Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Yes, but thing is, there are good and bad refs. For example, at BAE, a driver asked a question at BAE that stumped Benji. So he got out the rule book (along with with his co-head ref) and they looked it up. Perhaps I've been spoiled, but I've always been impressed with the caliber of the reffing we experience at the BAE Granite State Regional. So it is very possible. If FIRST just sat down, and figured out what made head refs like Benji and Aidan so awesome, perhaps a better job could be done selected head refs. For example, if you're robot either commits and important violation, or comes close, Benji will come over and tell you. Him! Personally! Or if he's worried that you're getting close to high speed ramming, or outside of the bumper zone contact, he'll come and tell the drive team! Not to mention two years in a row he's risked life and limb to remove a game piece from the field. :ahh:

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I don't think it's a coincidence that both of them have been on the GDC...
Really, it comes down to how seriously they are involved. When refs pour the same energy into the game for 2-3 months as the teams do, like Benji and Aiden, they do a good job. If they just go through a training session, they won't be as good. You have to mentally thrash around with the game for a while before you really understand it thoroughly enough to ref well.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

maybe i was lucky. At VCU the head ref spent 30 minutes defining rules for my team. We asked her what-ifs and she gave us as much info as possible. When we had some questions about potential strategies that she did not know the answer to, she had them for us within an hour. After that interaction i do not have concerns that FIRST isn't prepping the refs well enough. i know, i know, I'm stereotyping the refs after one interaction and/or one regional.

FIRST has made the initial attempt to help solve the ref problem. I think they will collect the data from this year and see what changes that need to make.

Here are my questions: how many requirements can you put on a volunteer before it's too much of a burden? When is too much too much? Where will we be if we cross that line and we do not have such wonderful people around to help us play a game?

I truly feel the answer to this is with the GDC and the level of complexity of the game.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm pretty sure you are right about that.Strange as it may seem to most of us, the GDC members are mostly volunteers, too. A few are FIRST staffers, but they are the minority. Most are very committed, long-time FIRSTers, who don't get paid to devise the game.

Remember Woodie's comments during kick-off, when he quoted Einstein: "I wouldn't give a nickel for simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for simplicity on the other side of complexity." We would be bored by a game that lacks sufficient complexity, but paradoxically the best games offer simplicity after their complexities have been understood. The best robot designs fit that description, too.

I agree that better volunteer training will enhance the FIRST experience for all of us. I hope the GDC will not oversimplify (i.e., dumb-down) future FRC games in an effort to make volunteer training more straightforward. If FIRST didn't drive us crazy, maybe we'd get bored and find something else to do. :)

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Richard,

I agree with almost everything you said. My comments about complexity were more pointed to the complexity of the rulebook as opposed to the game. The game this year is elegantly simple yet profoundly complex. Too bad the rules are not as elegant.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I haven't been following this thread, but I wanted to offer forth some thoughts as a FIRST referee.

Firstly, we of course must understand that no one is perfect, and we are bound to make a slip up or five. However, we do have a system of appealing calls, and that has, in my experience, ironed out most problem calls.

Second, I don't know if this is a practice at all the regionals, but in San Diego, we announced what penalties went to what alliance prior to announcing the scores to each match. This has helped many teams, from what I could see.

Third, understand that finding people to commit their weekends and part of their weekdays is rather difficult, at least for us here in Southern California. At both San Diego and Los Angeles, the volunteer coordinator was having trouble rounding up enough people who had the time to commit to being present Thurs, Fri, Saturday, make a conference call, and take online training. Yes, it is a great thing that we ask referees to go through all of this training, but understand that as these people are also volunteers, it would be difficult to ask these people to spend their hard-earned vacation time to travel up to Manchester, or anything considerably more time consuming than what we have now. What we have found is that the best practice is to have practice referee-ing the Thursday matches, and have a post meeting with the head referee discussing calls.

I hope that these thoughts are useful in your discussion.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

One incident that comes to mind regarding this was our first Semifinal match at Purdue.
As those who were there saw, 931 made an incredible shot, simultaneously dislodging the red ball and landing the blue on the rack. When the score was displayed, the bonus column for the blue was empty, and the red alliance had 2 penalties displayed. Red had won by 10 points. The crowd sees the missing 12 bonus points and starts chanting bonus.
The refs review the score, and it turns out the final score is correct, however, the bonus column had not been filled out, as this apparently doesnt factor in the calculation of the main score at the bottom.
However, the penalty column for the red alliance had gone from 20 to 10.

Well, this got the team all in a tizzy, reviewing footage, etc. I explained that the same thing had probably happened (top column being incorrect, bottom score correct) and they were having none of it.
We had no way to review whether or not the score was correct (other than replaying the match and attempting to calculate the score ourselves). I certainly had not paid enough attention to the penalties and scores to refute the ref's score.

Long story short, I dont necessarily think the refs made a mistake, however, a simple mistake in not proofreading the screen before posting it caused mass chaos for awhile in our pits..

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I was confused at first too, but I soon realized that the top of the screen was showing the results from match 60 and the bottom scores didn't match the top final scores. I've seen this happen for qualification matches, but never for a nail biter elimination match.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

After receiving many messages today I am wondering about this "Test" they provided to the referees. The rule in question was if you could shoot from your alliance's home stretch? To give you an idea, the matter in question was, "If you shoot a hurdle from D to B or from B to D (depending on which alliance you are on), does it count?"

---------
|C--|-B--|
|----|----|
|----|----|
|D--|-A--|
-----------

If anybody has a copy, could they post a version of the "test" that was required for certain positions such as Referee?



.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Well, I don't have the test, but the answer for your question is, "it depends". If it crosses the lane divider into the destination quadrant after it goes over the overpass, it counts for sure. If it crosses the lane divider first, no score. If it's right over the middle...I don't know.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I have not seen this in competition, so I can't give a definite answer, but my belief is that it would depend on if the ball had crossed the opponent's lane marker as well, as in, made a lap around the field. Again, don't take my word on that.

I think that in LA the head ref, Curtis, did a great job explaining rules to teams, and dealing with a constant barrage of team challenges (often for miscounting, almost all of which ended up being the team simply not reading the rules). One instance Curtis didn't know the proper ruling, so he called up Aidan to get a ruling. I thought that was pretty cool. He also did a call with Aidan after Friday to go over questions in rulings, which he announced on Saturday.

The referee test and training materials cannot be released to the public, as it may give the perception of an unfair advantage to some teams.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

NO, they were saying shooting there (no matter how it was in the air, just the act of releasing in the quadrant) was illegal and was not scorable. I know that you have to be OVER your lane marker and over your finish like etc., but I have seen RUSH and other teams do this and we did this too in a previous regional. I think this inconsistency in a MAJOR department of scoring is unacceptable.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

We had a little bit of trouble with the rulings at the Bayou Regional today, but after printing out sections of the manual to show the referee, he said it was all right to do it.

I think it is up to the students to correct the problem like adults. If you know it's in the rule book, then print it out and show the referees or judges. They cannot argue about what the rulebook says.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

That would be the obviously correct place to shoot from.

"The rule in question" does not seem to match "the matter in question". Home stretches are A and C, are they not?

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I probably should have posted this sooner, but these are my suggestions for improving the officiating based -solely- on what I saw at SVR. If the officiating elsewhere fixes these problems or creates new ones, I don't know enough about them.

-Yes, G22 (crossing a line backwards) is written clearly, and yes, it was enforced, as far as I could tell, perfectly. However, it was still deciding far too many games, and most of the time, the punishment did not fit the crime. Nearly all sports have rules that are clear on the books, but not enforced (examples off top of head: MLB-tagging 2nd on a DP, NBA-traveling, NFL-holding, NHL-everything, really). Why can't G22 be the same way? If you turn around and drive across a line to get a trackball or something, that should be a penalty. But when there's no advantage gained, there shouldn't be a penalty.

-As for G42 (interfering with a hurdler), though, I have to say that I don't think the rule was being enforced as written. It only bans "overt, blatant, or agressive contact"-at SVR, they were calling everything; accidental bumps, brushes as a robot went past, everything. I'm sure the call to apply the rule like that came from somewhere, but I disagree with it and I think those kinds of calls did not match with the spirit of the game.

-On the flip side, G41 (the "bump to pass" rule) was not being called nearly often enough. Several times during the competition I urged our drive team to block, block more, because even though they were clearly trying the refs were not even counting off six seconds. I saw only a handful of counts (the slow flag waving) during the competition, and I don't think an actual penalty was given even once. An area which I believe the refs should especially focus on is blocking in front of a line so that an opposing robot crosses the line and is then blocked, so they have nowhere to go. I heard it mentioned during the drivers meeting that drivers should bump and wait, but this was never called or counted off; I noted several occasions where this caused G22 penalties on the non-blocking team. Unforunately I can't find any videos of this, or I would provide an example...

-I don't know all the facts on this, so I am cautious in stating this, but a member of 254 stated here that they informed the referees of their incorrect interpretation of G14 (scoring of bonus points) before the final match, which was overturned because of same. If this is true, it would indicate some kind of communication problem among the referees, which I hope can be resolved.

So I don't seem overly pessimistic, I will now provide an equal number of praises:

-I didn't spend too much time in the pits, but from what I heard the inspectors did a great job, although I must question their wisdom in allowing our robot to take the field with a poof ball duct-taped to our arm :yikes:

-Contrary to reports from other regionals, I never noticed any scoring problems; the one I did see was, I believe, corrected in the final score.

-The referees had to spend three whole days constantly repairing the field (sometimes after every match!), and somehow they managed to keep it together the whole time :D

-The referees did a good job enforcing some of the less commonly applied rules, such as G47 (team members in the alliance area), G39 (robot entanglement), etc.

Also, as for the "referee test", I am still curious as to why it has not been relased. I believe the stated reason was so to not confuse the teams, but I don't think that's good enough. Either whoever created it thinks we're not smart enough to see information in two different ways, or (much worse) the test does not match up with the actual rules. If there is another reason, or I am misinterpreting the original one, I would love to hear it.