Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

A shorter rule book is a noble goal, and one that will not be easy to achieve.

FIRST's shortest rule book was its first one. When competitors complain about fairness, well-meaning rule makers respond by adding more rules. After sixteen years, the rules get pretty complex. I have the greatest admiration for the GDC because they have the toughest job in FIRST.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

When we went to ask, we fully expected the refs to tell us on whom the penalty was and when. That's the way we remember it from years past. However, they didn't. Since it didn't affect the result of the match, we just left it at that.

In San Jose and Las Vegas, we will probably be more adamant about knowing what the ruling is, especially if it affects the result of the match.

I also completely agree about video reply. It's expensive (you would need many cameras and angles to be able to make conclusive calls) and time consuming, and just not necessary in FIRST, in my opinion.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

George, I know you did an awesome job at relaying the messages but sometimes that info gets misconstrued.
And the messenger gets blamed sometimes.
How's that old saying go? "Don't blame the messenger." lol

Maybe to remedy this, we can take one of the good aspects of professional sports, and have the microphone handed over to the actual (head?) referee (like in NFL games) to explain why the penalty was incurred, and to exactly who?

For example, the microphone gets handed to the referee and he says "10 pt penalty, team xxx, for rule xxx" and then the actual referee can explain it since they made the actual decision.

Then if a team wanted to contest that ruling, standard operator only interactions with referees (not team coaches) would then be followed.

Just a thought to remedy at least one of Madison's issues she brings up.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

This topic has been beaten dead time and time again, but it always seems to come back doesn't it ?

I agree that officiating at FIRST events should be top notch, but the referees are human, and they are bound to make mistakes. However, this is not a valid excuse for a good amount of circumstances.

In my opinion this is the most complicated FIRST game yet, from a referees stand point. Week 1 is week 1....everyone is learning how the game is played, including the referees. I expect aiden will be all over how referees handle the game. FIRST definitely stepped it up this year on teh reffing stand point. I think in the coming weeks we will see things improve.


As for what happens if a discrepancy occurs......teams, you must do your best to be as GP as possible when confronting a referee. Wait for them to be finished with whatever they are doing and then ask them politely what your team was penalized for. If you do not understand, ask them why it was called, I'm sure they will have a good answer. If you still do not agree with them, as much as it sucks, you have to walk away. You are not going to do ANYTHING by arguing with a FIRST referee. You are most likely going to make your team look bad in the process. If you truly have a concern about what happened on the field ask the referee to continue the conversation during a period where they have down time. They are not going to overturn their decision, but maybe you can learn a little about their swagger from the situation.

I am all for improved officiating, but lets give them another week before we gather the pitch forks and torches....

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

The problem with the "it's Week 1, don't worry about it" mentality is that for many teams, Week 1 may hold their last regional, and indeed, last competition of the year. And although the competition is not the most important part of FIRST, it is not easy for any team to feel particularly inspired, or have very much fun, when their last six weeks, no, last year of work is wiped away by a mistake. Of course, it is not possible to eliminate mistakes, and I hope that no one here thinks that any bad decisions have ever been made on purpose by FIRST referees. Still, the referees have no right to be immune from being criticized when their decisions affect so many so much. When I say "criticism", I don't mean personal attacks, or any other types of attacks, but suggestions to improve, like some of the ones that have been expressed here; it seems that, at times, there is hostility in this forum even towards those.

That being said, I have not seen any of these complained-about incidents, and I have no opinion other than to say that all calls should be announced and that mistakes are bad :)

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm going to be Scorekeeper for the new Seattle Regional, and spent last Saturday at the scoring station in Portland. The rules for this game are, as we all know, brutally complicated. Combine difficult rules with volunteers who don't get to spend years honing their craft like Major League umpires do, you are going to get inconsistent calls. The only real solution is to play the same game every year so that the officials become as expert as professional officials. Short of that, training and careful attention to detail are the best we can do.

For one, this might be a cautionary tale about games with complex rules. Aim High was a piece of cake by comparison. I'm sure the GDC will include this kind of feedback in developing future competitions. Meanwhile, I'm going back to studying the scorekeeping software. Frankly, I'm really afraid of it...

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I really like this idea, go straight to the source for the information. It would actually be easier than people think. Right next to the scorer is a microphone, theoretically they could tell the scorer and the crowd the penalties at the same time, and then the score is revealed.

I've seen Sonny (the head ref in Philly) do this the past couple of years, and IMO it works out really well.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

As a mentor for a rookie team, I must say that I was very overwhelmed and at the same time very impressed by the whole process - including the officiating. I have not other reference to go by for robotics but I hvae been playing sports all my life.

We were at the Oregon Regional that Team 488 attended - we had many questions as well for what was going on with the penalties. I totally agree with the idea of having a ref call out the penalty at the end of the match so that the team can come discuss it if they desire. But, in most cases, when we got a penalty we pretty much knew what it was for due the position of our robot on the field and the dynamics associated with the play. You then had to argue your case if you thought it was not appropriate. We got caught with the "interferring with a hurdler" when playing defense to slow them down (staying in front of them) which, in our interpretation should be legal since they just need to bump us to ask us to move. But any contact at all caused a penalty. In any case, once we found out how they were calling it, we changed our strategy (even though I still disagreed with the calls).

Another one to watch out for is backing up over a line. It seems that ANY part of the robot that crosses the line is construed as backing up and was penalized. Not really the intent of the rule by my estimation if you are just turning your robot and a part happens to cross over or if you run into the post and back up to reposition the bot.

In any case, part of the game is figuring our how they make the calls and adjusting for them. Any sport is this way and this should be no exception.

one sugestion would be to have the refs clearly give some examples before any matches start to illustrate how calls will be made during play for each rules. Knowing the written rule and seeing it in action can be very different things.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Very true. I played soccer with my college soccer club and we played every team twice. Now there was one team that had fairly permissive refs at their home field. They still had a yellow card for rough play. I figured that they had a rude awakening the next week, when they came to our home field. I knew how the local refs called the games--rough play was not on their "easy on this" list! Sure enough, the other team drew three or four yellows during the game. They didn't adapt well enough. (The "local" refs for my club didn't play "no harm no foul", they played "foul is foul".)

Another set of refs liked using their cards. We soon learned not to say anything to them...even though we normally didn't.

So find out how the refs are going to call something, and then play so you don't get a penalty intentionally. But live with it if you do get a penalty.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

The reffing at BAE GSR was excellent. After each match, it was announced what each penalty was, and what team it was against. The white challenge box was responded to promptly by the head ref, who did an excellent job explaining what had happened. Communication seemed excellent, and the head ref did wonderful job.

While we have suffered some major reffing problems in the past, I must say, BAE GSR '08 was the fairest competition I have ever been to in my 4 years in FIRST.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

The point made that just because its week 1, doesnt mean that the rules understanding by everyone, including referees and its consistency is a "learning process" is an excellent point! Its not fair for any team who competes during week 1.
Thus, the original point by Madison for a more complete training and understanding of rules prior to competition, I believe, is a way to improve the "issues" at regionals, especially during week 1.

The other suggestion on demonstrating how penalties can occur is a great way to validate what the rule book says. Sometimes, teams read the rules over and over again, only to misunderstand/misinterpret "how" the penalty can occur. I've seen this done from time to time at certain regionals, year to year. Maybe it should be done every year, especially for rookie teams.
As a rookie or even for us, so much is happening so fast that sometimes you miss things here and there.

Example
In NJ last year, ringers placed did not count on the bottom portion of the rack if it touched another ringer laying flat on the ground. I asked what the rationale was? One referee said that the ringer placed was "aided" by the ringer on the floor. We ended up spending time during future matches to move the opposing teams ringer laying there in order to ensure ours hanging counted.
Later, they changed the rule. I then asked why the rule change from a different referee. That person didn't even know what I was talking about and said it was fine.
The moral of the story here is that (I cant quote the exact rule from last year so I am not sure) is that the ringer could not be aided by something else to be counted as a score. The referee, another referee, and myself all had different interpretations of the rule/situation.
Visual examples makes it clear for the audience, the participants, and even the referees.:D :D

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock (Post 711497) George, I know you did an awesome job at relaying the messages but sometimes that info gets misconstrued. And the messenger gets blamed sometimes. How's that old saying go? "Don't blame the messenger." lol Maybe to remedy this, we can take one of the good aspects of professional sports, and have the microphone handed over to the actual (head?) referee (like in NFL games) to explain why the penalty was incurred, and to exactly who? For example, the microphone gets handed to the referee and he says "10 pt penalty, team xxx, for rule xxx" and then the actual referee can explain it since they made the actual decision.

Just to point out that Elgin had a good idea that I've been wondering why they haven't done for years.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Since this thread is still going, and since "the Boss" has responded, I'll throw in my $.02 - take it for what it's worth.

Madison brings up some good points, and other later posters have also contributed. Such good points in fact that many of them are already being done. There is the new referee training and certification, which ensures that the referees are familiar with this year's rules. Many refs return year after year, and many participate in more than one regional (I'll be at 3 this year). Last year one of the paid production staff jokingly said some of us were nuts for being there so much.

Other things go on in the background. For instance, someone said there were no refs on Thursday. How do you know? Perhaps there weren't any zebra shirts making calls, but at any event I've been to, at least some of the referee crew is there on Thursday watching and learning.

Yes refereeing is tough, but I really enjoy it. "The best seat in the house" is how I've heard it referred to. That's true - you get to see all these amazing machines up close and personal. And I've recently been told by a mentor that he'd rather herd a bunch of HS kids all season long than ref. That's a valid point as well.

In at least 4 events (season and off-season) I was at last year, the referee did take the microphone to explain calls. Not every last call - I wouldn't expect it this year for instance to say "Blue Robot 9876 crossed the line backwards 3 times." That kind of information can easily be passed to the announcer, and in several events it has been done. Even if the penalty isn't announced on the PA, the refs often will speak to the offending team privately.

One other thing that must be stressed is that we don't want to have phantom penalties. The referees have a flag in their hands, and use them to indicate when a penalty is given. Andy Baker made a special emphasis on this at IRI. I suspect that often gets lost in the noise of all the overstimuli at an event. And yes it's a shame when one alliance member racks up 30 or 40 points of penalties that are not noticed by the other drive teams, and suddenly that 22-point margin of a win is taken away. But that's hardly any different than the wide receiver who sees his touchdown taken away because of a clip in the backfield.

I've read reports from at least 3 regionals this week that the refs were excellent. Maybe the participants didn't always agree with the interpretations, but the same interpretations were made consistently all weekend. The next goal of Referee Development needs to be to make sure all events get the same quality. That's hard to do. If Oregon had problems this year, it may be due to the volunteers that were available, both in terms of time and travel. My daughter's team went to a regional last year, and they were dismayed at the laxity of enforcing certain things (not specifically referees) compared to what they had experienced at other regionals. Enough so that they probably wouldn't be returning to the regional. We don't need to have any regionals categorized as "the one with the poor refs". And I'm sure the GDC is working to eliminate that distinction.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I wanted to take a moment to reiterate that I'm aware that all of the volunteers -- and the referees, particularly -- want to make the game as exciting and fair as possible. I am not concerned at all about specific situations that affected my team; we can't change the past and our disappointment was someone else's excitement and that's just fine by us. We all had fun.

I've had the chance to talk about some of my concerns with FIRST and with well-respected folks here on the forum and am satisfied that I've been heard. That's the best I can ask for and know that everyone's trying their best to make this week's regionals as good as they can be.

For my part, I promise that I'll be nicer in Tacoma than I was in Portland. I'm disappointed that I was so angry about the refereeing this weekend. I'm very fortunate for the opportunities that FIRST has given me and that it continues to give me -- I get to spend a lot of someone else's money doing something I love -- and I take the responsibility that comes with that very seriously. If my team and the robot we field are not the best that they can be, I'm disappointed in myself and that makes me upset.

Tonight, my team had dinner with 368 from Hawaii and showed them around our lab. It reminded me how nice so many of the people in FIRST are and that nobody on our team really cares about what happened this weekend. We did well, despite my frustrations, and the kids deserved every bit of congratulations that they received from everyone back home.

So, yeah -- thanks, everyone, for listening. I think that there're lots of things we can to keep making this program better and we should do all that we can to be a part of that. Maybe one day, I'll get to be a referee and then I'll stop abusing them quite so much -- or they'll all realize that I'm stubborn and blunt, but don't have a mean bone in my body. :)

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Listen,

If a referee or umpire is trained for the NFL or MLB or you name it they can go back and look at "tape" and be trained with the aid of prior game's. Are you going to show the referees in training weeks before the regionals begin tape of 2008's game "FIRST Overdrive"????? The answer is obviously no.

Unfortunately with FIRST there is going to be a learning curve REGARDLESS of what happens. Regardless of what happens, at week 1 regionals, the refs are seeing the game played for the first time too. As much as this sucks, it is FIRST and its why we need to sometimes make sure we aren't overreacting.

Even if the referee knows the rulebook through and through, its very easy to miss a call or to call something that is borderline....

I'm in no way condoning poor officiating, but I do see how hard the job is that these people do....and its a job they are not being paid to do...