field. At this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65992

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Does anyone have the video from SVR for SOAP?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't know, but I heard (i forget where), that the videos would be up "in a few days" and that was a few days ago.

Also, the "sj" folder on SOAP just got put up today, so im assuming they should be up soon. Thank you so much to whoever is putting the videos up!